Pleasantly surprised!
 

The McDonalds I visited is in Southern WI in what would be considered a rural/suburban area. As I turned in I saw a large Help Wanted, Day and Night Shifts starting at $10.50--$12.50/hr. sign. so not sure this store is applicable to the argument.

There were 13 employees working, all but one female, (lone male was on the fryer, Hispanic about 40 yrs. old) Four of the females including the manager were white and all but the manager were older than 70. The remaining 8 females were all Hispanic six appearing under 21, one about 25 and the last in her mid 30’s.

Service was impeccable although you now order a coke and get a cup to fill yourself.

The quarter pounder seemed far from a deal at $3.79 but a meal was offered (fries and drink) for $5.40. Figuring the ¼ lb’er would do enough pollution to my heart that was the choice. Although tasty it was waaaay! over salted and I think my heart light blinked a few times as I swallowed it down. I won’t be back anytime soon as their product is not for me.

All the employees seemed clean except the manager who appeared she may be on hour 36. All of the white workers were not only overfed, but grossly overfed. The last thing they need in life at this time is more food!

As for college I suspect some of the young girls might be attending some sort of school and the sloppily kept manager likely was in trucking school at one time or another. Nonetheless the lack of education certainly wasn’t a factor in completing their jobs.

Overall everyone seemed happy which may again reflect the higher than minimum wage they are receiving.

On a side note: ground sirloin here is $4.49 lb. and bakery fresh buns at $2.79/dozen (.23 cents/roll). So for $1.40 one can have a quarter pounder, (minus condiments) of supreme quality saving $2.39 per burger over McD's.

we usually just make our own, once you get used to community coffee everything else tastes like swill.

when we go out of town, we take our coffee with us!

I love my coffee and have been roasting my own since Feb. I save a boatload of money. Used to like a Paupa New Guinea and paid 18 bucks for 14 ounces. I get the same Green beans for about 6 bucks a pound. Saving about 1500 a year and can get some really good coffee's (Kona, Blue Mountain)

I like to have breakfast once or twice a week at Hardees or Mcs..Hardees breakfast biscuits are the best anywhere..i like mcs sausage gravy over biscuits and 2 cups of coffee..Most days at home coffee (100%Columbian- beans picked by Juan Valdez:D)in a.m. and half/caff in eve..think i started drinking coffee before 1st grade..bout 20 years or so ago while driving to PA had Paul Harvey on the radio and he was saying 'you ever wonder why restaurant coffee tastes so good'..it's because they use Bunn coffee makers.
I stopped at the next mall and bought one...lasted 10 years and got another..that one went down last year and last Christmas my son got us a fancy Mr Coffee..not bad but no Bunn...and that's the rest of the story:)

I usta get eight oclock 100% Columbian coffee beans and grind them at home...can't find my grinder and gave up grinding.:)...i liked Kona and Blue Mt but in recent years switched to Folgers...when i was a kid and later Maxwell House was everyone's fav, never use it now...

use your house oven for roasting JMS?

i dont think the house brand costco sells is bad. i really like peets but it gets expensive buying it all the time.

http://www.roastmasters.com/behmor.html

http://www.roastmasters.com/green_coffee.html

Peets is very good, underrated

i usually get a soft serve ice cream cone for breakfast at sonic. the only things i get from them are ice cream and their drinks.

no need for fancy coffee stuff tho, just need my community coffee (new orleans blend with chicory). once you get used to it, everything else just seems too weak. they have community coffee shops in louisiana, but none up here. :(

only bad thing is, stores quit carrying the packages we would buy, so hubby orders straight from them. it would be nice to just grab it off the shelf!

thanks,you are serious about Java.....:)

Hey Simon, if you took a 2nd job at say Wendy's and worked just 2 and a half days you'd have the $100 bucks. But go ahead and join the strike, see how that works out for you. :zz:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/bu...00-cities.html

Dell, he can't take a second job because these fast food places only assign hours a week at a time and are very inconsistent in how they do it, so it's not like he even knows when his days off will be so he could apply somewhere else to work on those days. It was that way when I worked fast food back in the 1980s and it hasn't changed, as far as I know. You get your hours the week before. During the summer, some weeks I'd work 10 hours, some weeks I'd work 39. There was absolutely no rhyme or reason. I was 16, so it wasn't a big deal, but by 23 I'd been living on my own for years and there's no way I could have survived on the schedule I got when I worked fast food.

