Minimum Wage Protesters Show Up Early Morning at McDonald's Annual Shareholder's Meeting

Last night, 138 people were arrested on trespassing charges after an estimated 1,000 to 1,500 protesters reportedly stormed the McDonald's campus in Oak Brook, Illinois. Bloomberg News estimates 2,000 protesters, identifying 354 as McDonald's workers, who came on 32 buses. A McDonald's spokesperson called it a "very much staged event." The protesters were joined by the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which has been providing financial support for a series of protests seeking a higher minimum wage.  Protesters arrived again this morning for the annual McDonald's shareholder meeting in Chicago, though they left by bus by 8:30 a.m., according to the Chicago Tribune, which pointed to the "Fight for $15" group as one of the protest organizers.

Labor and other associated left-leaning groups have been targeting McDonald's to hike its wages and pushing for a hike in local, state, and federal minimum wages. They say the median wage of a McDonald's employee is $8.94 an hour, pointing to a number from the labor advocacy group National Employment Law Project. That's higher than the current federal minimum wage, $7.25 an hour, although President Obama has proposed a $10.10 federal minimum wage and as USA Today noted last week, four states have raised the minimum wage to that level already, and some cities are looking to push it even higher. The minimum wage is shaping up to be an issue Democrats want to run on in 2014.

Proponents of a minimum wage hike insist it won't squeeze low wage workers out of a job and say they are pushing for it to help such workers, some of the donors appear to know better. The Washington Examiner's Tim Carney noted earlier this month that Panera CEO Ron Shaich, an Obama donor and proponent of a higher statutory minimum wage, is also deploying touchscreens at his restaurants. As Ira Stoll explained earlier this week, it's how raising the minimum wage destroys jobs.  As labor costs look to be increasing, McDonald's could be heading in that direction too; it has deployed thousands of touchscreen kiosks in restaurants in Europe earlier this month.

Last year, Nick Gillespie put the SEIU's push for higher fast food wages in perspective:

The push to hike fast-food wages is indicative not of a brutal new economy but of a labor movement that is not only disconnected from reality but also almost completely devoid of vision. Remember in the late 1980s and early 1990s when soothsayers were bitching and moaning about "McJobs" and the perils of becoming a "nation of burger flippers"? Back then, Big Labor was convinced that the North American Free Trade Agreement would export all but the most servile tasks down Mexico way (they were way, way wrong about that, by the way). Nowadays, the SEIU and other groups seem to see flipping burgers as positively aspirational.

It needn't be. While there is nothing wrong with any job, the simple fact is that nobody is going to get rich—or even comfortably middle class—if his or her main gig is punching the buttons at a McCafe. The skills necessary to work there are simply not that advanced to increase wages exponentially and the entire economy of fast food is based on keeping prices—and by extension, wages—relatively low.

Rather than focus on fast food, it would be smarter to focus where the jobs—and wages—are. There's something on the order of 3.7 million openings (about the size of the entire minimum wage workforce) in various trades ranging from construction to carpentry to ++electrical to welding. These are jobs that are not only in high demand but pay relatively high wages, often around the median household income of $51,000. Mike Rowe, the former host of the cable show Dirty Jobs, makes a compelling case that these are exactly the sort of gigs that can secure people steady work that allows for advancement and serious benefits. Freeing low wage workers by providing them such opportunities, however, would put a dent in the business opportunities in professional protesting labor groups enjoy.

Comments

[Calvin Coolidge]

So, over 80% of the protesters were SEIU members being paid by the union to attend. Given the constant complaint on the left that all opposition to government mandates is financed by the Koch brothers, it is good to see that the astroturf is still greener on the other side of the fence.

What is so striking about the timing of this initiative, and the corresponding denial that raising the price of something reduces the demand for it, is that the technology that will replace $15/hour cashiers is right in front of them. McDonald's is already experimenting with automated order taking technology in the EU (where wages and benefits, presumably, are even more out of line with actual productivity). I can't imagine going in to work at a restauraunt, seeing the tablet on each table that can replace you, and thinking "now is the time to demand a 50% raise!".

