Minimum Wage - Demonstrations And Some Facts

(This photo shows fast food workers in New York joining the demonstrations. It was found at the website Labor Notes.)

Yesterday, thousands of fast food workers demonstrated in over 150 cities for higher pay and the right to unionize. And if demonstrations were ever justified, these certainly were -- because fast food workers are among the lowest paid workers in this country, and they have little or no recourse to correct that. All American workers should be unionized. That is the only way to protect their rights on the job, and to make sure they get to share in rising production.

These workers were asking for a raise to $15.00 an hour. That is not as unreasonable as you might think -- amounting to only about $31,200 a year (still more than $10,000 a year less than the country's median wage). I imagine they would settle for less though, as long as it could get them out of poverty -- and the proposed raise in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would do that for most (although just barely).

Here are a couple of charts from the Pew Research Center about the current minimum wage.

There are two glaring facts about the minimum wage. First, it is a poverty wage. Second, it affects women far more than men. About 62% of those making the minimum wage ($7.25 an hour) are women, and many of them are single parents trying to support a family. Currently about 5.4% of working women make at or below the minimum wage, and 3.3% of irking men make at or below the minimum wage. That's about 2.1 million women and 1.2 million men, for a total of 3.3 million Americans making at or below the minimum wage.

That would be bad enough, but it really is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many millions of workers that earn just slightly above the minimum wage -- like those striking fast food workers (where the average wage is about $8.94 an hour). That's still a poverty wage, even though it's above the pitiful minimum wage. And the situation is not getting any better. Most of the good-paying jobs lost in the recession are being replaced by low-wage jobs (making at or slightly above the minimum wage -- with few or no benefits). It is estimated that by 2020 (just six years from now), about 25% of the American workforce will be in these low-wage jobs (about one out of every four workers).

The Republicans, who have successfully blocked a raise in the minimum wage so far, want you to think $10.10 an hour is an enormous wage that employers could not afford. That is a lie. Employers could afford to pay it, and they would still be getting a labor bargain -- because it only amounts to about $21,000 a year (less than half of the national median wage).

They will also tell you that raising the minimum wage will stifle economic growth. That is another lie. Those making $10.10 an hour will just be making a barely livable wage, and they will need to spend that money (on food, clothing, shelter, transpiration, and other necessities). That new spending will boost the economy by increasing sales (and profits) for both large and small businesses, and that will help create even more jobs. The truth is that raising the minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour would be the best single thing this country could do to get the economy moving again.

And it would have a good side effect for taxpayers -- by reducing the need for government social programs (like food stamps). This would cut government spending and reduce the budget deficit -- and it would do it without hurting needy Americans. In short, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would be good for everyone -- workers, businesses, taxpayers, and the government. It needs to be done -- sooner rather than later.

Fast Food Costs You More Than You Think

(The image above was found at the website eslpod.com.)

The Republicans would like for all of us to think that those receiving help from government programs are lazy and undeserving of that help. But that is not even close to the truth. About 73% of those enrolled in public benefits programs in the U.S. are from working families -- that's nearly 3 out of every 4 people. These people work hard, and do work that is not only necessary, but work that many who are advantaged by that work would not do themselves. The problem is not that they are lazy (because they aren't). The problem is that they just aren't being paid a livable wage for their hard work.

And one of the primary industries benefitting from vastly underpaying their employees is the fast food industry. Most workers in fast food restaurants are paid at or near minimum wage. More than half of the families of fast food workers are enrolled in government benefit programs -- and that includes more than half of the families of fast food workers who work full-time.

Many of us eat at fast food joints (at least every now and then) because the food is cheap and tastes good. But that is really an illusion. We are paying a lot more for that "cheap" food than most of us realize. That's because the owners of those fast food joints (especially the corporations) are passing on their costs to taxpayers -- costs they should be bearing themselves. By refusing to pay their workers a decent livable wage, those corporations are forcing taxpayers to bear a substantial part of those costs through government benefit programs their workers need just to adequately support their families.

The families of fast food workers receive about $7 billion dollars in public assistance every year -- including $3.9 billion for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, more than a billion dollars in food stamps, and about two billion dollars in Earned Income Tax Credit payments. This is all money the taxpayers shouldn't have to be paying, and it amounts to billions of dollars to subsidize the profits of corporations -- a subsidization that is not necessary, since it just pushes healthy profits into the range of exorbitant profits.