I imagine this guy would be thrilled to work 40 hours every week for one company. Or at least work a set schedule so he could get a second job. But fast food offers neither of those options. Ergo, the strike.

i really think that fast food workers, and others such as those at wal-mart, need to seriously consider joining a union. many of us in the middle and lower classes have no one to speak for us. we can't buy politicians, can't afford to pay lobbyists. but if they joined together, those many individual voices become one pretty loud one.

i don't think corporations realize what they'd accomplish by paying more. that means people spending more, which increases demand, which means you'd have to increase supply, which means more jobs. more spenders, more demand, etc
also, if one guy has a million dollars, he'll probably save most of it-he'll add it to the millions in the bank.
if a thousand people had a $1000, they'd all spend it. so, who does more for the economy?

This is pure speculation. The fact is that they are not just going to "overpay menial workers out of the goodness of their collective hearts for the betterment of the community"; They are going incrementally raise the prices of everything across the board when forced to do so.

The notion that if they just "pay it forward" so to speak, that the money would then come back to them exponentially due to the fact that these employees would have * more money* is preposterous and completely unfounded.

You do not need a labor-funded report to know that while yes, obviously a rise in the minimum wage would technically provide them *more money*, but the repercussion of this rise in the cost of labor is exactly what??

Food costs that much more, gas costs that much more, clothing cost that much more, etc. It is a zero sum gain at the absolute best - and in practical application, would actually drive inflation levels amok and rob them of any "perceived value" that they received.

In essence, they would be even poorer.

Again, the market drives these wages. In areas where there are a low volumes of theses workers, they are already getting paid 11.00-13.00 an hour.
You can't and should not force employers to overpay for services without objectively quantifying what its impact to the overall economy would be.

the change in wages and what the outcome would be is lined out in the economic policy paper i linked to. including the gains to the economy, new jobs added, etc.

Raising the minimum wage as a tool for economic growth
The immediate benefits of a minimum-wage increase are in the boosted earnings of the lowest-paid workers, but its positive effects would far exceed this extra income. Recent research reveals that, despite skeptics’ claims, raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss.6 In fact, throughout the nation, a minimum-wage increase under current labor market conditions would create jobs. Like unemployment insurance benefits or tax breaks for low- and middle-income workers, raising the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of working families when they need it most, thereby augmenting their spending power. Economists generally recognize that low-wage workers are more likely than any other income group to spend any extra earnings immediately on previously unaffordable basic needs or services.

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 by July 1, 2015, would give an additional $51.5 billion over the phase-in period to directly and indirectly affected workers,7 who would, in turn, spend those extra earnings. Indirectly affected workers—those earning close to, but still above, the proposed new minimum wage—would likely receive a boost in earnings due to the “spillover” effect (Shierholz 2009), giving them more to spend on necessities.

This projected rise in consumer spending is critical to any recovery, especially when weak consumer demand is one of the most significant factors holding back new hiring (Izzo 2011).8 Though the stimulus from a minimum-wage increase is smaller than the boost created by, for example, unemployment insurance benefits, it has the crucial advantage of not imposing costs on the public sector.

Assessing the economic benefits of a minimum-wage increase
Showing that raising the minimum wage would be a tool for modest job creation requires an examination of the stimulative effects of minimum-wage increases. Because minimum-wage increases come from employers, we must construct a “minimum-wage increase multiplier” that takes into account the increase in compensation to low-wage workers and the decrease in corporate profits that both occur as a result of minimum-wage increases. Raising the minimum wage means shifting profits from an entity (the employer) that is much less likely to spend immediately to one (the low-wage worker) that is more likely to spend immediately. Thus, increasing the minimum wage stimulates demand for goods and services, leading employers in the broader economy to bring on new staff to keep up with this increased demand.When economists analyze the net economic stimulus effect of policy proposals (e.g., tax rate changes that boost income for some and reduce it for others), they use a set of widely accepted fiscal multipliers to calculate the total increase in economic activity due to a particular increase in spending. In applying these multipliers, economists generally recognize a direct relationship between increased economic activity and job creation. This analysis assumes that a $115,000 increase in economic activity results in the creation of one new full-time-equivalent job in the current economy.9

Using these same standard fiscal multipliers to analyze the jobs impact of an increase in compensation of low-wage workers and decrease in corporate profits that result from a minimum-wage increase, we find that increasing the national minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour by July 1, 2015, would result in a net increase in economic activity of approximately $32.6 billion over the phase-in period, and over that period would generate approximately 140,000 new jobs (see Appendix for methodological details).10 In fact, the hike in the federal minimum wage would create jobs in every state, as seen in Appendix Table 1. (Detailed state-level breakdowns of the demographics of workers who would be affected by the increase—and the degree to which the wages of various types of workers would rise—are available here.) Though the resulting employment impact is modest in the context of the millions of workers currently unemployed nationwide, creating tens of thousands of jobs would be a step in the right direction and would boost the economy.

