Fast Food Workers Stage Strike, Demand Higher Minimal Wage.

[Gauthier]

.



No one has really mentioned how this could affect "Mom and Pop Shops", which usually have better food. While big fast food chains, like Taco Bell or McDonalds, can afford to pay their employees more, most small restaurants may not be able to afford an increase in worker wages.

I would like to see minimal wage increased but I am concerned how this might affect family owned businesses.

Gosh, what did we do back in the 60's?

No McDonalds, no sub shops or delis, no Chinese restaurants, no pizzarias. It's amazing that any of us managed to eat at all...

It must have been horrible back then.

<thinks back, remembers>

Oh, wait. It wasn't. Hell, we even had Big Macs. They cost 45¢ at a time when the minimum wage was $1.60.

What's interesting is that — as I stated earlier — if we adjusted both that minimum wage and the price of a Big Mac for inflation, workers at McDonald's would be earning $10.59/hour — and the Big Mac would cost $2.69.

Instead, workers at McDonald's are earning $7.25/hr, and Big Macs cost an average of $4.20.

What does that tell you?

That too many people confuse Atlas Shrugged for actual business primers?

[Warda]

I demand my pretty graph get at least one qoute.

[Alien Space Bats]

Well, today's businessmen don't have the advantage of no other country being industrialized and everyone having to rely on US products if they weren't ComBloc second worlders.

Right. Because Europe and Japan were still in ruins in 1968.

Oh, wait...

Besides, what in the fuck does foreign competition have to do with fast food? Are you telling me that burger joints here in America have to compete against burger joints in Brazil, China, India, or Vietnam? Are you trying to tell em that if McDonalds pays its workers too much, some foreign firm is going to import freshly cooked fast food from the other side of the planet?

Let me know how that works out.

[Alien Space Bats]

Just off the top of my head it tells me price of materials has risen faster than inflation, which, judging by the number of countries that have begun industrializing and urbanizing and doing all the other fun -izings there are makes sense.

Hamburger was 59¢/lb in 1969.

Adjusting for inflation, that would be $3.75/lb today. Today, lean hamburger costs around $3.50/lb (and sometimes less).

Back in 1969, McDonald's didn't use the lean stuff; they used 70/30, which can be had for as little as $1.50/lb today.

<pause>

You were saying..?

[Zavea]

Just off the top of my head it tells me price of materials has risen faster than inflation, which, judging by the number of countries that have begun industrializing and urbanizing and doing all the other fun -izings there are makes sense.

Hamburger was 59¢/lb in 1969.

Adjusting for inflation, that would be $3.75/lb today. Today, lean hamburger costs around $3.50/lb (and sometimes less).

Back in 1969, McDonald's didn't use the lean stuff; they used 70/30, which can be had for as little as $1.50/lb today.

<pause>

You were saying..?

my ongoing blood sacrifice ritual to the free market fairy should produce an answer to your argument by the next full moon, when the spirit of ayn rand is at its strongest in the netherworld

[Sucrati]

The purpose behind the higher costs is due to the attempts to have healthier options and leaner meats to please the anti-fat crusaders. Costs are going to go up with the employer mandate kicking in 2015. Many don't realize that the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, it was meant to knock out competition by those willing to be paid less for their work (1920's or so).

So unless they are willing to fix their food at 5 star restaurant quality while at the same time providing the same sort of service for 15 dollars an hour, I'm going to have to disagree with their protests. If they can't survive on 7.25 an hour, I would suggest they protest the costs of living in their respective areas and said taxes in said area. Cost of living may be horrible in NYC and other large cities, so I have some understanding with what they're saying, but the overall issue is the cost of living, not the actual wage they earn. Raising costs to supplement their raised wages would drive people away or force companies to cut more employees. What about the people who can't leave the city to get fresh food and have to continue eating at fast food establishments? Grocery stores aren't widely available and it's hard to set up shop due to the massive amount of red tape and lack of overall space.

Just saying.

[Neutraligon]

The purpose behind the higher costs is due to the attempts to have healthier options and leaner meats to please the anti-fat crusaders. Costs are going to go up with the employer mandate kicking in 2015. Many don't realize that the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, it was meant to knock out competition by those willing to be paid less for their work (1920's or so).

