Fast Food Workers Striking?!?!?

ladymiseryali

Fast food and other minimum wage jobs are meant for high school and college students to earn a bit of spending money while their parents pay for all of their big expenses, which is why fast food restaurants and retail stores are only open after school, on weekends, and during school holidays.

Um, the craft store I work at is open at 9 AM. I'm there working at 5 AM, sometimes 6.

NinjadURbacon

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Except they can't can they, because if they did and the workers stayed out they would be screwed. hence the barganing position of the workforce, hence why striking is an effective barganing tool. If they could be replaced, they would, McDonalds are not holding onto them out of some sense of civic duty. Why must this point be repeated over and over and yet still people dont get it.

Because they aren't very bright, plain and simple.

They are the ones saying, "You could replace all of them tomorrow with no problem!" When it's shown to them that in reality that's not the case they switch to, "Well..you know..keep some of them...most of them really..then just get some high school kids."

As stated earlier (by someone else who did a great job of tricking me with sarcasm) how are these high school employees supposed to serve lunch and breakfast? Typically the most profitable times for fast food. Ohhh I thought that's what these jobs were designed for?! High school kids, right?

Logic escapes some people. They're too busy patting themselves on the back for being smarter than fast food employees.

i was a high school student worker. As a senior I had no classes from 10am on. Most schools offer a student worker program that lets a student have a free class period or 2 to work. These work periods are not all in the afternoon either.

But high school students are part time workers. So fast food would hire other part time to fit the schedule. Not all that hard.

SteveJWatson

Just to show how ignorant most of the people in this thread are of the very basics of labor actions such as strikes, McDonald's can't simply fire all these people. It would literally be illegal.

Now, by all means, continue this incredibly stupid "debate" full of BS and people who don't know a damn thing about economics, labor action, social stratification, etc.

you angry?

I am a little bit, yeah. I posted on my wall a little while ago that privilegd white folk who think they attained their position in society through nothing but their own darned hard work have joined people who don't vaccinate their kids on my list of people who make me unreasonably angry.

I thought if you just worked HARD enough, you'll be a millionaire in no time. Isn't that the American Dream? :bigsmile:

ElliottTN

Here's a bizarre idea coming from a silly girl: reward results, not effort.

*mind blown*

:flowerforyou:

Wait wait wait...that is too simple of a concept. It must be wrong.

Read my comment above. If you want to pay them based on results McDonalds is going to owe them a HUGE raise.

These employees are the backbone of their operation and the entire reason they function. They are essential. Without them not $1 gets made. Given the choice between losing the CEO of the company and losing the front line workers the board would choose to get rid of the CEO every time.

They're people working hard and asking to be paid a reasonable wage. They aren't looking for a handout. They're trying to get off public assistance. They are your neighbors and they serve you on a regular basis.

Maybe some of you should stop looking down on them as a cheap way of feeling better about yourselves.

That's a whole lot of assumptions you are making there on a huge population.

I really wish people would stop throwing in the "working hard" thing, honestly have no idea what that has to do with anything.

And no, they don't serve me regularly. Fast food is gross (except for Chick-fil-a)

So my question to you though is why are you at your keyboard right now and not at one of the protest?

Because it's routinely being stated that they don't work hard enough to earn a raise.

If they don't serve you regularly I put the same question to you that you have to me, why do you care? The worst thing that'll happen as a result of this strike is increased prices at restaurants you don't go to. But you've taken every opportunity to rail against them. So I think your motives are much more in question than mine. I may not be there striking with them, but I do support them. Even if it means I would have to pay more at the fast food restaurants I visit.

I care because we all live in same economic ecosystem Mr. Panda hat. Fair enough?

You should go strike with them if you really do care. You won't get a chance to pay higher amounts if people like yourself do not go to show their support and rather just sit back and type about it on MFP.

Fullsterkur_woman

My daughter would love to take their jobs.

And if they are so replaceable, why doesn't she?

And if she did, dont you think she would deserve a living wage in exchange for her labour?

I think she (or anyone who takes the job) deserves the amount the company has to offer to attract sufficiently many workers that are qualified to do the work.