[Sevo]

"McDonald's is already experimenting with automated order taking technology in the EU (where wages and benefits, presumably, are even more out of line with actual productivity)."

Assuming the timing is such that the threat is sufficient to cause the change-over before the unemployment act gets passed, it'll be blamed on something other than the unemployment act.

[Calvin Coolidge]

It is all a matter of choosing the right endpoints, just like for ACA budget scoring.

"Well, raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $4.50, when the market wage was already over $7, didn't cause very many people to lose their jobs, so obviously doubling the minimum will have a similarly muted effect on employment!"

[Sevo]

Every one of the "studies" that claim no effect are couched in 'isn't this surprising!' language.
Well, yes it is surprising. Surprising enough to make me think you've cherry-picked the data enough to confirm your bias.
Labor is a good; raising the price of a good without raising its value will cause a fall in demand. Period.

[Calvin Coolidge]

All you need to do is pick a state with a high cost of living (say, New Jersey) and a below-market minimum wage and, viola!, mimimal impact.

[american socialist]

I don 't have any proof of this, but because I deem it it doth be true . Nice Reasoning drone.

[Sevo]

american socialist|5.22.14 @ 5:30PM|#
"I don 't have any proof of this, but because I deem it it doth be true . Nice Reasoning drone."

Oh, look! Commie guy's back to spread more bullshit!

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Or maybe he read the literature which showed just how poor the evidence in favor of raising the minimum wage truly is.

I know. I know. NOT FAIR! NOT FAIR!

[Corning]

I don 't have any proof of this, but because I deem it it doth be true .

No proof rising prices dampens demand?

Are you serious?

[Bill]

Directive 10-289 will prevent them from installing genocidal computer kiosks.

[Calvin Coolidge]

And, yet, at the same time will provide for full funding for Federal Suicide Booths on every corner.

For the sake of the children, of course, who will no longer be on the hook for the customer's Social Security benefits.

[JohnD]

Never underestimate the ignorance of the left.

[JohnD]

Never underestimate the ignorance of the left.

[Sevo]

Notice none of the people employed by Micky D's are striking.

[Calvin Coolidge]

I worked at Swarthmore College in the 1990s, at a time that the students had taken up the cause of raising wages for migrant farm workers. The student paper had a picture of the rally. They were even able to dig up an actual migrant farm worker who was willing to attend. In the picture on the front page of the student paper, the poor guy looked confused and lost, surrounded by trust fund kids

[SMcBride]

$10 or $15 isn't livable, though. How about $30 or $40? $40 will multiply all the proposed benefits from raising the minimum wage. Wait, that will result in massive unemployment. But $15 won't, because graphs and charts and reasons.

[exchef100]

How about instead of focusing on increasing minimum wage, they start focusing on adults not being stuck with the jobs of teenagers.

McD's Corp. gets paid based on the revenues of the franchise. No matter how much or how little you pay the emlpoyees, McD's Corp. still gets paid. The small business franchisee, however, gets shafted, and hard. But I'm sure the left will tell them that their job isn't good enough anyway.

Raising minimum wage is the left's way of sticking it to eeeeevil greeeedy corporations but in reality, does nothing of the sort.

[Rufus J. Firefly]

My personal favorite is when leftists tell business owners who are skeptical of such moves - or dare complain - they're actually bad business people who don't know how to run their business if they can't handle a pay increase.

The hurt and arrogance of their ignorance is profound to the point of dire depression.

[Sevo]

..."they're actually bad business people who don't know how to run their business if they can't handle a pay increase."

Further: 'if you can't pay X, you *should* go out of business!'
IOWs, the idjit making that statement is just fine with no job, rather one that *he* thinks doesn't pay enough.
I would be too, so long as they stopped U/E benes...

[Calvin Coolidge]

Let's not overlook the "raising the minimum will increase your profits, because more wages means more money in the economy and thus more demand for your product!"

Ask where the money comes from to pay that higher wage, and it becomes obvious that they thought the Scrooge McDuck cartoons were documentaries, and that rich people (and all owners of fast food franchises are filthy rich) keep their wealth in the form of gold coins in their swimming pool (or, alternatively, in a bag with a dollar sign on it stashed in a bank vault, with a promise that the bank will never makes loans based on that deposit).