The benefits of a minimum-wage increase in a weak labor market
Examining the positive effects of a minimum-wage increase leads to an overarching discussion of the economic case for increasing the earnings of the lowest-paid workers while the labor market is weak. In the current economic climate, nearly everything is pushing against wage growth. With 3.4 unemployed workers for each job opening (Shierholz 2013), employers do not have to offer substantial wages to hire the workers they need, nor do they have to pay substantial wage increases to retain workers. Indeed, between 2009 (when the last minimum-wage increase took place) and 2011 (the most recent year for which data are available), nearly every state experienced wage erosion at the 20th percentile (according to an analysis of Current Population Survey data).

Even conservative economists suggest higher wages might help speed the recovery. American Enterprise Institute scholar Desmond Lachman, a former managing director at Salomon Smith Barney, told The New York Times, “Corporations are taking huge advantage of the slack in the labor market—they are in a very strong position and workers are in a very weak position. They are using that bargaining power to cut benefits and wages, and to shorten hours.” According to Lachman, that strategy “very much jeopardizes our chances of experiencing a real recovery” (Powell 2011).

Furthermore, the national unemployment rate currently stands at 7.7 percent and is not expected to return to prerecession levels for several years. Considering the past year’s sluggish job growth rate, a minimum-wage increase that creates about 140,000 net new jobs would help strengthen the recovery.Conclusion
The multiple positive effects that would result from a higher minimum wage are clear: It would boost the earnings of working families hardest hit by the Great Recession, spur economic growth, and create about 140,000 net new jobs. In an economic climate in which wage increases for the most vulnerable workers are scarce, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by July 1, 2015, is an opportunity that America’s working families cannot afford to lose.

I'm trembling at the thought that we are witnessing the reincarnation of Riot.

You keep quoting the same flawed labor-union sponsored, labor-union paid for study. It is complete biased crap that says only what the labor unions want it to say. Common sense dictates that an imposed rise in labor costs will be passed on to the consumers - If corporations thought they would increase profit by paying higher minimum wages, do you honestly think they wouldn't? Do you honestly believe that they do not have economists staffed to determine precisely what wage scale would generate the most return on investment? To assume that Employers are either too naive or short-sighted to see how great/profitable their companies would operate if they paid unskilled labor higher wages - is ironically naive and short-sighted.

Economic Policy Institute:

EPI advocates for low- to moderate-income families in the United States. EPI also assesses current economic policies and proposes new policies that EPI believes will protect and improve the living standards of working families.

that doesn't make them bad, it just makes them biased.

Funding:

Eight labor unions made a five-year funding pledge to EPI at its inception: AFSCME, United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers, United Mine Workers, International Association of Machinists, Communications Workers of America, Service Employees International Union, and United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Policy_Institute

It's disingenuous to keep cutting and pasting quips from this document like it is some sort of "independent" study.

Free markets cannot survive when employers are coerced and strong-armed into paying higher than market-priced wages for unskilled labor. Instead of encouraging this behavior, perhaps these folks clamoring to be overpaid might be better served to be encouraged to take accountability for themselves instead. That's the way it used to work at least.

for starters, let's try to stay on topic. i'm not riot, and never will be.

do you wish to continue to subsidize low paid workers thru welfare?
and why is it that before, corporations could pay a living minimum wage, but now they can't?
overpaid? below federal poverty level is correct pay? living at poverty level is overpaid?
as for unskilled-define unskilled. as has been shown, many of these 'unskilled' workers are in these jobs because of layoffs in their previous field, many have a skill, a degree, or at least some college.

as for corporations, they are like racetracks, they only consider their own slice of the pie without looking at the bigger picture. and since we taxpayers help these same corporations thru tax deals, subsidies and the like, the least they could do is pay their workers enough that we wouldn't have to subsidize both employer and employee.




it's a simple question-do we want corporations who make billions in profits to pay their workers enough to get off welfare, or do you want to continue to help these people get by via welfare?


'EPI advocates for low- to moderate-income families in the United States. EPI also assesses current economic policies and proposes new policies that EPI believes will protect and improve the living standards of working families.' sounds good to me, since i'm a member of a working family-the backbone of this country.