So unless they are willing to fix their food at 5 star restaurant quality while at the same time providing the same sort of service for 15 dollars an hour, I'm going to have to disagree with their protests. If they can't survive on 7.25 an hour, I would suggest they protest the costs of living in their respective areas and said taxes in said area. Cost of living may be horrible in NYC and other large cities, so I have some understanding with what they're saying, but the overall issue is the cost of living, not the actual wage they earn. Raising costs to supplement their raised wages would drive people away or force companies to cut more employees. What about the people who can't leave the city to get fresh food and have to continue eating at fast food establishments? Grocery stores aren't widely available and it's hard to set up shop due to the massive amount of red tape and lack of overall space.

Just saying.

You think protesting the cost of living will be as effective as protesting wages?

[Sucrati]

The purpose behind the higher costs is due to the attempts to have healthier options and leaner meats to please the anti-fat crusaders. Costs are going to go up with the employer mandate kicking in 2015. Many don't realize that the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, it was meant to knock out competition by those willing to be paid less for their work (1920's or so).

So unless they are willing to fix their food at 5 star restaurant quality while at the same time providing the same sort of service for 15 dollars an hour, I'm going to have to disagree with their protests. If they can't survive on 7.25 an hour, I would suggest they protest the costs of living in their respective areas and said taxes in said area. Cost of living may be horrible in NYC and other large cities, so I have some understanding with what they're saying, but the overall issue is the cost of living, not the actual wage they earn. Raising costs to supplement their raised wages would drive people away or force companies to cut more employees. What about the people who can't leave the city to get fresh food and have to continue eating at fast food establishments? Grocery stores aren't widely available and it's hard to set up shop due to the massive amount of red tape and lack of overall space.

Just saying.

You think protesting the cost of living will be as effective as protesting wages?

It depends, because cost of living goes up regardless of wage increases. It's policies that effect the overall cost of living in the city and the amount of money spent per year (with the taxes going up to supplement the extra spending). You raise can wages, while it may be a short term solution, the cost of living for those who got the wage increase and everyone else around them will go up to supplement the wage increase. It doesn't help that our government on many levels has horrible fiscal responsibility or policies. Wage increases will increase the cost of living overall, but the rise of the cost of living isn't solely dependent on the wage increase. It can be raised by a variety of factors. They can't survive on the minimum wage because of the cost of living. You lower the overall cost of living (not through the government doing it, because that won't work in the long term), you lower the need for higher wages and higher costs associated with raising the wage.

[Alien Space Bats]

The purpose behind the higher costs is due to the attempts to have healthier options and leaner meats to please the anti-fat crusaders. Costs are going to go up with the employer mandate kicking in 2015. Many don't realize that the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, it was meant to knock out competition by those willing to be paid less for their work (1920's or so).

So unless they are willing to fix their food at 5 star restaurant quality while at the same time providing the same sort of service for 15 dollars an hour, I'm going to have to disagree with their protests. If they can't survive on 7.25 an hour, I would suggest they protest the costs of living in their respective areas and said taxes in said area. Cost of living may be horrible in NYC and other large cities, so I have some understanding with what they're saying, but the overall issue is the cost of living, not the actual wage they earn. Raising costs to supplement their raised wages would drive people away or force companies to cut more employees. What about the people who can't leave the city to get fresh food and have to continue eating at fast food establishments? Grocery stores aren't widely available and it's hard to set up shop due to the massive amount of red tape and lack of overall space.

Just saying.

There's just one problem.

Prices don't work that way.

Specifically, prices don't relate to costs in the way most people think they do.

Lawrence O'Donnell covered this nicely on his program tonight.

O’Donnell listed the price of Big Macs in various cities around the country: “In Albany, New York, where the minimum wage is $7.25, a Big Mac costs $3.99. In Riverside, California, a Big Mac also costs $3.99, but the California minimum wage is 75 cents higher.” He noted San Francisco’s higher minimum wage at $10.55, adding “McDonald’s still wants to do business there.”

In fact the price of a Big Mac in New York City is $4.69 — the same price, in fact, as it is in San Francisco.

The thing is, minimum wage is $7.25/hr in New York City.

It's $10.55/hr in San Francisco.

So how can that be?

Answer: Prices depend more on demand than anything else; after that, the cost of the real estate on which the store sits is a larger factor in determining the price of the food sold there than is labor cost.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, those McDonald's franchise in San Francisco are doing just fine, thank you.

What most people think they know about economics is generally not true.

[Neutraligon]

You think protesting the cost of living will be as effective as protesting wages?