[Curtisls87]

So, I'm sitting at my daughter's house on Mother's day, with my brother-in-law sitting next to me. He owns his own small business. Somehow the discussion of cost of living came up, and out of the blue, he threw in that he believes in a living wage. I had to stifle myself. I know damned good and well that he neither pays a living wage, nor does he provide any kind of health insurance for his employees.

This is the kind of dichotomy that I face almost daily talking with progressive types within my family. They think it's all fine and dandy to believe these things, but in practice, they never do them, themselves.

[Calvin Coolidge]

Similar to the phenomenon where they believe taxes should be raised on "the rich", with the cutoff for being rich set at "anyone who makes more money than I do".

[Curtisls87]

Yes, and to top that off, they use every trick in the book to keep from paying more taxes, themselves.

[Calvin Coolidge]

To be fair, they were the ones with the courage to say "this is so important that I am willing to have the government rob someone else to pay for it"! Do you expect them to do all the work?

[Curtisls87]

How selfish of me!

[Sevo]

"Yes, and to top that off, they use every trick in the book to keep from paying more taxes, themselves."

Warren Buffett comes to mind.

[DC_36]

Your Bro-in-law's response, actually, is completely predictable.

Why do you think so many cities/states with the biggest assholes (New York, Chicago, New Jersey, Boston, etc) are also liberal havens, and have the most overregulated, nanny-state laws?

It's because a majority of the people there don't give a damn about each other, and they know it about themselves and each other. Plus, people, including assholes, tend to project their own personality onto society - so they think that if government doesn't "do something", no one will. They think they have no moral responsibility to care about something that the government has been tasked with - "not my problem anymore". So why not lump everything to the government? Viola -They abdicate their moral responsbilities to the state. That is how they live with themselves. it doesn't work, but this is part of the reason why they'll never give up believing it does.

[exchef100]

Watch the exchange between Jay Rockefeller and Ron Johnson (I think I saw it on HotAir) and you'll get a pretty good idea of how arguments with the left go.
"If you don't support ACA, it's because you're racist."
"Actually, here's a laundry list of reasons not to support it and while I agree that the healthcare system was not perfect, ACA was the worst way to go about fixing it as it eliminates choice and freedom. I am sponsoring a number of bills written to address these limited freedoms which will hopefully go a long way in helping those who have been hurt by ACA."
"Right. So you're racist AND you hate poor people. Bush."

[JohnD]

I'm wondering why you let him get away with that lie?

[american socialist]

"As Ira Stoll explained earlier this week, it's how raising the minimum wage destroys jobs. "

He didn't explain anything of the sort. He observed that companies are using computers in an increasingly automated world and then made a hackneyed attempt to link that to minimum wage. In effect, the old excess birds cause flatulence argument.

Real research into this subject done by real scientists and not right-wing flacks shows no relationship between gradual increases in minimum wage and employment levels.

[DC_36]

"Real research" - please define.

I expect the contortions you must go through to avoid saying "those that I agree with" will be entertaining.

I think even reason did an article on the relationship a while back, and IIRC the results of the studies they showed were inconclusive - but did a good job, along with the commentariat, of showing why those studies' flaws would have done so, or at least explaining how the surveyed georgraphical locations were special-case and thus wasn't appropriate to extrapolate to a general statement.

[DC_36]

* shit, that's awful and warrants a rephrase:

"IIRC the results of the study showed little effect - but the article and Reason commentariat did a good job explaining why those studies were flawed and were more likely to avoid an unemployement increase based on special circustomances in those locations, i.e. the researchers cherry-picked the locations of the study. And thus, the results didn't really work to extrapoloate into a general belief or statement that raising the minimum wage showed no increase in unemployment.

[XM]

Yes, "gradual" increase in minimum wage. Often when market wage (as some mentioned earlier) was already above minimum wage, and during or near economic bubbles. 30,40 years ago the demographics were different and pre internet business models were still in force.

If you double the minimum wage to 15 dollars, you might as well rename the country to "contractor land".

