Showing posts with label fast food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fast food. Show all posts

Friday, August 30, 2013

'McJobs' lead to middle class?!



Never say I don't give equal time. To wit, here's the chairman of the National Restaurant Association Phil Hickey carrying water (er, super-size soda?) for America's "McJobs" creators:

The truth is that both part-time and full-time positions make the restaurant industry a versatile career option for a variety of workers. From underemployed or hard-to-employ workers to college graduates, the industry provides a pathway to the middle class and often beyond.

Efforts to devalue the industry and mandate changes, like raising the minimum wage, hurt workers by preventing businesses of all sizes from creating more jobs.

Hickey argues that the $7.25 federal minimum wage doesn't need to be raised because... hardly anybody earns minimum wage:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 71% of minimum-wage employees in the restaurant industry are under the age of 25; 47% are teenagers.  

So why is Hickey wrong?  First, Hickey is actually admitting that 53 percent of fast-food workers earning minimum wage are adults.  He is also admitting, indirectly, that the current minimum wage sucks and people don't deserve it.

In fact, according to USA Today, the average non-management fast-food employee currently earns $9.09 per hour or $18,886 per year. Though that is still below the 2013 federal poverty threshold of $19,530 for a family of three.

Moreover, "Eighty-eight percent of workers in jobs paying less than $10 an hour are older than 20, and a third are older than 40, according to the Economic Policy Institute."  

Granted, two adults working full-time in fast food could make for a (barely) middle-class household... but don't forget that most fast food joints don't offer their employees health insurance or other benefits. BTW, who's taking care of their kid(s)? And if a family is paying its health costs out of pocket without insurance then God help them, because one medical emergency could bankrupt them. As indeed will happen to 2 million Americans this year. 

And if a family of three elects to buy health insurance on their own, either HSA or HDHP, then chances are their annual deductible + monthly costs will be $10,000 and up, or about 1/3 of that fast-food family's gross income.  

Next fact: in the U.S., workers' wages make up 25 to 35 percent of the cost of fast food, according to experts. Meanwhile, the norm in Europe where the minimum wage is higher is about 45 percent; and yet somehow, McDonald's manages to operate more than 7,400 restaurants in Europe. This indicates there is room for higher U.S. wages.  Still, the cost of fast food would probably go up, since restaurant owners, whose average profit margins hover around 4 percent, would pass on all or most of a wage increase to customers. 

"That's terrible, higher prices must be avoided at all costs!" my conservative interlocutor will object. To them inflation is the biggest bogeyman next to taxes. But you know what? I'm cool with it.  Poorer people would do well to eat less fast food anyway, and prepare their own meals; and wealthier people could afford to pay a little more. 

It reminds me how "Papa" John Schnatter warned in dire terms that Papa John's restaurants would have to raise their prices 14 cents per pizza to give their employees health insurance to comply with Obamacare. But what's 14 cents to a customer who can afford to buy a pizza instead of groceries? Plus it's customary to tip the deliver guy at least a couple bucks.

(BTW, President Obama's proposal in February to raise the minimum wage to $9 and tie it to the cost of living was projected to raise the price of fast food 3 percent. With a $9 minimum wage, the average cost of a McDonald's Extra Value Meal would then increase from $4.45 to $4.58.  Hardly noticeable.  Doing a little algebra -- although I have no idea if this is economically sound -- at the same ratio, a $15 minimum wage would increase the cost of fast food by 13.3 percent, for a Value Meal price of $5.03.  Heck, let's suppose a $15 wage would raise the price 40 percent: the Value Meal would still cost only $6.23.  Not exactly hyperinflation.)

According to economic theory, there is a big benefit to higher wages: lower employee turnover. Lower turnover leads to higher productivity (output per employee per hour). U.S. workers, incidentally, are already the most productive in the world, although you wouldn't guess it, considering real U.S. incomes have been stagnant since the 1970s; and the median male is especially worse off today, earning as much in real dollars as a man in 1964!

Next problem with Hickey's apologia: McDonald's, Walmart and most other retailers employ few full-time workers anyway; workers are not permitted to work full time.  So we're really talking about workers below the U.S. poverty line unless they work two part-time jobs.  That is, assuming they can get those part-time jobs: there are still 3 applicants for every job opening.

To protest this sad state of affairs, yesterday fast-food workers in about 60 U.S. cities carried out a one-day strike for a minimum hourly wage of $15.  

Theirs is the next great struggle for organized labor and fair compensation.  But it's not their struggle alone.  Even the middle and upper classes stand to lose -- or gain -- along with the lowest-paid Americans.  

"There is a spillover effect from raising the minimum wage, and those who are currently earning [just] above it will also benefit, as many employers will raise their wages too," said Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute.

Furthermore, as entrepreneur Nick Hanauer explained in his Bloomberg op-ed, "The Capitalist’s Case for a $15 Minimum Wage": 

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour* would inject about $450 billion into the economy each year. That would give more purchasing power to millions of poor and lower-middle-class Americans, and would stimulate buying, production and hiring.

