Low minimum wage costs taxpayers over $7 Billion to subsidize Walmart McDonalds....
- Thread starter Lovehobby
- Start date
Whoops, you are lying again. Got a problem with honesty?
The money subsidizes low income people, not the corporations. If you eliminated that subsidy, McDonald's and Wal-Mart would not suffer. Poor families would.
I fully expect you to respond with your usual: one post where you make a lame attempt to defend your ludicrous claim, followed by a steam of farts when you realize the facts are simply against you.
The money subsidizes low income people, not the corporations. If you eliminated that subsidy, McDonald's and Wal-Mart would not suffer. Poor families would.
I fully expect you to respond with your usual: one post where you make a lame attempt to defend your ludicrous claim, followed by a steam of farts when you realize the facts are simply against you.
Fooj.. All due respect and everything.. But you're diving right into the petty personal insults today..Whoops, you are lying again. Got a problem with honesty?
The money subsidizes low income people, not the corporations. If you eliminated that subsidy, McDonald's and Wal-Mart would not suffer. Poor families would.
I fully expect you to respond with your usual: one post where you make a lame attempt to defend your ludicrous claim, followed by a steam of farts when you realize the facts are simply against you.
Gotta call'em like I see them. This is the first really sound argument I have seen you put forward.
And on the same note MacD's pays about $14.50 in Aus.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...donalds-pays-15-an-hour-its-australia/278313/
While you are technically correct, if you added the word "indirectly" before the word "subsidize" it would be a pretty good argument.In any event still a misuse of the term "subsidize."
The best argument the article puts forward (and I don't think it was intended as an argument) is that to increase wages of employees at McDonalds to the $15 minimum they would have to charge $1.00 more on Big Macs... Just a buck?? You're telling me you don't want to pay $1.00 extra for your Big Mac if it means helping out your fellow man?!?!
Obviously the price of everything would go up at McDonalds, not just the Big Mac.. So likely your bill would come out much higher (maybe around 25% higher).. But even then... Last time I went to McDicks with my kids I paid $20 for the 3 of us... If the difference between being able to afford McDonalds and NOT being able to afford McDonalds is $5.00 then you probably shouldn't be eating McDonalds.. And I really doubt any of the scum who eat McHeartAttack on a regular basis are going to STOP because the price skyrocketed by 25% anyway.. So the business is safe..
Just fucking do it already..
Obviously the price of everything would go up at McDonalds, not just the Big Mac.. So likely your bill would come out much higher (maybe around 25% higher).. But even then... Last time I went to McDicks with my kids I paid $20 for the 3 of us... If the difference between being able to afford McDonalds and NOT being able to afford McDonalds is $5.00 then you probably shouldn't be eating McDonalds.. And I really doubt any of the scum who eat McHeartAttack on a regular basis are going to STOP because the price skyrocketed by 25% anyway.. So the business is safe..
Just fucking do it already..
Actually I only commented on his behavior, lying about it being a subsidy, then running away from the debate.Fooj.. All due respect and everything.. But you're diving right into the petty personal insults today..
In many parts of the world it is considered a duty of employers to pay employees a living wage. In that way of thinking, it is quite reasonable to consider government welfare paid to employed people a kind of subsidy to the companies.Actually I only commented on his behavior, lying about it being a subsidy, then running away from the debate.
While you do not agree with that way of thinking, there is no need to be beliggerent. It is merely a different way of looking at the world of economics. As I posted above, in countries with a more socialist philosophy, the wage for a macdonald employee is $20 per hour.
That would be true, as it is true about many things.While you are technically correct, if you added the word "indirectly" before the word "subsidize" it would be a pretty good argument.
In many parts of the world direct subsidies or tax breaks to corporations so as to encourage employment is considered a duty of the government.In many parts of the world it is considered a duty of employers to pay employees a living wage. In that way of thinking
That's an awesome solution - let's send all our underemployed socialists looking for public handouts money to countries with a more socialist philosophies.In many parts of the world it is considered a duty of employers to pay employees a living wage. In that way of thinking, it is quite reasonable to consider government welfare paid to employed people a kind of subsidy to the companies.
While you do not agree with that way of thinking, there is no need to be beliggerent. It is merely a different way of looking at the world of economics. As I posted above, in countries with a more socialist philosophy, the wage for a macdonald employee is $20 per hour.
It is a myth by ultra conservatives that people are looking for handouts. They are not. They want to work and earn a wage that is sufficient to live on and provide for their children.That's an awesome solution - let's send all our underemployed socialists looking for public handouts money to countries with a more socialist philosophies.
By encouraging unions, Canada also could be a place where macdonald paid a living wage.
That is the inefficient way. No guarantee jobs will result. Next step, pay for actual jobs created. Far bettrr, transfer billions to the poor who will squander it on food clothing and shelter thus stimulating the economy.In many parts of the world direct subsidies or tax breaks to corporations so as to encourage employment is considered a duty of the government.
Unions aren't the answer. I have unionized workers, most of whom cannot believe the amount of money they pay in dues and fees to their union for little to nothing in return. I also have two friends who have companies that just faced union votes. One was rejected after it was pointed out to them exactly how much money they would pay to the union and another was voted in. The owner of that company is in the process of shutting it down and retiring - didn't do the employees much good did it?It is a myth by ultra conservatives that people are looking for handouts. They are not. They want to work and earn a wage that is sufficient to live on and provide for their children.
By encouraging unions, Canada also could be a place where macdonald paid a living wage.
I still say we ship them all to Denmark.
So your are suggesting we should just give poor people money? What happens after they spend it? Should we give them more?That is the inefficient way. No guarantee jobs will result. Next step, pay for actual jobs created. Far bettrr, transfer billions to the poor who will squander it on food clothing and shelter thus stimulating the economy.
Maybe it will do the employees some good. If the owner is unwilling to pay union wages, I would say good riddence.Unions aren't the answer. I have unionized workers, most of whom cannot believe the amount of money they pay in dues and fees to their union for little to nothing in return. I also have two friends who have companies that just faced union votes. One was rejected after it was pointed out to them exactly how much money they would pay to the union and another was voted in. The owner of that company is in the process of shutting it down and retiring - didn't do the employees much good did it?
I still say we ship them all to Denmark.
More progressive (you may say socialist) countries have a "right to work" in their constitution, and the government spends very large amounts of money on labor programs (unemployment benefits, retraining, relocating etc) to achieve higher employment numbers, which is considered beneficial for the economy. Clearly, output is higher if more people are part of the workforce.