NinjadURbacon

Just to show how ignorant most of the people in this thread are of the very basics of labor actions such as strikes, McDonald's can't simply fire all these people. It would literally be illegal.

Now, by all means, continue this incredibly stupid "debate" full of BS and people who don't know a damn thing about economics, labor action, social stratification, etc.

you angry?

Ignorant how so? If you do not show up for your shift you are fired? that is really black and white. No grey.

The fact that you don't even know the answer to your question means you should probably just not engage in this conversation in any capacity other than asking questions of people who actually know what they're talking about.

your funny kid

jofjltncb6

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Except they can't can they, because if they did and the workers stayed out they would be screwed. hence the barganing position of the workforce, hence why striking is an effective barganing tool. If they could be replaced, they would, McDonalds are not holding onto them out of some sense of civic duty. Why must this point be repeated over and over and yet still people dont get it.

Strikes are effective tools of a unified workforce when negotiating a contract. (Think coal miners.) These fast food workers are not under contract. Even if they succeed now, the company will simply replace them on the company's own time table with employees earning a an actual *market* wage. Their "bargaining power" now is nothing more than that of a hostage taker...and when the hostages are freed, their leverage completely disappears.

NinjadURbacon

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Except they can't can they, because if they did and the workers stayed out they would be screwed. hence the barganing position of the workforce, hence why striking is an effective barganing tool. If they could be replaced, they would, McDonalds are not holding onto them out of some sense of civic duty. Why must this point be repeated over and over and yet still people dont get it.

My daughter would love to take their jobs.

And if they are so replaceable, why doesn't she?

And if she did, dont you think she would deserve a living wage in exchange for her labour?

no fast food workers have been fired yet

gmhaggie06

Just to show how ignorant most of the people in this thread are of the very basics of labor actions such as strikes, McDonald's can't simply fire all these people. It would literally be illegal.

Now, by all means, continue this incredibly stupid "debate" full of BS and people who don't know a damn thing about economics, labor action, social stratification, etc.

you angry?

I am a little bit, yeah. I posted on my wall a little while ago that privilegd white folk who think they attained their position in society through nothing but their own darned hard work have joined people who don't vaccinate their kids on my list of people who make me unreasonably angry.

That's a lot of class warfare there Mr.Rage Against the Machine, why are you so angry? Who cares how people got where they did, for a person who claims to be an authority on economics, labor valuation and social stratification you seem to be missing out on key elements, at some point someone had to work hard for what they got, if that person's work enabled the rest of their family to live a life of luxury (i.e Paris Hilton, et al) who cares?

NinjadURbacon

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Except they can't can they, because if they did and the workers stayed out they would be screwed. hence the barganing position of the workforce, hence why striking is an effective barganing tool. If they could be replaced, they would, McDonalds are not holding onto them out of some sense of civic duty. Why must this point be repeated over and over and yet still people dont get it.

Strikes are effective tools of a unified workforce when negotiating a contract. (Think coal miners.) These fast food workers are not under contract. Even if they succeed now, the company will simply replace them on the company's own time table with employees earning a an actual *market* wage. Their "bargaining power" now is nothing more than that of a hostage taker...and when the hostages are freed, their leverage completely disappears.

exactly strikes work well for unions.

ldrosophila

I just did the math and at a full 40 hours a week at $7.50/hour if you're a single person and need a 1 bedroom apartment, you can live off that no problem.

I would really like to see the math you did... Rent must be REALLY cheap where you live. Here's how I managed at 32 hours on $8 an hour. That is approximately $1,110 per month before taxes.

My net pay ended up being about $950 per month.
My rent was 550 per month for a small, very old studio apartment-it was the cheapest place I could find.

That leaves me with $400 a month for everything else.

I spent about $125 on food.

That leaves me with $275.

My auto insurance was about $30 per month.

$245.

A monthly bus pass cost me $90 a month.

$155.

I had a $10 per month phone plan. This was a necessity in case work could offer me more hours.

$145.

Electric cost me around $50. It was around $35 in spring through fall and around $70-$80 in winter.

That brings the rest of my money down to $95.

My monthly insurance premium was $46. I have a couple of medical conditions where I NEED to see a doctor.

This leaves me with $49 at the end of each month.

A copay for a prescription that I NEED for asthma is $30 per month.