It depends, because cost of living goes up regardless of wage increases. It's policies that effect the overall cost of living in the city and the amount of money spent per year (with the taxes going up to supplement the extra spending). You raise can wages, while it may be a short term solution, the cost of living for those who got the wage increase and everyone else around them will go up to supplement the wage increase. It doesn't help that our government on many levels has horrible fiscal responsibility or policies. Wage increases will increase the cost of living overall, but the rise of the cost of living isn't solely dependent on the wage increase. It can be raised by a variety of factors. They can't survive on the minimum wage because of the cost of living. You lower the overall cost of living (not through the government doing it, because that won't work in the long term), you lower the need for higher wages and higher costs associated with raising the wage.

And how will they be able to lower the cost of living? That is what I am asking. These workers can affect very easily the wages they get by protesting, but how can they actually affect the cost of living in an area?

[The Black Forrest]

The purpose behind the higher costs is due to the attempts to have healthier options and leaner meats to please the anti-fat crusaders. Costs are going to go up with the employer mandate kicking in 2015. Many don't realize that the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, it was meant to knock out competition by those willing to be paid less for their work (1920's or so).

So unless they are willing to fix their food at 5 star restaurant quality while at the same time providing the same sort of service for 15 dollars an hour, I'm going to have to disagree with their protests. If they can't survive on 7.25 an hour, I would suggest they protest the costs of living in their respective areas and said taxes in said area. Cost of living may be horrible in NYC and other large cities, so I have some understanding with what they're saying, but the overall issue is the cost of living, not the actual wage they earn. Raising costs to supplement their raised wages would drive people away or force companies to cut more employees. What about the people who can't leave the city to get fresh food and have to continue eating at fast food establishments? Grocery stores aren't widely available and it's hard to set up shop due to the massive amount of red tape and lack of overall space.

Just saying.

There's just one problem.

Prices don't work that way.

Specifically, prices don't relate to costs in the way most people think they do.

Lawrence O'Donnell covered this nicely on his program tonight.

O’Donnell listed the price of Big Macs in various cities around the country: “In Albany, New York, where the minimum wage is $7.25, a Big Mac costs $3.99. In Riverside, California, a Big Mac also costs $3.99, but the California minimum wage is 75 cents higher.” He noted San Francisco’s higher minimum wage at $10.55, adding “McDonald’s still wants to do business there.”

In fact the price of a Big Mac in New York City is $4.69 — the same price, in fact, as it is in San Francisco.

The thing is, minimum wage is $7.25/hr in New York City.

It's $10.55/hr in San Francisco.

So how can that be?

Answer: Prices depend more on demand than anything else; after that, the cost of the real estate on which the store sits is a larger factor in determining the price of the food sold there than is labor cost.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, those McDonald's franchise in San Francisco are doing just fine, thank you.

What most people think they know about economics is generally not true.

Indeed.

Tangent: I had a step-father who worked at a McD. He said they made more selling Fries then they did burgers. That was back in the day before it became mystery meat.

[Ifreann]

They don't seem to get the point across.

That's how we know that you haven't dealt with negotiations before.

Seriously, I learned this when I was, like 13 and being taught about unions and industrial action. How are so many people not getting it?

[Genivaria]

That's how we know that you haven't dealt with negotiations before.

Seriously, I learned this when I was, like 13 and being taught about unions and industrial action. How are so many people not getting it?

I don't recall unions ever being discussed in my history classes.

[Forster Keys]

Seriously, I learned this when I was, like 13 and being taught about unions and industrial action. How are so many people not getting it?

I don't recall unions ever being discussed in my history classes.

That's because they're the spawn of Satan.

[The Flood]

Minimum wage is only $7.50 in the US?

That's terrible. In the Canadian provinces with the lowest minimum wage, it's like $9.50, and it's more then 10 in most of them.

Um, $9.75 is the lowest, located in Alberta (though this September, it will be raised to $9.95), followed by $10 in New Brunswick, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, and Prince Edward Island, $10.15 in Quebec, $10.25 in Ontario and British Columbia, $10.30 in Nova Scotia, $10.55 in Yukon (okay, $10.54, but I'm rounding), and $11.00 in Nunavut.

But we're not done yet.

If you work for less than 3 months in Nova Scotia, you earn a minimum of $9.65 per hour. In British Columbia, you earn $9.00 if you serve liquor, per hour. Manitoba has a higher starting wage for construction workers, and in Ontario, a can of worms emerge because of complications.