'In July 2012, EPI joined forces with the AFL-CIO, Center for Community Change, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Council of La Raza and SEIU to propose a budget plan titled Prosperity Economics, a counter to the Republican Party's Path to Prosperity budget plan. The Prosperity Economics plan suggests that major public investment in areas like infrastructure is needed to jump-start the economy.'

thanks for the wiki link. i agree, we need a lot of funding in infrastructure. that's been said for some time, and was something i said a vast majority of the stimulus should have gone to. it would have paid dividends. improved infrastructure in needed areas, while creating jobs for those who would do the work, which would have aided the economy. far better than a bail out of a car maker, and us later selling the stock at a loss.


rudeboy, as for those who are the working poor...if you want to just maintain the current status quo, just say so. i'm saying there's an alternative, that would take that load off the taxpayers backs.
if you have a better plan, i'd love to hear it.

Please - take it back! :eek:

:rolleyes:

i suggest that trotting out the 'riot' moniker is to be considered a variation of godwin's law.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Not exactly. Our respectfully departed would drone on and on in a ridiculous attempt to try and convince (or more accurately wear down) anyone who would listen, that her skewed view, backed up with the ever famous fact-less, biased charts, was the only correct opinion.

This thread is beginning to take that turn.

I pointed out that the "facts" you keep presenting are anything but, and this "study" that keeps getting referenced is biased. Just like when she tried, ad nauseam, to brow beat people into believing that her point of view was the only acceptable perspective to hold, based on skewed data which she attempted to use to make her point, as fact.

i'm not here to discuss a former poster.
now it's 'facts' and a 'study' because you don't like what they have to say.

i have seen you write opinions about what the study talked about, but i don't know that you've posted any facts to refute any of their findings. is their math wrong? their conclusions incorrect?
you said you read it, but then you write things that are opposite to what they've found, which is why i go back and put up portions that are in direct contradiction to your claims.

but, instead of telling me who funds the epi, why don't you show me a study that says raising the minimum wage would kill jobs? a study that shows it's better for us to continue to subsidize the working poor? you talk about coercion against corporations who make profits in the billions, what about coercing me and others like me to have our tax dollars pick up the slack?
is there a study that shows that instituting the minimum wage back in the day killed jobs? or when it's raised, that it does so?

http://www.businessinsider.com/minim...workers-2013-2
this is an article about going direct to industries affected by the last min. wage increase, and how they handled the higher labor costs.

again, i am only trying to find a way to get the working poor (and we want people to work and support themselves, right?) off the dole. do you know of a better way?
also, all wages, not just the minimum wage, are below where they should be based on historic numbers. businesses are making better profits than ever, but their workers, who are more productive than ever, see no results from that.



at any rate, let's move on from that portion regarding the epi study. let's say raising the minimum wage is no solution.

what is?

...

Originally Posted by Danzig
for starters, let's try to stay on topic. i'm not riot, and never will be.

do you wish to continue to subsidize low paid workers thru welfare?

Quote:

Prove that forcing Employers to overpay wages for unskilled jobs will decrease "workfare". I'm only asking because there are actual studies done by independent sources that proclaim quite the opposite. It would actually, in effect, lead to higher unemployment and hyper-inflation.

please post the links, i'd like to see those. seriously.

and why is it that before, corporations could pay a living minimum wage, but now they can't? overpaid? below federal poverty level is correct pay? living at poverty level is overpaid?

Quote:

Are we talking about the same thing? I thought this was a minimum wage discussion. This is a completely different discussion

no it's not a different discussion. minimum wage isn't above poverty level. businesses paid a living wage in the past, but minimum wage hasn't increased as the cost of living has done so. but profits have risen.


as for unskilled-define unskilled. as has been shown, many of these 'unskilled' workers are in these jobs because of layoffs in their previous field, many have a skill, a degree, or at least some college.

this is a more accurate analogy:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/20...age-to-20hour/

as for corporations, they are like racetracks, they only consider their own slice of the pie without looking at the bigger picture. and since we taxpayers help these same corporations thru tax deals, subsidies and the like, the least they could do is pay their workers enough that we wouldn't have to subsidize both employer and employee.

