New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

You pay for McDonalds and WalMart's low wages...

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Even if you don't shop at those stores, you pay for them to survive. The cost of low wages is poverty for the workers...yet vast riches for the top brass.

Wouldn't you rather just pay an extra 50 cents if you went to Mickey D's?


...Poverty wages cost U.S. taxpayers about $153 billion each year, according to a recentreport from the University of California, Berkeley. That's because, when families depend on low-wage jobs to survive, they're forced to rely on government programs like Medicaid and food stamps to make ends meet.

The Berkeley report looks at how much states and the federal government are spending on programs like Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program, the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps. The report found that the federal government spends about $127.8 billion per year, and states collectively spend about $25 billion per year, on public assistance programs for working families.

Currently, the federal minimum wage is stalled at a paltry $7.25 an hour. A parent working full-time at that rate over the course of the year won't bring in enough moneyto live above the poverty line for a family of two, which means leaning on government assistance.

So when a company like McDonald's, for instance, pays a worker the minimum wage, you, the taypayer, end up subsidizing her pay. A 2013 analysis from the National Employment Law Project found that the 10 largest fast food companies cost taxpayers about $3.8 billion per year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/low-wages-cost-taxpayers-153-billion_n_7055202.html?cps=gravity_2429_-8341404122691578046
 
Z

zzigzzag

Guest
Even if you don't shop at those stores, you pay for them to survive. The cost of low wages is poverty for the workers...yet vast riches for the top brass.

Wouldn't you rather just pay an extra 50 cents if you went to Mickey D's?


...Poverty wages cost U.S. taxpayers about $153 billion each year, according to a recentreport from the University of California, Berkeley. That's because, when families depend on low-wage jobs to survive, they're forced to rely on government programs like Medicaid and food stamps to make ends meet.

The Berkeley report looks at how much states and the federal government are spending on programs like Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program, the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps. The report found that the federal government spends about $127.8 billion per year, and states collectively spend about $25 billion per year, on public assistance programs for working families.

Currently, the federal minimum wage is stalled at a paltry $7.25 an hour. A parent working full-time at that rate over the course of the year won't bring in enough moneyto live above the poverty line for a family of two, which means leaning on government assistance.

So when a company like McDonald's, for instance, pays a worker the minimum wage, you, the taypayer, end up subsidizing her pay. A 2013 analysis from the National Employment Law Project found that the 10 largest fast food companies cost taxpayers about $3.8 billion per year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/low-wages-cost-taxpayers-153-billion_n_7055202.html?cps=gravity_2429_-8341404122691578046
Every time I ask one of them to reconcile their view on the minimum wage with their deep resentment of entitlements, they run away. So far, it's even been very effective Lukey repellent. Indicate some responsibility on the part of the Waltons or the Kroc family? A little greed might be a factor? Unthinkable. It's just the "free market" (the real Big Brother) sorting everything out with pragmatic perfection.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Every time I ask one of them to reconcile their view on the minimum wage with their deep resentment of entitlements, they run away. So far, it's even been very effective Lukey repellent. Indicate some responsibility on the part of the Waltons or the Kroc family? A little greed might be a factor? Unthinkable. It's just the "free market" (the real Big Brother) sorting everything out with pragmatic perfection.
Entitlements for the wealthy are A-OK! All of the business subsidies are ignored as the right wing opprobrium is reserved solely for the poor.

I eat "fast food" about 3 or 4 times a year. I pay more for the subsidies than I do to eat there.

"Free market"...:rolleyes:
 

Addy

Rebuild With Biden!
Even if you don't shop at those stores, you pay for them to survive. The cost of low wages is poverty for the workers...yet vast riches for the top brass.

Wouldn't you rather just pay an extra 50 cents if you went to Mickey D's?


...Poverty wages cost U.S. taxpayers about $153 billion each year, according to a recentreport from the University of California, Berkeley. That's because, when families depend on low-wage jobs to survive, they're forced to rely on government programs like Medicaid and food stamps to make ends meet.

The Berkeley report looks at how much states and the federal government are spending on programs like Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program, the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps. The report found that the federal government spends about $127.8 billion per year, and states collectively spend about $25 billion per year, on public assistance programs for working families.

