How many fast food jobs are full-time?
I suspect many people think of fast food jobs, at least the entry-level, minimum wage sort, as the kind of thing teenagers do to earn some extra money after school or during the summer.
We all end up paying for the exploitive low minimum wages through higher taxes to cover subsidized food, housing, childcare, and other expenses of necessity that people making a minimum wage still cannot afford. It will take more than a higher minimum wage to get this country out of it’s regressive economic model but it’s a good way to start.
I looked into that link and it is just for a location in San Francisco near a busy tourist area, so not necessarily your typical In-n-Out. So I checked their hiring page and indeed, all locations I tested in my area and other parts of CA all have a starting wage of $20/hour (today). In-n-Out is not hurting for business - far from it, and if they have already been offering that wage then whatever changes they needed to make are already implemented. I checked McDonalds and their starting wage in my area is $16/hr, and I highly doubt their outlets here will close because of the changes they need to make.
I don’t really see upping fast food workers’ wages to $20/hr making a huge difference in how successful a chain fast food restaurant will be, and IMHO, any FF restaurant that fails because of this was probably on the edge of failing anyway for other reasons. Price hikes to cover the increased labor costs will force restaurants to streamline and innovate to be competitive, or close.
So it’s not “exploiting people” if a Mom and Pop restaraunt pays $19.99 an hour?
If we think people need a $20.00 / hour wage to live on, why not just set that as the statewide minimum wage at $20.00 for everyone?
Politics is the art of the possible.
A living wage for a single person with a roommate is very different from that of a single parent with 12 kids. Most “should” statements involving living wages are too vague to constitute being actual arguments.
As to the OP’s “how far” question, I expect a reduction in hours available to lower-skilled workers. If we’re subsidizing people who don’t have enough to get by, which I’m happy to do, subsidizing someone with some income is cheaper than someone with less or none.
If I was feeling fancy I might call this a specious argument, but it’s just plain stupid. We can quibble over what the minimum wage should be, but I’m not interesting in engaging in sophmoric arguments over a penny.
I’ve seen it sincerely argued that fast-food workers don’t deserve a living wage because “you’re not supposed to stay in that kind of job for more than a few months!”
So evidently you missed the post where I showed with a combination of personal experience and data citations that it in fact can and does happen?
That is what the boomers in this thread seem to think because maybe that’s how it was in the 1980s but have any of you actually stepped into a fast food place recently? It’s not teenagers working, it’s 20-40 year old adults.
(And does no one buy fast food during the day? Who do they think is magically working during school hours if they think only teenagers work fast food jobs?)
Dropouts, man. And they don’t deserve $8 an hour.
I do so love the argument that these were ‘meant to be entry-level’ and ‘short-term’ jobs.
The subtle, but lovely, implication is that the retirees who were killed by inflation and the second- and third-job workers killing themselves to flip burgers and mop floors … don’t even deserve whatever it is they’re making now, much less more.
The phrase ‘punching down’ comes to mind.
The intellectual legerdemain required to effectively deny the reality of the innumerable Grown Ass People working at low-wage jobs for no end of perfectly valid, if often sad, reasons is pretty impressive to me.
I know I can’t get there. And I’ve tried.
Sure, because working a few months at fast food is certainly all the experience you need to land a job at the factory. From there it’s just a year or two until you hop to the C-suite.
I’ve heard that, but while there is some shift, it actually helps those at the lowest end by giving them what they really need good paying jobs. Making them work for subsistent wages is basically a form of slavery, as you are just paying them enough to live. Also such jobs don’t promote loyalty to the company or pride in one’s position. So it doesn’t help the lower class. By increasing it and people start feeling getting paid closer to what they are worth you better society from the bottom up. You also tend to raise the salaries of those near the minimum, so it’s not just those at the minimum that helped, but lots on the lower end. And yes you Whopper may go up 20%, but for someone who’s pay went up 100% that’s a win, who doesn’t benefit from that, the rich who now have to pay 20% more for their Whopper.
It’s worth remembering:
A rising tide lifts all
shipsyachts.
This occurred to me and I agree. But outside the scope of this thread so I’ll leave it at that.
I couldn’t find any official numbers, but the general consensus was that I&O profit margin is 2x to 3x (10-15%) fast food standards due to their business model and elevated prices. Their business model primarily being their limited inventory.
One variety each
- Bun
- Beef patty
- Cheese
- Sauce
- Lettuce
- Tomato
- Onion
- Fries
3x shakes
Various drinks
No chicken or fish patties. No bun options. No spicy fries. Just the basics.
I mentioned in a previous post that I’ve been on both sides of this equation and came out fine.
I’ve set a reminder in my calendar to look at this issue in a year and find the least biased info I can. I’d love to be able to update with a Yay I was wrong post. But realistically it’s going to be Here’s the outcome of their self inflicted carborundum dildo.
I’m not willing to accept losing all fast food outlets as a win condition in any context except maybe dietary health.
As a near boomer, that was our opinion when we were in our teens/twenties and working fast food for gas money and shared rent. That was also the era where a household of 2 adults and 3.5 children could live comfortably on a single income. My opinion has evolved since then. I can’t speak for others.
You haven’t yet said how you plan to decide if you were right.
[sarcasm on] Hey, they should have succeeded better earlier in life so they wouldn’t have to work fast food in their retirement! [sarcasm off]
How so?
And that increases the productivity of the economy in general. Automation hurts some workers, always has, but is generally good.
In other words before the border crisis. Wage stagnation is tied to the loss of union power, which has kept workers from getting the raises they had in the past. And politics. Think of the laughably low (or tragically low) national minimum wage.
The ability to exploit workers removes the incentive for restaurant owners to become more efficient. It is easy to be short sighted and see only the direct impact of low wages on the bottom line - while complaining that your low wage workers are lazy and that no one wants to work for you.