Quote:

You keep at this, like somehow these evil employers are forcing us to pay for their sins - please prove this. Show one instance, where a corporate federal tax break / subsidy is directly related to employing minimum wage workers.

my point is that businesses accept subsidies from the federal govt (us) but then say the federal govt has no place in their business and how it's run, which is rather disingenuous. i'm not saying businesses who take subsidies automatically pay low wages. the koch bros (tied for 4th richest in the u.s.), for instance, have gotten subsidies.
and yes, corporations who pay minimum wage are 'forcing us' to pay for their sins, because they pay a low wage which means their employees qualify for welfare, food stamps ,rent assistance, etc. i'm saying that employees shouldn't have to be subsidized by taxpayers. they are working, they should make enough for us not to have to suppor them.

it's a simple question-do we want corporations who make billions in profits to pay their workers enough to get off welfare, or do you want to continue to help these people get by via welfare?

Quote:

This is again, not an accurate representation of how corporate employment works. Employers are not emboldened to insuring a thriving economy - they require people to run their operations and pay what is required to do so. If they require higher quality talent, they pay more to get it. Minimum wage jobs were never the backbone of our economy - even today, as you continue to try and refute, the overwhelming majority of people working at or below the federal minimum wage are teenagers below the age of 25. This is from the DoL, Bureau of Labor Statistics, not some paid-for organized labor paper.

hold on now. now teenagers are teens til age 25?! well, if that helps make your argument, then you've got me! but according to the table i'm looking at, there's a slot for 16-19 year olds. those are teens. and it's less than a quarter of min. wage recipients.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm

'EPI advocates for low- to moderate-income families in the United States. EPI also assesses current economic policies and proposes new policies that EPI believes will protect and improve the living standards of working families.' sounds good to me, since i'm a member of a working family-the backbone of this country.



Sounds good to me too. As I said, it doesn't make them bad, just makes them biased.
__________________
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” ~ Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

The problem I see is that currently corporations are sitting on record high piles of cash that they are not reinvesting. Why should they; they have no reason to, as taxes are low (as few corporations pay anything resembling the actual tax rate). Companies spend money to expand when it's a way to lower tax liability and/or when demand for their products is up. With middle- and lower-class wages at historically low levels, the majority of Americans don't have the disposable income to create demand. With tax rates so low, companies don't have any motivation to spend any of the huge amounts of money they are currently hoarding. Same with the ultra-wealthy; there is only so much money they can spend and then they start to hoard it. And that takes it out of the economy and hurts everyone.

Companies are not going to cut staff if minimum wages are raised. They may try to get the same amount of work out of fewer staff, but they're doing that now anyway, so where's the loss for the average worker? If there is demand for their products, they will hire staff to meet the demand, but to create demand, you need people with money to spend. There are desperately few types of jobs that MUST stay here, and a lot of those are service sector jobs, which are historically very low-paying jobs. But the more disposable income those workers have, the more they can spend, which is good for the entire economy. It's why food stamps are better for the economy than tax cuts. Food stamps get spent (at local, private businesses); tax cuts get hoarded and taken out of the economy.

Without demand, you have no growth. And demand is not created by the wealthy; it's created by the vast numbers of poor and middle class when they have money to spend:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_...eate_jobs.html

:tro:

saw that slate article yesterday. for years now, we've been told to cut taxes on the top % of people, that it would help create jobs. where are the jobs?
i remember reading in the past that people are actually paying banks to hold their cash. there's no incentive for them to do anything with the money, so it just sits.

And are paid for by taxes (you and me) of course after a few years of tacking on interest.

Taking whatever amount was given away in food stamps plus the interest away from businesses. Not just Arab owned local joints employing only family. ;)

The 'broken window' economic theory was busted long ago. Oddly enough by a Frenchman.

Wish the President was aware of it pre Cash for Clunkers.

Blah Blah Blah Blah Cash for Clunkers Blah Blah Blah Blah Cash for Clunkers Blah Blah Blah Blah Cash for Clunkers Blah Blah Blah Blah Cash for Clunkers.

We get it now can we move on to the Trillion Dollar unfunded wars?;)

There are plenty of links - here's one to start you off, from Texas A&M econ dept:

http://tamutimes.tamu.edu/2013/02/28.../#.Up5GrCed4fQ

Meer says Obama in his speech completely ignored the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) “which provides as much as a 45 percent subsidy for low-income earners,” he notes, ”not to mention the slew of other income-support and transfer programs at both the federal and state level. A single parent with two children earning $14,500 would receive $5,236 in the EITC alone, before any other transfer programs.