Currently, the federal minimum wage is stalled at a paltry $7.25 an hour. A parent working full-time at that rate over the course of the year won't bring in enough moneyto live above the poverty line for a family of two, which means leaning on government assistance.

So when a company like McDonald's, for instance, pays a worker the minimum wage, you, the taypayer, end up subsidizing her pay. A 2013 analysis from the National Employment Law Project found that the 10 largest fast food companies cost taxpayers about $3.8 billion per year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/low-wages-cost-taxpayers-153-billion_n_7055202.html?cps=gravity_2429_-8341404122691578046
Hard to understand the repubs' viewpoint since the concept is so simple, re work/decent wages for a living and ultimately saving the taxpayers money...
 
Z

zzigzzag

Guest
Entitlements for the wealthy are A-OK! All of the business subsidies are ignored as the right wing opprobrium is reserved solely for the poor.

I eat "fast food" about 3 or 4 times a year. I pay more for the subsidies than I do to eat there.

"Free market"...:rolleyes:
I don't ever eat at McDonald's because the food sucks and, from what they tell me, it's getting worse. Probably get a fix at Chic-Fil-A or Zaxby's a few times per month, though. But the wife and I much prefer local buffets with southern, country cookin'. I can wear shoes and a shirt when I have to.

Like anyone in a smaller community, I won't be putting 50 miles on my vehicle and spending an hour on the road to pay more for what only Wal-Mart has locally. Once they've run everyone else off....including K-Mart, they have you by the balls.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Hard to understand the repubs' viewpoint since the concept is so simple, re work/decent wages for a living and ultimately saving the taxpayers money...
The appearance is anti-worker and very strongly so. I hope it is merely overblown rhetoric, but I fear it is not. So many seem dedicated to keeping the workers in a state of poverty...as the push is for "flat taxes"...that would hurt the lower class while giving massive raises to the already filthy rich. They fight against minimum wage increases...food stamps...and any other consideration given to the working poor in this country. Yet they are seemingly unaware of the "hidden" costs, these mammoth subsidies this approach guarantees.
 

Lukey

Senator
Right...because you "capitalists" refuse to pay for work.
The capitalists refuse to allow you to spend their money to pay for work, so we end up with this:

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/GMJ/ciavniuad06fxohwao4d3a.jpg

And this:

Screen Shot 2015-04-19 at 10.35.57 AM.png

You claim that is unreasonable. I am forced to interpret that as a desire to see economic opportunity, especially for minorities and the young, continue to decline. I guess we could always nationalize all the major businesses and then just let the bureaucrats decide how to hire everyone, pay them more and then when the entire US economy looks like Amtrack, we can just print the money to keep the businesses open. We'll lose money on each sale, but make it up on the volume...
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
The capitalists refuse to allow you to spend their money to pay for work, so we end up with this:

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/GMJ/ciavniuad06fxohwao4d3a.jpg

And this:

View attachment 26970

You claim that is unreasonable. I am forced to interpret that as a desire to see economic opportunity, especially for minorities and the young, continue to decline. I guess we could always nationalize all the major businesses and then just let the bureaucrats decide how to hire everyone, pay them more and then when the entire US economy looks like Amtrack, we can just print the money to keep the businesses open. We'll lose money on each sale, but make it up on the volume...
Where do I claim something is "unreasonable"?

I still have no idea why you insist on muddying the waters. Actually...that comment is the facetious one. I understand exactly why.

I truly love graphs from 2010...
 

Lukey

Senator
Where do I claim something is "unreasonable"?

I still have no idea why you insist on muddying the waters. Actually...that comment is the facetious one. I understand exactly why.

I truly love graphs from 2010...
Maybe you can produce one that shows that the new business start up environment has improved and businesses are rolling out at the fastest pace since the tech bubble. Good luck. The fact is that the bad economic trends (the weakness of the job market, decline in median incomes and wealth, lack of new business opportunities) haven't changed since then. In fact, the economy, which has struggled to maintain a lower than 2% GDP growth rate, looks to be dropping back into recession (or at the very least more like 0% growth), without ever having recovered. The big government approach of Bushbama has failed. I think anyone who suggests that more of Obama's preferred policy agenda is going to (finally) get the economy to turn the corner are the ones trying to keep the waters muddied in an effort to keep the illusion alive that the democrats are the ones working tirelessly to "fix" the economy.
 