In Ontario, students (under age 18, working 28 hours or under per week while school is in session or work when there is a school break) have a minimum wage $9.60 per hour. Liquor servers in Ontario have a minimum of $8.90 per hour, and homeworkers (including students) have $11.30 ($11.28, really) as their minimum wage.

In Quebec, if you get gratuities, your minimum wage is $8.75. Lastly, in Alberta, you get $9.05 if you work as a liquor server.

Why on Earth do you get payed below minimum wage if you are a liquor server? How is that fair?

[Luziyca]

Um, $9.75 is the lowest, located in Alberta (though this September, it will be raised to $9.95), followed by $10 in New Brunswick, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, and Prince Edward Island, $10.15 in Quebec, $10.25 in Ontario and British Columbia, $10.30 in Nova Scotia, $10.55 in Yukon (okay, $10.54, but I'm rounding), and $11.00 in Nunavut.

But we're not done yet.

If you work for less than 3 months in Nova Scotia, you earn a minimum of $9.65 per hour. In British Columbia, you earn $9.00 if you serve liquor, per hour. Manitoba has a higher starting wage for construction workers, and in Ontario, a can of worms emerge because of complications.

In Ontario, students (under age 18, working 28 hours or under per week while school is in session or work when there is a school break) have a minimum wage $9.60 per hour. Liquor servers in Ontario have a minimum of $8.90 per hour, and homeworkers (including students) have $11.30 ($11.28, really) as their minimum wage.

In Quebec, if you get gratuities, your minimum wage is $8.75. Lastly, in Alberta, you get $9.05 if you work as a liquor server.

Why on Earth do you get payed below minimum wage if you are a liquor server? How is that fair?

That is because they happened to be the minimum wage for liquor servers.

But really, some here are saying they are not sufficient enough. *shrugs*

[Chestaan]

$7.35? That's fucking ridiculous. If a business can't afford to pay workers a decent wage then they have no right to be in business.

Would you prefer that the workers be paid poorly but still have some income, or that those same people get no income with the business they used to work at shut down? Those are the only viable courses of action businesses with narrow profit margins can take.

If a a company cannot afford to pay their workers $7.35 then they are clearly incredibly inefficient. But something tells me that it's not inefficiency and it's simply plain old greed which is stopping the company from paying their workers a decent wage.

$7.35 is far too low for a minimum wage. It must be raised. While this may lead to a small loss of jobs in the short term the benefits, especially in the long term where poorer workers aren't treated like shit, will far outweigh any job losses.

[New Chalcedon]

Fast Food Workers Stage Strike, Demand Higher Minimal Wage.


http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2597799
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-76836322/
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3670438

I just saw these articles claiming fast food workers are/have/will stage a massive walkout protesting the 7.35 minimal wage. They demand a $15 an hour minimal wage, which is a massive increase, being able to unionize without consequences and better working conditions.

Fortunately, I never had to work Fast Food in High School and College, though my job didn't pay too much better. Also I don't eat Fast Food anymore. I do feel for those who do have to work fast food but I believe $15 is too high, especially when a good percentage of Fast Food workers are high school age. If minimal wage does get increased to $15 an hour then, more than likely, goods and services will increase as well. This increase in minimal wage will affect those who make above minimal wage as their wages are not increasing but the price of living is.

Bullshit. If their total labor costs doubled tomorrow, (which will not happen, no matter who wants what), the price of a Big Mac would go up by at most a whopping one-third, as that's the present cost of labour today for Mickey Dee's. And this is, I may add, a pattern that's replicated in virtually every industry making extensive use of minimum-wage workers: labour costs are smaller as a portion of their cost structure than is the case with the economy as a whole.

Well, clutch your pearls, Martha! The inflationistas are coming - it'll cost us another $1.28 to send Jeeves to get a Big Mac! Now, the only way that the prices will go up by even that much is if every single McDonalds employee is on minimum wage....in which case, I may note that the taxpayer already subsidises their low labour costs. Now I don't know about you, but if I were an American, and I heard that my tax money went to subsidise low labour costs so that McDonalds shareholders could enjoy extra dividends - even as the Government complains about lack of money and shuts whole social programs down - then I'd be in the streets with a pitchfork and a torch.

Not to mention, this will give gas companies an excuse to raise prices as now they have to pay workers more, or so they will claim.

In case you haven't noticed, they don't need an excuse - they hike prices on a whim. And on the (rare) occasions they bother even mumbling one, it's along the lines of "Middle East...mumble, mumble...unrest...mumble, mumble...increased costs...mumble, mumble...risk factors...mumble, mumble...pay up."