“People who support increasing the minimum wage are often well-intentioned, but it’s quite likely that the minimum wage does more harm than good for low-income people. There are other policies, like the EITC, that do a much better job of alleviating poverty."


so, we keep having taxpayers pick up the slack? that's what eitc and other 'transfer' programs do. it leaves the tab off the companies, and keeps it on the taxpayers. so, they don't get paid more for their work, but keep getting paid by taxpayers for having a low-paying job....yeah, that's great.

but i did like the part in the article that re-iterated that minimum wage increases don't cause people to lose their jobs, which is a commonly held myth. so, even if it didn't produce more jobs (and i have to wonder if they went far enough in their study to extrapolate more money in pockets to more money spent, hence more purchasing, more demand, thus needing more supply, which would mean more work) it would certainly get many currently at minimum wage into a higher bracket-and off eitc, off 'transfer' programs, and off the taxpayers backs.
then again...it's not as tho my taxes would go down, they'd probably just spend the money saved on another aircraft carrier.

Or, currently to the Syrian rebels, Pakistan etc. or spying on US citizens. :wf

We're taking on water and no one is bailing. Instead we're pouring more into the boat as an incentive to try and get people to bail.

Welfare was originally designed for crippled people. Not for HS dropouts, people who tattoo their faces, girls who have babies before legal consent or criminals who can't get a job.

Stop telling kids they're special until they do something. Ties and everyone gets a trophy does nothing but harm the kids going forward.

For Christ sake the President of the U.S. has said his daughter will decide when they move because she's in HS. Imagine a future boss telling her she needs to relocate?

I am all for a minimum wage hike as it hasn't kept up with inflation. A move to 9 bucks would seem right. From what I have been reading this would not trigger hyper inflation. I personally am more concerned about deflation as the middle class losses more and more buying power.

Getting back to this minimum wage thing, people continue to amaze and disappoint me. I am now seeing a Fight for 15 movement where they are calling for the minimum wage to go to 15 dollars. Really they have the balls to ask for doubling of wages for an unskilled job. I was good at 9 but unless you rein this absurdlty in I will have to join the dark side and say fuk you no increase whatsoever.

J, this is essence of the discussion - if they can be forced to pay 9.00 an hour, why not 15.00?

From an economic standpoint, Employers will either have to (A) raise their prices, or (B) cut staff to accommodate the imposed sanction.

This is where the lefty's lose it. They don't get that prices must stay competitive or shoppers will go elsewhere, so in order to keep prices stable, employers will need to cut staff to pay for the wage increases.

So now the workday is scheduled so that an assistant manager at Walmart can run a cash register, mop a floor, chase shopping carts, etc. an hour or two a day: Mid-level employees will take on more menial responsibilities, so they can cut the # minimum wage jobs to compensate for the rise in wages.

If I have a store that employs 50 people, 35 of which are minimum wage employees, and I'm forced to raise what I pay them from 7.25 to 9.00 an hour, I have to find a way to accommodate a 19.4% pay increase.

I will still get the work done, only I'll do it with 28 minimum wage employees.


The very people who they think this is going to help is exactly who it negatively impacts the most.

or they could always take another look at how they pay the higher ups. i bet a 1% decrease to the ceo of many companies would more then compensate for the raise to most of the peasants.

I'll take that bet.

Another case of 'if you want/feel it, it's true' never mind the numbers.

According to a Forbes article I found the CEO of McD's was paid $8.75 million in salary in 2012.

An employee that works an average of 30hrs./week would work 1,560 hrs. in a year. At $2 higher an hour the added salary per employee would be $3,120/year. Dividing that into $8.75 million you get 2,804 employees.

According to the second article cited, McDonald's employs 760,000. That 2,804 that would be covered (if the CEO was to forfeit all his salary) would represent 3 tenths of one percent of all US Micky D employees.

Under your premise a 1% decrease in salary would be represent $87,500 and that divided by $3,120 would cover 28 employees. :zz:


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-pay-gap.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talki...170436977.html

:rolleyes:
They have been paying 2 to do that position and 2012 compensation is 40 Million.
http://insiders.morningstar.com/trad...n.action?t=MCD

She did say CEO. But using your numbers (Total Executive Compensation) not sure how many executives that covers but at $67.58 million, forfeiting 1% would make $675,000 and that would cover a $2/hr. raise for 216 employees per year. Not sure about the remaining 759,784 employees?

BTW Another failed 'hail Mary'.

that's amazing, isn't it?

but yeah, they can't afford to pay more to the people actually doing the work in the stores, the ones actually interacting with the customers on a daily basis. no customers, no business. the employees on the front lines are who they deal with, not the high paid execs. unreal.