Z

zzigzzag

Guest
We also subsidize their customer bases. Isn't that convenient...
Their employees are a part of their customer bases, too, and "we" aren't choosing to subsidize them under either designation. Wal-Mart holds all of the cards in this game. That's who is making the choice to maximize profits for themselves and shareholders by under-compensating employees and tutoring them on how to apply for government benefits.

Peoples' priorities are the incubator for every policy. They're the one thing they can't squirm out of because they preclude everything else that happens and every fact on the ground.

Compare how COSCO treats their employees, their customers and their country to Wal-Mart and get back to me.
 
Z

zzigzzag

Guest
Where do I claim something is "unreasonable"?

I still have no idea why you insist on muddying the waters. Actually...that comment is the facetious one. I understand exactly why.

I truly love graphs from 2010...
Oo! Oo! I know that one!

 

Lukey

Senator
Their employees are a part of their customer bases, too, and "we" aren't choosing to subsidize them under either designation. Wal-Mart holds all of the cards in this game. That's who is making the choice to maximize profits for themselves and shareholders by under-compensating employees and tutoring them on how to apply for government benefits.

Peoples' priorities are the incubator for every policy. They're the one thing they can't squirm out of because they preclude everything else that happens and every fact on the ground.

Compare how COSCO treats their employees (and their country) to Wal-Mart and get back to me.
Don't look at me! I didn't advocate on behalf of the expansionary social welfare entitlement society. Lets face it, if this issue didn't exist and every business paid their folks $15 an hour, you all would still be saying it wasn't enough. And they should have better benefits and more time off, paid vacation trips to Aruba every year, or whatever. You all are the ones who created the welfare state and now you are complaining because someone besides the politicians and bureaucrats figured out how to make a buck off it. Ef it! Lets just get it over with! Confiscate all the private businesses and let the bureaucracy dole out the proceeds as they see fit. I'm sure they will make sure it is completely fair and unbiased, because if they were greedy bastards on a power trip, they never would have gone into government/politics. You win...
 
Z

zzigzzag

Guest
Don't look at me! I didn't advocate on behalf of the expansionary social welfare entitlement society. Lets face it, if this issue didn't exist and every business paid their folks $15 an hour, you all would still be saying it wasn't enough. And they should have better benefits and more time off, paid vacation trips to Aruba every year, or whatever. You all are the ones who created the welfare state and now you are complaining because someone besides the politicians and bureaucrats figured out how to make a buck off it. Ef it! Lets just get it over with! Confiscate all the private businesses and let the bureaucracy dole out the proceeds as they see fit. I'm sure they will make sure it is completely fair and unbiased, because if they were greedy bastards on a power trip, they never would have gone into government/politics. You win...
I highlighted the part that was a false premise to create a straw man called "the ones" to rant at.

Call 9/11 on your Reaganphone and have them take you to Reagan's free, unlimited healthcare emergency room. Then, you can get your free medicine under Porgie's unpaid-for prescription drug bill.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Maybe you can produce one that shows that the new business start up environment has improved and businesses are rolling out at the fastest pace since the tech bubble. Good luck. The fact is that the bad economic trends (the weakness of the job market, decline in median incomes and wealth, lack of new business opportunities) haven't changed since then. In fact, the economy, which has struggled to maintain a lower than 2% GDP growth rate, looks to be dropping back into recession (or at the very least more like 0% growth), without ever having recovered. The big government approach of Bushbama has failed. I think anyone who suggests that more of Obama's preferred policy agenda is going to (finally) get the economy to turn the corner are the ones trying to keep the waters muddied in an effort to keep the illusion alive that the democrats are the ones working tirelessly to "fix" the economy.
Why would I want to "produce" something I have never spoken about? To further your desire to muddy the waters? No thanks.

I have no interest in your start up posts. You've hammered that for weeks on end. Your feelings are known on the issue. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with the wealthy kids being limited to 5 million dollars tax free.
 
Z

zzigzzag

Guest
Yes, "muddying the waters" is trying to pierce the fog of statism to show the true conditions of the Obama economic "miracle." Orwell would be quite proud of you fellows...
Weaselzippershedge is mighty proud of you.
 
Top