This left me with $19 a month.

I still have a $345 payment for student loans. I couldn't get myself even a very old car +auto insurance to give me reliable transportation to work. Explain to me how that $19 will cover whatever copays I have for my doctors visits? How will that allow me to get a new pair of pants for work because the cheap pair I got from good will for $3 has a hole now... which is against company dress code? How does that let me save up for an emergency? If I got hurt at work and had to miss a month for recovery... how would that allow me to keep my crappy apartment and pay my electric bill?

I would VERY much like to see the math you did where you discovered a single person can live off of $7.50 an hour.

That's about what I figured...do you remember how much of your tax return if any you got back?

F00LofaT00K

I just did the math and at a full 40 hours a week at $7.50/hour if you're a single person and need a 1 bedroom apartment, you can live off that no problem.

if you can get 40...lets not forget there is a huge push for PT hours now. I dont know my math says it's pretty tight financially so you make $1200/mos before taxes. Lets say 20% for taxes, SSI, and medicare how does $960 take home sound? I live in rural California and I think you could find a place for about $600-700/month more if you lived in southern probably closer to $800-900. Are we driving to work or taking public transportation? Food $150...that would be terribly slim here because of the area I live a gallon of milk cost $5. Utilities we are all off propane and that is now $4/gal a small place let's assume $100/month to heat. Electricity easily $100. So without a car I'm getting a grand total of $10 left to spend.

To be acurate, a person making 7.50 hr isnt going to pay taxes. Hell they will probably get back more than they paid in because of the earned income credit.

I paid taxes a a similar wage and yes, I got it back at the end of the year... and do you know where that $700 went?? My student loans that I couldn't afford to pay all year because I made about $13,000 a year.

gmhaggie06

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Except they can't can they, because if they did and the workers stayed out they would be screwed. hence the barganing position of the workforce, hence why striking is an effective barganing tool. If they could be replaced, they would, McDonalds are not holding onto them out of some sense of civic duty. Why must this point be repeated over and over and yet still people dont get it.

Strikes are effective tools of a unified workforce when negotiating a contract. (Think coal miners.) These fast food workers are not under contract. Even if they succeed now, the company will simply replace them on the company's own time table with employees earning a an actual *market* wage. Their "bargaining power" now is nothing more than that of a hostage taker...and when the hostages are freed, their leverage completely disappears.

AHA! Heisenberg here actually knows what the hell he's talking about!

Fullsterkur_woman

i was a high school student worker. As a senior I had no classes from 10am on. Most schools offer a student worker program that lets a student have a free class period or 2 to work. These work periods are not all in the afternoon either.

But high school students are part time workers. So fast food would hire other part time to fit the schedule. Not all that hard.

Oh yeah, I forgot I did that too! (the school I went to was in a "disadvantaged" neighborhood, so there were lots of us looking for that opportunity) And guess where I worked? Fast food jobs! But apparently taking advantage of that opportunity while others didn't has nothing to do with my later success.

NinjadURbacon

Just to show how ignorant most of the people in this thread are of the very basics of labor actions such as strikes, McDonald's can't simply fire all these people. It would literally be illegal.

Now, by all means, continue this incredibly stupid "debate" full of BS and people who don't know a damn thing about economics, labor action, social stratification, etc.

you angry?

Ignorant how so? If you do not show up for your shift you are fired? that is really black and white. No grey.

The fact that you don't even know the answer to your question means you should probably just not engage in this conversation in any capacity other than asking questions of people who actually know what they're talking about.

your funny kid

I see your knowledge of grammar is about as strong as your knowledge of the legal protections of striking workers.

haha, I am quite glad you can not win arguments that you have to revert to person attacks.

ObstacleRacer

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Except they can't can they, because if they did and the workers stayed out they would be screwed. hence the barganing position of the workforce, hence why striking is an effective barganing tool. If they could be replaced, they would, McDonalds are not holding onto them out of some sense of civic duty. Why must this point be repeated over and over and yet still people dont get it.

Because they aren't very bright, plain and simple.

They are the ones saying, "You could replace all of them tomorrow with no problem!" When it's shown to them that in reality that's not the case they switch to, "Well..you know..keep some of them...most of them really..then just get some high school kids."