Studies by the Economic Policy Institute show that a $15 minimum wage would directly affect 51 million workers and indirectly benefit an additional 30 million. That’s 81 million people, or about 64 percent of the workforce, and their families who would be more able to buy cars, clothing and food from our nation’s businesses.

... [C]ontrary to conventional economic orthodoxy, increases in the minimum wage increase employment. In 60 percent of the states that raised the minimum wage during periods of high unemployment, job growth was faster than the national average.

Some business people oppose an increase in the minimum wage as needless government interference in the workings of the market. In fact, a big increase would substantially reduce government intervention and dependency on public assistance programs.

(*Here's yet more equal time for crusty conservatives, a very long argument why "A $15 minimum wage is a terrible idea" by Dylan Matthews over at WaPo's Wonkblog.)

Regardless of whether the new minimum wage should be $9 or a few bucks more, $7.25 'MCJobs' just aren't cutting it for our economy.  And 'McJobs' are certainly not "a pathway to the middle class and often beyond" -- not unless something changes.  

Eric Liu, a former speechwriter for Bill Clinton, summed it up best in his TIME piece, "McDonald’s and the Fate of the Middle Class":

Too many American think that the plight of the low-wage worker has nothing to do with them. In fact it is both a preview and a parable. The fate of the middle class rests, in part, on whether more Americans learn to see the fate of fry cooks as their own.

We must all rise or fall together!

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

It's about total compensation

Today it's a three-fer, since each story is about the same thing: the consequences of low U.S. wages and the absence of benefits.

First, my man Harold Meyerson notes that low wages paid by big retailers and fast-food joints are now hurting big retailers and fast-food joints, because low-paid workers don't have money to buy stuff.  (Duh).  Furthermore, Meyerson makes the interesting observation that we've gone back to the pre-WWII era, before big retailers like Federated and Macy's actively backed New Deal-era reforms like the minimum wage, unemployment insurance, 5-day workweek, unions, and co-op banks. Back then, businessmen understood that a healthy middle class was in their own best interest. 

It seems we've forgotten, once again, what actually makes America go. (I blame this all on the historically amnesiac Tea Parties, who don't care about anything that happened in America between 1789 and 1980.)

Next, Heidi Moore reminds us that our recent focus on the minimum wage, while correct, actually obscures the key issue: total compensation.  Wages could theoretically stay flat, but if more employers were to offer health insurance, paid sick leave, vacation and a retirement plan, then wages wouldn't need to be as high.    

Moore also observes that low total compensation, historically speaking, has put a record-high strain on government poverty programs such as food stamps. So, with corporate profits at an all-time high and compensation at an all-time low, welfare becomes a subsidy for Big Business.  (Wal-Mart has long been the national poster child for forcing its employees to go on welfare).

Finally, Sarah Kendzior points out that the feminist debate over whether women should work or stay at home is all rather quaint, considering that women, just like everybody else, make such decisions based on hard economic realities. Paradoxically, due to the high cost of child care, it is often cheaper for a woman to stay at home rather than work; yet staying at home allows her skills to degrade, or at the very least carries a stigma with potential employers when she tries to re-enter the workforce. Educated, qualified women excluded from our workforce reduces our nation's overall productivity. 

So once again, the answer is for Big Government to step in and mandate paternity leave, provide free or subsidized daycare, and make giving birth at a hospital cheaper, so that young families don't start off in debt.  Because the free market has failed to address these failures.


By Harold Meyerson
August 21, 2013 | Washington Post

By Heidi Moore
August 20, 2013 | Guardian

By Sarah Kendzior
August 19, 2013 | Al Jazeera

Friday, May 10, 2013

U.S. workers and the real 'freeloaders'

Huffington Post featured three excellent articles in two days about the plight of America's workers, who struggle to work enough hours to pay their bills, while not getting any paid leave or health insurance.

This week a Republican friend was complaining to me about "freeloaders" in America who don't pay any income taxes and thus feel no responsibility for our government; they just want to take, take, take.  This was his version of Mitt Romney's secretly taped complaint about the "47 percent" -- a moment of candor that likely cost Romney the 2012 U.S. presidential election.  (Such complaints are bald assertion: there is no indication that a large number of our fellow citizens feel this way; and people who make such accusations don't feel any need to offer evidence for such a conclusion.)

I replied to my friend, first, that Romney's 47 percent by definition includes millions of Red State Republicans.  Second, I said that nobody who works in America is a freeloader, even if they don't pay income tax.  Why?

The article about KFC provides a pretty good example.  A young man worked hard and was promoted by his boss and given extra hours and responsibilities, with a promise that a raise was just around the corner, but the raise never came. When he said he didn't want to be a manager anymore, it was too much stress for a poverty wage, his boss accused him of being "selfish."  Meanwhile, from 2007 to 2011, KFC (part of Yum!Brands) saw its profits rise 45 percent. 

This is true nationwide, where U.S. corporate profits are at an all-time high, while workers' wages are at an all-time low.  Yes, companies are getting more efficient and workers are getting more productive, but the profit gains from all that increased productivity are not going to workers.  