It doesn't have to be this way, and both parties have offered solutions. The solution of congressional Republicans is just to kick more people off public assistance -- a hard-hearted solution that doesn't take into account the needs of those hurting families, many of them with children. The solution of congressional Democrats is to raise the minimum wage to a livable level (at least $10 an hour) -- a solution that would make the fast food corporations bear their own costs of doing business, and would take many workers off of public assistance. And the crazy part is that the fast food corporations could absorb those costs fairly easily, with only minimal price raises.

It comes down to a choice. Do you want to pay a few pennies more when you buy fast food, or do you want billions of your tax dollars going to subsidize the profits of corporations. You pay either way, but making the corporations bear their own production costs makes a lot more sense (and it doesn't punish those who don't eat fast food).

Everyone who works hard for a living should be paid a decent and livable wage -- and the taxpayers shouldn't have to be responsible for paying part of that wage through government subsidies to the rich owners.

Americans And Fast Food

For years now some people have been trying to convince Americans to stop eating fast food, saying it is just not good for you. The middle chart above might make one think that the message is getting through. It shows that only about 22% of Americans think fast food is good for you, while a whopping 76% say it is either not too good or not good at all.

But whatever people may think of the health value of fast food, it doesn't look like people are ready to give it up. About 47% of Americans eat fast food at least once a week, and if you include those who say they eat it a couple of times a month, that figures jumps up to 80%. Only 4% of the population say they never eat fast food. And if you look at the top chart, you can see that fast food eating habits have changed very little over the past decade. If the message is getting through, it is being ignored.

The bottom chart shows the percentage of various groups eating fast food at least once a week. It didn't surprise me that the older people get, the less fast food they eat. But it doesn't drop all that much. Even 41% of those over 65 will eat fast food at least once a week. The only real surprise was the difference between people of different incomes. The general myth is that poorer people eat more fast food than people with a substantial income. The poll shows that the opposite is true -- only 39%-42% of those making less than $30,000 a year eat fast food weekly, while more than 50% of those making over $30,000 eat it weekly.

I have to admit that I love fast food. But my family doesn't eat it as much as we used to -- mainly because of economic rather than health reasons (only about 3-4 times a month). I'm not at all sure I could do less than that. I tend to think the problem is Americans not eating in moderation -- and you can eat an unhealthy amount at home just as easily as at a fast food place.

It was not so long ago that everyone was raving about a movie where a man ate only McDonald's for an extended period of time -- and then talked about the negative effects it had on his health. But the problem to me was that he pigged-out at every meal, instead of eating moderate amounts -- and it is more likely that his eating too much hurt his health more than the food he was eating. I am not saying that eating fast food every day is a good diet. It probably isn't. But eating in moderation, whether eating fast food or home cooking, will go a long way toward being healthy.

Anyway, it doesn't look like Americans are going to be giving up their fast foods anytime soon.

The charts above were made from a recent Gallup Poll ( conducted between July 10th and 14th of a nationwide sample of 2,027 adults --with a margin of error of 3 points).

The "Nanny State" Strikes Again

The "Nanny State" is alive and well in Los Angeles. The city council has decided that poor people in that city are too stupid to make their own choices, so they're going to force them to make the right choices. After all, the city council members are so much smarter than poor people.

In their infinite wisdom, the council has decided that poor people in Los Angeles are too fat. To remedy this situation, they have banned the opening of any new fast food restaurants in an impoverished part of the city for at least one year. They say it's to give the area time to attract healthier food outlets.

This is just stupid. When did it become the government's job to force people to eat "healthier"? What happened to freedom of choice? Of course, by banning the fast food joints, they are also banning the new jobs they would bring to the area. It would seem to me that jobs are exactly what is needed in a poverty-stricken part of town.

I don't have any problem with the government or any private group trying to educate the public on how to live a healthier lifestyle (or anything else). That is just free speech. But when actions are banned by the government, that is just wrong. In a free country, people should be able to make their own choices, even if those choices are not good ones.

It's ignorant and elitist thinking like this that makes me glad I don't live in Los Angeles.