NSG, what are your opinions? Do you think the USA can handle a minimal wage increase to $15 an hour? While I would like to see minimal wage increase, $15 an hour is too much.

The real value of the minimum wage, in 2013 dollars, peaked in 1968 at $10.70. The present Federal minimum wage is $7.25, a full thirty percent below that level. Could the economy support a $15.00/hour minimum wage? Perhaps, perhaps not - but it can support a living minimum wage of ~$10-$11/hour, particularly as only 4.7% of all workers are on minimum or subminimum wages. Now, try mentioning to a Republican politician - any Republican politician - that you want to increase the minimum wage to $10/hour.

The sound of their screaming "SOCIALISM!!!!!!" in unison would echo off the Moon.

$7.35? That's fucking ridiculous. If a business can't afford to pay workers a decent wage then they have no right to be in business.

Would you prefer that the workers be paid poorly but still have some income, or that those same people get no income with the business they used to work at shut down? Those are the only viable courses of action businesses with narrow profit margins can take.

Bullshit. Corporate profits, relative to the size of the economy, are at an all-time high in the USA.

You're not going to persuade me that these poor, hard-done-by GIANT FAST-FOOD CHAINS are going to have to shut down because they actually have to pay a livable wage to the schmucks who work there. Particularly as McDonalds in particular is posting all-time record profits!

"Daaahling, we can't increase the minimum wage....how will hubby buy that third island in the Caymans this year?!"

[Freiheit Reich]

Hard to support them when they are obviously eating quite well.

http://media.philly.com/images/072913-f ... strike.jpg

I made around $6-7 per hour in the army (we were salary but when I added the extra hours working, included the forced GI cleaning parties and mandatory PT-physical training, the pay per hour is bad).

Fast food work is better than the army. I did both and I missed my McDonald's job when compared to the army. At McDonald's, the managers were nicer, the food usually tasted better (and at night I often could eat free when we closed), and the teamwork was better (less fighting among co-workers and the co-workers acted less gangster despite having high diversity). Also, at McDonald's, we had AC! Try working outside in a Georgia parking lot (army job) in August, it sucks.

These workers are lazy and greedy. If they hate the job, they can quit. I would fire them all if they didn't show up to work on time due to the strike.

[Divair]

Seriously, I learned this when I was, like 13 and being taught about unions and industrial action. How are so many people not getting it?

I don't recall unions ever being discussed in my history classes.

Really? We went over it as early as middle school. Read the Jungle and all.

[Ifreann]

Seriously, I learned this when I was, like 13 and being taught about unions and industrial action. How are so many people not getting it?

I don't recall unions ever being discussed in my history classes.

It would have been business studies. Probably civic, social and political education too.

[Gauthier]

Hard to support them when they are obviously eating quite well.

http://media.philly.com/images/072913-f ... strike.jpg

That's clearly not a racist slant you're putting, and let's pretend that the most inexpensive comestibles typically affordable for the working poor aren't processed food products that are high in healthy substances like salt, sugar and fat.

I made around $6-7 per hour in the army (we were salary but when I added the extra hours working, included the forced GI cleaning parties and mandatory PT-physical training, the pay per hour is bad).

Fast food work is better than the army. I did both and I missed my McDonald's job when compared to the army. At McDonald's, the managers were nicer, the food usually tasted better (and at night I often could eat free when we closed), and the teamwork was better (less fighting among co-workers and the co-workers acted less gangster despite having high diversity). Also, at McDonald's, we had AC! Try working outside in a Georgia parking lot (army job) in August, it sucks.

These workers are lazy and greedy. If they hate the job, they can quit. I would fire them all if they didn't show up to work on time due to the strike.

Because clearly fast food workers should be prepared to endure harsh physical conditions and fight or possibly die for their country.

Also, unless you're really fucking up, a Private is open to promotion and an increase in pay with a much better chance than a typical fast food worker has of advancing his or her wages.

And obviously the Army is suffering from a malnutrition epidemic.

[New Chalcedon]

Hard to support them when they are obviously eating quite well.

http://media.philly.com/images/072913-f ... strike.jpg

That's clearly not a racist slant you're putting, and let's pretend that the most inexpensive comestibles typically affordable for the working poor aren't processed food products that are high in healthy substances like salt, sugar and fat.

