4 ms·

In the UK, we the tax payers subsidise the McD's minimum wage so that their employees can actually live. We pay housing cost subsidies and pay the utility taxes

by bdfh42 13y ago

In the UK, we the tax payers subsidise the McD's minimum wage so that their employees can actually live. We pay housing cost subsidies and pay the utility taxes and ... . madness - we subsidise their terrible wages just so we can buy a terrible burger at a silly low price.

citricsquid 13y ago
I'm not sure that we're subsidising McDonalds as much as we are supporting people in a bad position. There will always be jobs that can't pay good wages and it's fine that these jobs don't pay well because these are jobs that require no skills and should only be worked by people new to working who are not dependant on their wages to live, teenagers or those in education. The real problem is that it's becoming more and more normal for people that should be in a career to work in a minimum wage job... forever. My sister worked in a minimum wage job for a few years and that was fine, she was using it to gain work experience and the money she earned was enough to buy things she needed and to pay for her further education, now she has used that experience (and education) to start a career and hopefully within a couple of years she'll be well on her way to a lifetime of good earnings, all off of the back of minimum wage. The minimum wage being higher for her would have made no real difference, it was enough for her to justify working and to be able to afford to invest in her future. The problem lies entirely with the long term reliance on minimum wage, which is not a problem that McDonalds is responsible for.
- bdfh42 13y ago
  I have no criticism for people who take minimum wage jobs - they are stars because they have motivation and (often) a clear view of where they are going - so all power to your sister. The bug bear is that a very high percentage of the people earning minimum wage need state intervention to actually live. If minimum wage does not pay enough to pay rent and local taxes - plus a reasonable social security contribution (health insurance in the USA) then the job is being subsidised by the people earning just a little more (the tax payer?) - so this is a subsidy to the employer - often a very large one. I resent being asked to subside jobs where employers should be required to pay a living wage. I have no issue with the employees - only respect because they are doing their best in a tough market place.
  - notahacker 13y ago
    What "very high" percentage? A single person working a 40 hour week for minimum wage can afford to live without unusual subsidies, even in London, unless you're going to abolish the NHS or introduce a poll tax. The many students working at McDonalds are certainly being heavily subsidised... and would be even if they weren't working at McDonalds or anywhere else. The minimum wage-earning family breadwinners whose incomes are heavily topped up with child benefits and housing benefits might be being heavily subsidised, but that's because their living costs far exceed those of more employable people, not because McDonalds (or the local shop that barely scrapes a profit most open hours) is underpaying them due to their subsidies. Cutting their benefits gives McDonalds incentive whatsoever to raise their pay, because there's no shortage of unemployed, unskilled people willing to cram into shoddy shared flats and work as many hours in the week as possible. I'm not a fan of corporate welfare like the Job Skills Agency paying a quarter of McDonalds' annual training budget, but there's no way you can prevent the existence of unskilled, un(der)employed people with few expenses dragging down the earnings of unskilled employed people that can't balance their budgets without subsidising them or auctioning off their kids.
prostoalex 13y ago
It's questionable whether you want the opposite to happen - high restaurant prices, fewer affordable options, and fewer restaurants in general. People will start screaming at politicians to "create new jobs", and for the skill level there's not much you can do except having subsidized cheap joints.
- bdfh42 13y ago
  Ouch - lots of folks (uni graduates a plenty) taking jobs well below their "qualification" level. So - please do not be dismissive of people's skill levels.

by bdfh42 13y ago

citricsquid 13y ago

I'm not sure that we're subsidising McDonalds as much as we are supporting people in a bad position. There will always be jobs that can't pay good wages and it's fine that these jobs don't pay well because these are jobs that require no skills and should only be worked by people new to working who are not dependant on their wages to live, teenagers or those in education. The real problem is that it's becoming more and more normal for people that should be in a career to work in a minimum wage job... forever. My sister worked in a minimum wage job for a few years and that was fine, she was using it to gain work experience and the money she earned was enough to buy things she needed and to pay for her further education, now she has used that experience (and education) to start a career and hopefully within a couple of years she'll be well on her way to a lifetime of good earnings, all off of the back of minimum wage. The minimum wage being higher for her would have made no real difference, it was enough for her to justify working and to be able to afford to invest in her future. The problem lies entirely with the long term reliance on minimum wage, which is not a problem that McDonalds is responsible for.

bdfh42 13y ago
I have no criticism for people who take minimum wage jobs - they are stars because they have motivation and (often) a clear view of where they are going - so all power to your sister. The bug bear is that a very high percentage of the people earning minimum wage need state intervention to actually live. If minimum wage does not pay enough to pay rent and local taxes - plus a reasonable social security contribution (health insurance in the USA) then the job is being subsidised by the people earning just a little more (the tax payer?) - so this is a subsidy to the employer - often a very large one. I resent being asked to subside jobs where employers should be required to pay a living wage. I have no issue with the employees - only respect because they are doing their best in a tough market place.
- notahacker 13y ago
  What "very high" percentage? A single person working a 40 hour week for minimum wage can afford to live without unusual subsidies, even in London, unless you're going to abolish the NHS or introduce a poll tax. The many students working at McDonalds are certainly being heavily subsidised... and would be even if they weren't working at McDonalds or anywhere else. The minimum wage-earning family breadwinners whose incomes are heavily topped up with child benefits and housing benefits might be being heavily subsidised, but that's because their living costs far exceed those of more employable people, not because McDonalds (or the local shop that barely scrapes a profit most open hours) is underpaying them due to their subsidies. Cutting their benefits gives McDonalds incentive whatsoever to raise their pay, because there's no shortage of unemployed, unskilled people willing to cram into shoddy shared flats and work as many hours in the week as possible. I'm not a fan of corporate welfare like the Job Skills Agency paying a quarter of McDonalds' annual training budget, but there's no way you can prevent the existence of unskilled, un(der)employed people with few expenses dragging down the earnings of unskilled employed people that can't balance their budgets without subsidising them or auctioning off their kids.

prostoalex 13y ago

It's questionable whether you want the opposite to happen - high restaurant prices, fewer affordable options, and fewer restaurants in general. People will start screaming at politicians to "create new jobs", and for the skill level there's not much you can do except having subsidized cheap joints.

bdfh42 13y ago
Ouch - lots of folks (uni graduates a plenty) taking jobs well below their "qualification" level. So - please do not be dismissive of people's skill levels.