5 ms·
Walmart does this too. And don't even whisper the word "union" in walmart, they have an emergency legal team that flys into any location where there is even a h
by ck2 13y ago
Walmart does this too. And don't even whisper the word "union" in walmart, they have an emergency legal team that flys into any location where there is even a hint of a union forming.
This is why people should not fight against a decent minimum wage, because otherwise all taxpayers are subsidizing the below-standard income.
Yes, your items might cost a penny more in the store.
- dchest 13y agoWhy does the government issue food stamps to people who have jobs?
- lmm 13y agoBecause the US minimum wage is so low that many people with (probably part-time, remember) jobs can't reasonably live on it.
- d4mi3n 13y agoBecause those same people are unable to make enough money to feed themselves and their families working multiple part-time/full-time jobs paying these sorts of wages.
- dchest 13y agoIsn't it circular: workers are able to take jobs that pay less than [imaginary] minimum wage because government will subsidize their survival --> government subsidizes low-paying workers --> businesses can hire for less then minimum wage --> etc? What's the cause and what's the effect?
- qwerty989 13y agoWrong. http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202013-03-07%20at%203.54.49%20PM.png http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%...
- dchest 13y agoHow do you interpret this chart?
- qwerty989 13y agoThe poor in America spend a small percentage of their income on food. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/cheap-eats-how-america-spends-money-on-food/273811/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/cheap-ea...
- dchest 13y agoThanks! I haven't yet read the article you linked to, so maybe the answer is already there, but does this chart include food stamps for poor? I mean, is it (stamps + 16.1% of income)?
- smtddr 13y agoSo, because of this article you conclude that the OP is wrong to say poor people are "unable to make enough money to feed themselves and their families working multiple part-time/full-time jobs paying these sorts of wages."? Maybe they spend less because they simply can't afford to spend more? I spend less on private-jets & high-end cars than rich people do, is it because I simply don't want those items or because I can't afford it? Actually, this article appears to be saying the opposite of what you think it's saying: FTA: The short answer is that relative food costs are low and falling fast for everybody -- but they're not falling for the poor. In 1984, the poorest Americans spent 16 percent of their income to eat. The median-income family also spent 16 percent of its (slightly higher) income on food. And the rich spent the least. In the last three decades, food's share of the family budget has fallen for all but the poorest families, where it's stayed the same. So... poor people are spending _more_ on food than the rich? Whatever way one interprets this article, I don't think it can be used to to prove anything in regards to affordability of food for the poor and what else they may have sacrificed to pay for food.
- qwerty989 13y ago
- KingMe 13y agoWorking poor. It's a real problem.
- joshAg 13y agofood stamp eligibility is based on whether you live at or below the poverty line. Minimum wage, while once above the poverty line (assuming a 40 hour work week), has not risen with inflation, so it is now well below the poverty line.
- ck2 13y agoVirtually all states now require you to be working or looking for work to get food stamps if you are not legally disabled. People loafing around while getting food stamps does not really exist in the USA for a decade or more now.
- qwerty989 13y agoThis argument is deeply flawed. What if they were unemployed? Taxpayers would be subsidizing a lot more.
- kelnos 13y agoWhy would they be unemployed? It's hard to make the argument that McDonald's (and similar) would make cuts to its work force if the minimum wage were higher, considering their profits are already ridiculously healthy.
- WettowelReactor 13y agoMcDonalds has about about 1.7 Million employee's. For arguments sake lets round that down 10 1.5 Million. Assume none of them work full time, in-fact lets say they work 1/3 of a full time job so about 700 hours a year. That's just over 1 Billion labor hours a year. Now they make about 5 Billion in profit so just how much more pay can they squeeze out of that? Every dollar increase in base pay would shrink profits by 20%.