I made around $6-7 per hour in the army (we were salary but when I added the extra hours working, included the forced GI cleaning parties and mandatory PT-physical training, the pay per hour is bad).

Fast food work is better than the army. I did both and I missed my McDonald's job when compared to the army. At McDonald's, the managers were nicer, the food usually tasted better (and at night I often could eat free when we closed), and the teamwork was better (less fighting among co-workers and the co-workers acted less gangster despite having high diversity). Also, at McDonald's, we had AC! Try working outside in a Georgia parking lot (army job) in August, it sucks.

These workers are lazy and greedy. If they hate the job, they can quit. I would fire them all if they didn't show up to work on time due to the strike.

Because clearly fast food workers should be prepared to endure harsh physical conditions and fight or possibly die for their country.

Also, unless you're really fucking up, a Private is open to promotion and an increase in pay with a much better chance than a typical fast food worker has of advancing his or her wages.

And obviously the Army is suffering from a malnutrition epidemic.

Not, of course, to mention the during- and post-service side benefits of serving in the Army: healthcare, GI Bill education, etc. etc. etc.

[Jamzmania]

This is capitalism at work. Workers don't like pay and/or working conditions, they go on strike.

[Freiheit Reich]

Hard to support them when they are obviously eating quite well.

http://media.philly.com/images/072913-f ... strike.jpg

That's clearly not a racist slant you're putting, and let's pretend that the most inexpensive comestibles typically affordable for the working poor aren't processed food products that are high in healthy substances like salt, sugar and fat.

I made around $6-7 per hour in the army (we were salary but when I added the extra hours working, included the forced GI cleaning parties and mandatory PT-physical training, the pay per hour is bad).

Fast food work is better than the army. I did both and I missed my McDonald's job when compared to the army. At McDonald's, the managers were nicer, the food usually tasted better (and at night I often could eat free when we closed), and the teamwork was better (less fighting among co-workers and the co-workers acted less gangster despite having high diversity). Also, at McDonald's, we had AC! Try working outside in a Georgia parking lot (army job) in August, it sucks.

These workers are lazy and greedy. If they hate the job, they can quit. I would fire them all if they didn't show up to work on time due to the strike.

Because clearly fast food workers should be prepared to endure harsh physical conditions and fight or possibly die for their country.

Also, unless you're really fucking up, a Private is open to promotion and an increase in pay with a much better chance than a typical fast food worker has of advancing his or her wages.

And obviously the Army is suffering from a malnutrition epidemic.

Oh, did I just see a race card being pulled? Tell me how the photo is racist? She chose to be fat, anybody that has her BMI is unattractive, I don't care what color of skin he/she has.

I had a very frugal diet and it was also very healthy. Turkey/chicken, oatmeal, onions, some milk, some OJ, some eggs, bananas, beans, rice, and tomatoes. My diet was low fat and cheap. I hate when liberals say eating healthy is expensive. My diet was a bit boring, I was limited and skipped many healthy foods I wanted due to price (such as asparagus, berries, and healthy dried cereals) but many other healthy foods are cheap.

Price per pound, junk food is often expensive. Potato chips and pork rinds are tasty but the price per pound is high and a reason I don't eat them. Soda has no nutrition benefits so I considered it wasteful spending and drank cheap coffee or cheap tea (1 penny per bag) instead. Sugary cereals are also high in price/pound. Fast food is also not cheap. I can buy 5 pounds of oats for a cheaper price than 1 fast food meal. The 5 pounds of oats will make many breakfast meals.

Fast food workers should not be paid more than soldiers. They are asking to be paid more which seems unfair.

I left the army at a E-4 rank. The army paid around $1600-1700 a month for that rank when I left. It paid $500 per month bonus if you were in Iraq though. The army had a 0630-1700 day and many days we had 2 hour GI parties from 1800-1900 or 2000. I suppose if I don't count meal breaks as work time and ignore time deployed (since most of my time there I was not deployed and my unit did not have many field exercises) we can say that pay was $10 per hour at my highest rank. This is still way less than what the fast food workers are asking for.

That lady eats too much food. She needs to learn to eat less food. Why is it so hard to do something LESS?! She needs to stop eating fries and drinking soda at work, the McDonald's I worked at gave free soda to workers. They also gave free water. She can drink water instead. She can grab carrots (also very cheap) and oatmeal for her meals. Not hard.

She can also work at McDonald's in Indianapolis instead of NYC and stretch her money further. She chooses to live in an overpriced city, don't feel sorry for her.