Yes, what I see wrong is your analysis.<quoted text>
.. yes, as taxpayers, we subsidize the income of fast-food workers instead of insisting employers pay them a living wage and pass it on to the consumer ..
.. if you go to a dine-in restaurant and order a burger, you probably tip the server. Yes,(s)he's making minimum wage but when you add gratuity, you're paying the true price ..
.. to reduce product cost, fast-food restaurants do not factor in the true value of service. This business model generates profit and demeans the worth of an employee. If anything, it is the ultimate elitist attitude ..
.. if fast-food restaurants paid their employees a livable wage, your burger would cost an additional $1.00. Instead, workers must depend on government handouts to survive ..
.. for me, the picture is wrong. Along with demeaning the value of service people by forcing them to apply for charity, it places an unnecessary tax burden on everyone ..
.. who benefits? The person who likes Big Macs and is too lazy to cook a nutritional meal? How about the restaurant owner? Can't you see anything wrong with the picture ??..
Fast food workers earning minimum wage are mostly just entering the workforce and working part time.
If you raise the minimum wage, you will eliminate a percentage of their jobs. Then they will be more reliant on government.
They must have wanted the jobs, since they applied and took them.
A high percentage of McDonalds managers began in part-time, minimum wage jobs.
How taxpayers are forced to deal with this is not done by the McDonalds management or the market. The subsidizing is created by the government.
These employees are better off having this minimum wage job than not having it, and so are the taxpayers.
Utopian economics has been tried over and over. The results are not promising.