You're Paying A Ton To Subsidize Fast Food's Poverty Wages - HuffPo

[WillyT]

You're Paying A Ton To Subsidize Fast Food's Poverty Wages
The Huffington Post
Posted: 10/18/2013 2:39 pm EDT

<snip>

Taxpayers spend about $7 billion per year to help pay workers who are employed by an industry that rakes in $200 billion annually.

That's because the fast food industry's notoriously low wages force more than half of fast food workers to rely on some form of government assistance like food stamps or Medicaid to get by, a study from the University of California-Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign recently found.

An analysis of the Berkeley/UI data from the left-leaning National Employment Law Project breaks down how much low-wages at the 10 biggest fast food chains are costing taxpayers.


Infographic by Alissa Scheller for the Huffington Post

These findings reflect the bleak reality of the low-wage recovery. Nearly 70 percent of the new jobs created since the end of the recession have been in low-wage sectors like fast food and retail and they’ve replaced largely middle-income jobs...

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/fast-food-industry-taxpayers_n_4123733.html?utm_hp_ref=business

[The Magistrate]

1. Exactly, Sir: 'Public Assistance' Is Really Subsidy To Employers Paying Cut-Throat Wages

It enables them to keep wages low without risking sabotage and revolt, and what they do not have to pay out in wages in consequence goes straight to their profit ledger.

[indepat]

2. And that's a perk, or better put, a giant corporate subsidy, our government ain't gonna' fuck with

'cause Repukes are gonna' make certain America continues to be eaten up with a large poor underclass to shit upon and incarcerate at the slightest whim: a minimum wage no less than Australia's would greatly ameliorate this insidious and unspeakable inhumanity.

[SharonAnn]

9. Walmart employees are on Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. and company gets tax breaks.

We're paying billions in subsidies for Walmart employees, too.

[Cirque du So-What]

3. What a CROCK!

They should serve my swill WITHOUT any assistance whatsoever - and be thankful about it! (In case it's needed: )

I hope this economic model serves as 'food for thought.'

[bobGandolf]

4. Truly sad! n/t

[enough]

5. Glad to see this study and its conclusions continuing to get wider exposure.

If people can get this connection between low-wage work and the need for government subsidies, maybe something will begin to shift.

[KoKo]

6. Thanks for keeping on this....it needs to get out there! K&R...

We subsidize these Fast Food Places on our Tax Dollar and the people who work there stay poor.

It's just plain WRONG!

[TeamPooka]

7. Fast food is not just bad for you, it's bad for all of us. nt

[Igel]

8. Well, there's an easy way to cut that $7 billion number.

Instead of having 24 hrs/week be average, make it 40. That would cut the government's contribution by more than $3 billion right there. The Berkeley center staffers would do a happy dance, I'm sure.

Not only would the government not have to subsidize nearly half the workers (who would no longer be workers), but then the remaining workers would make more, further saving the government money.

This is a frame-of-reference problem. It says that the reason for the subsidies is to help the businesses. If we stopped paying the subsidies to the businesses (through their workers), then presumably they'd have to raise their pay scales. Of course, first we get to redefine "subsidy" in a way that makes our argument easier.

Embedded in this also is the idea that the subsidy is per employee. It's not. It's variable. You have 3 kids and work at McDonald's you get a different subsidy than if you have no kids. It's different if you're single or if you're married. If you hire a bunch of single teens who live at home you have no "subsidy"; hire a bunch of indigent working mothers and you have a huge subsidy. Seems like that would be an easy cost-management problem to solve.

I guess we do have to subsidize parenthood, though, and subsidize the people who have low-wage jobs for life and manage to always avoid even the limited raises that are offered. Interesting term, though, "subsidizing" the people. Makes them into commercial or public institutions, like businesses or charities. Because a subsidy is paid to the people subsidized.

Very strange misuse and strangulation of language and meaning. But it sounds pleasant and reassuring, so I guess there's that.

[Quantess]

12. "pleasant and reassuring"?!

The only thing "pleasant or reassuring" about this entire fucked up scenario happens at the shareholders meetings when the reports show continued profits.

Also, there are full time workers who still can't get by on their pathetically low wage. So having workers all work full time still will not solve anything when they make a pittance per hour.

You are correct that this is a frame of reference problem. I find it refreshing to see the frame of reference shifted away from what we usually hear (it is unrealistic to expect businesses to pay a higher minimum wage).

[Egalitarian Thug]

10. K&R As long as we accept the concept of "working poor", we will continue

to allow ourselves to be fucked.

[Liberal_in_LA]

11. kick

[WillyT]

13. Kick !!!