So just who is freeloading off of whom?  I don't mean to sound like a Marxist, but obviously, that guy working his tail off at KFC while living in his uncle's basement is not seeing any of that 45 percent in profits; it's all going to the corporate managers and shareholders.  His story has been repeated millions of times at other fast-food and retail joints around the country.

Or take the article about Amazon that, like many companies, outsources many aspects of its operations to temp agencies that don't give their workers any job security, full-time hours or benefits. Similarly, the U.S. Government's contractors often employ temp and part-time workers who earn below-poverty wages who then must rely partly on government benefits.  

This is not to mention Wal-Mart, the nation's #1 employer, whose average employee earns less than $9 an hour (less than $19,000 a year, full-time), and who has the most employees receiving federal welfare benefits.

Knowing all this, I don't see how anybody can have the gall to complain about the "selfishness" of U.S. workers who don't pay income tax.  Paying income tax is an elite privilege; and I'm sure these poor working Americans would love to be members of that elite club, earning enough money on salary with benefits to qualify for the "burden" of paying income taxes... while still enjoying all the other tax expenditures that middle- and upper-class Americans receive, which, according to Bloomberg, make up the largest category of government spending$1.3 trillion:


Middle-class families get an average benefit from the mortgage interest deduction of $139, while families in the top 1 percent get $3,752.


Taken together, individual income tax expenditures are the equivalent of sending $686 each year to those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution, $3,175 to those in the middle fifth, and $30,714 to those in the upper fifth. The average member of the top 1 percent gets nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year -- a statistic that might have proved useful for the folks protesting in Zuccotti Park.



By Saki Knafo
May 7, 2013 | Huffington Post

By Jillian Berman
May 8, 2013 | Huffington Post

By Dave Jamieson
May 8, 2013 | Huffington Post

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Shove your ingredients and your pizza, Papa John

Hey, Papa John, you can feed a child for just 10 cents a day... or give all your employees health insurance for just 14 cents a pizza!

I would gladly pay 14 cents extra per pizza if I knew that it allowed employees at the restaurant to get medical insurance.  Hell, it's customary to tip the delivery guy $5, so what's a few extra cents?

However, after "Papa" John Schnatter has publicly opposed Obamacare, I can assure you I won't be ordering any more of his pizzas.  

Sorry, but there are just not that many great jobs out there nowadays; and for some people, working at Papa Johns or McDonald's is their career.  Papa John and the rest of us can no longer assume, condescendingly, that workers in industries like fast food deserve s**tty wages and zero benefits.  It's just plain mean-spirited and un-American.

As for Papa John's and Chic-Fil-A, there are a plentiful substitutes in the market and not a lot of difference between products.  So you know what?  Branding counts.  Image matters.  Corporate social responsibility means something.  And so I relish the right to punish those companies who pay their workers s**t and then turn around and give their wealth to backwards-lame conservative causes.  I urge all of you to do the same.  Papa John isn't the first or last guy to bake a pizza.  Chic-Fil-A didn't invent the chicken sandwich.  These establishments are just as "replaceable" as the minimum-wage workers that they treat like crap.


By Barry Bradford
August 7, 2012 | Huffington Post

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Food is not a commodity

Sure, some food is traded as a commodity, but the food we eat is not a commodity. We don't go to the supermarket to buy big boxes labelled "FOOD" for the cheapest price we can possibly find. But when it comes to school lunches, we're not far from it.

The food we put in children's bodies is not a commodity.

Just like Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, the government needs to throw these junk food marketers out of our schools.


By Peter Overby
June 8, 2011 | NPR


Saturday, March 12, 2011

Couldn't be prouder: Filet-o-Fish invented in NKY

Forgive me for posting something non-political, but I'm pretty proud that my hometown invented the closest thing to healthy on McDonald's heart-attack menu, the Filet-o-Fish. It is aka "Fish Mac" in E. Europe. There is an uneaten one in my fridge right now, awaiting its date with destiny.

And you thought all Kentucky invented was great fried chicken! It is a veritable Bell Labs of fast-food innovation.

UPDATE: Somebody pointed out that the filet-o-fish is actually not very healthy. Well he can go suck an egg white!


By Stefano DiPietrantonio
March 12, 2011 | FOX19.com

Today was the first "fish-fry" Friday of the Lenten season. Many people give up eating red meat on Fridays and instead eat only fish or no meat at all.

Lent is a 40 day span of reflection and sacrifice for Christians around the world as we move toward Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

One of the most popular places to find fish sandwiches during Lent is McDonald's. Did you know that a piece of pop-culture history was invented right here in Cincinnati?

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

7 most heinous fast foods of 2009

This article made me tear up with pride. Only in America can you find such superb, super-calorific fast-food innovation. What geniuses thought to combine an Oreo cookie and a pizza, or replace the two slices of bread in a sandwich with breaded chicken fillets!?

Nobody can out-fat us, baby! USA! USA!


By Brad Reed
Posted August 27, 2009 | Alternet

One of AlterNet's most popular articles of 2009: Some of America's favorite chains offer some thoroughly repellent dishes.