As stated earlier (by someone else who did a great job of tricking me with sarcasm) how are these high school employees supposed to serve lunch and breakfast? Typically the most profitable times for fast food. Ohhh I thought that's what these jobs were designed for?! High school kids, right?

Logic escapes some people. They're too busy patting themselves on the back for being smarter than fast food employees.

you do realize that 18 and 19 year olds are by and large out of high school correct??

So your bright idea is to staff McDonalds with nothing but 18-19 year olds? You realize that it's a giant organization with tons of franchises? That's a real narrow window of employees they'd be seeking out. And apparently none of them could be there for longer than a year.

So who has the next bad idea that would allow this giant company to pay people next to nothing? Because it's clearly very important to some of you that these people not earn a decent wage.

WeepingAngel81

Just to show how ignorant most of the people in this thread are of the very basics of labor actions such as strikes, McDonald's can't simply fire all these people. It would literally be illegal.

Now, by all means, continue this incredibly stupid "debate" full of BS and people who don't know a damn thing about economics, labor action, social stratification, etc.

you angry?

I am a little bit, yeah. I posted on my wall a little while ago that privilegd white folk who think they attained their position in society through nothing but their own darned hard work have joined people who don't vaccinate their kids on my list of people who make me unreasonably angry.

You know what makes me angry? People who would rather live in a stereotype than bust through it.

You are correct, McDonald's can't "just" fire these people, but if people don't show up for a job, I'm sure those who stuck around will gladly take the OT hours handed to them.

Circling back to the point of this thread, if they are unhappy with their wages they can look for another job. Some jobs may not be easy to come but, but working hard and learning a thing or two is what builds chracter and a good resume. Going on strike because you feel entitled to better pay doesn't advance you any further into a career path. Not only that, but they should be happy to even have a job if it's they are as hard to find as some people make it out to be.

Keep_The_Laughter

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Except they can't can they, because if they did and the workers stayed out they would be screwed. hence the barganing position of the workforce, hence why striking is an effective barganing tool. If they could be replaced, they would, McDonalds are not holding onto them out of some sense of civic duty. Why must this point be repeated over and over and yet still people dont get it.

Because they aren't very bright, plain and simple.

They are the ones saying, "You could replace all of them tomorrow with no problem!" When it's shown to them that in reality that's not the case they switch to, "Well..you know..keep some of them...most of them really..then just get some high school kids."

As stated earlier (by someone else who did a great job of tricking me with sarcasm) how are these high school employees supposed to serve lunch and breakfast? Typically the most profitable times for fast food. Ohhh I thought that's what these jobs were designed for?! High school kids, right?

Logic escapes some people. They're too busy patting themselves on the back for being smarter than fast food employees.

^^^This^^^ And just this.

F00LofaT00K

Every job worked at full time hours should pay a living wage.

Please define "living wage"

Also, are government subsidies factored into that living wage.

Does living wage assume that you own a cell phone with a data plan and Internet access?

I'm just curious if living wage is what someone actually needs to live or more or less what they want but doesn't actually need in order to live?

Living wage is enough to pay rent, utilities, own an old POS car and afford basic insurance and just enough money to save each month in case of an emergency. I lived with $19 left over after my bills but I had to leave my $345 student loans unpaid each month. THAT is not a living wage. I had a $10 monthly cell plan so work could call and offer me more hours. I didn't havea smart phone or internet or cable or even a vehicle. I used public transportation... which at $90 for a monthly pass was barely affordable for me. Living wage is what somebody actually needs to live.

Fullsterkur_woman

So who has the next bad idea that would allow this giant company to pay people next to nothing? Because it's clearly very important to some of you that these people not earn a decent wage.

It isn't to me. I say more power to 'em. If they can convince the owners that they must pay a higher wage because it makes economic sense to do so, good for them. It means higher prices for consumers, but I can live with that; it's not like I spend tons of money on fast food now anyway. I tend to spend it in restaurants that have wait staff. I like to give decent tips to people who take good care of me for the time that I am in their care. I also treat them with courtesy and respect. Not coincidentally, wait staff generally reciprocate in kind. Imagine that! Fair exchange of value!