Automation will save companies money in the long run. Most companies would rather retain the human touch, but any significant raise in min wage will force their hands. That's not in dispute.

[Rufus J. Firefly]

"Real research into this subject done by real scientists and not right-wing flacks shows no relationship between gradual increases in minimum wage and employment levels."

/face palm.

Repeat.

[american socialist]

Hmmm, I can trust right-wing ideologues wielding anecdotes about appearences of computers at McDonalds or I can trust tenured professors at Berkeley, who derive mathematical models that say teens are better off when the minimum wage is increased...

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/w.....166-08.pdf

I'm a libertarian cult member so I choose the former. It must be a happy life to be able to dismiss all evidence that does not comport to your ideology.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Why go with models, when we have actual data. Or perhaps a look at both the US and your libtardatopia in France?

"In the French case, a 1% increase in the real minimum wage decreases the future employment probability of a man (respectively, a woman) currently employed at the minimum wage by 1.3% (1.0%). In the United States, a decrease in the real minimum wage of 1% increases the probability that a man (woman) employed at the minimum wage came from unemployment in the previous year by 0.4% (1.6%)."

You should really stop projecting. How do you expect to get better as long as you keep it up?

[Sevo]

"I'm a libertarian cult member so I choose the former."

Naah. You're a run-of-the-mill ignorant lefty who's a raging asshole besides.

[Dixon_Sider]

Which describes pretty much all of them.

[JohnD]

Unfortunately for the left, the computer screens are already showing up. I was at a franchise restaurant last week that had installed touch screens with card readers on every table.

You could use it to order a refill on your drink or pay your bill. The manager said they will be adding the ability to order your meal on it. At that point he will let 75% of his wait staff go.

[Sevo]

"You could use it to order a refill on your drink or pay your bill. The manager said they will be adding the ability to order your meal on it. At that point he will let 75% of his wait staff go."

And the threat of the increased M/W had nothing to do with it at all! It was just the free market that caused the loss of jobs! Before the increase!
See, raising the M/W has no effect at all!
And we'll get one more "study" showing there was no loss resulting from the passage of the unemployment bill.

[UCrawford]

Yes, people you don't like are telling you things you don't want to hear. That must automatically make them wrong and you right.

Progtard.

[Sevo]

american socialist|5.22.14 @ 3:45PM|#
..."He observed that companies are using computers in an increasingly automated world and then made a hackneyed attempt to link that to minimum wage."...

Right on cue!
'See, this isn't a result of a higher m/w. It happened first!'
Lefty argument that the threat of legislation has no effect; it takes a true ignoramus to pose the argument and an even dumber one to swallow it.

[JohnD]

What a load of crap. About what I would expect from a commie like you.

BTW, is a 100% increase ($7.65 to $15) considered a gradual increase in your fantasy land?

[american socialist]

Why do libertarians care about whether labor unions show up at a business meeting. They aren't agents of the dreaded government so what exactly is the problem?

[AlgerHiss]

Socialism is always for the people, not the socialist.

[Sevo]

american socialist|5.22.14 @ 3:51PM|#
"Why do libertarians care about whether labor unions show up at a business meeting."

Why do socialists find it impossible to tell the truth?
I know reading is difficult for you, and I'm not sure I can get it into single-syllable words, but:

The
man
is
not
a
worker
on
strike.
He
does
not
work
there.
He
is
a
lair.

Better?

[american socialist]

A labor protest needs to be composed solely by people that work at the company being protested? Ever heard of a general strike? You don't know shit about socialism. I'll ask again: why should libertarians, as opposed to right-wing corporatists, care about labor unions, which are self-organizing groups that don't belong to the government?

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Except in non-right-to-work states where union membership is compelled by government. Other than that, it's fine.

Why do you care what the Koch's do? You don't know shit about freedom.

[Sevo]

american socialist|5.22.14 @ 8:57PM|#
"A labor protest needs to be composed solely by people that work at the company being protested?"

No, asshole, but a "labor protest" ought to include someone who actually "labors" rather than sucking the union teat and riding around on airplanes.

[american socialist]

So libertarians would do away with labor organizers? Isn't organizing a union laboring?

[Sevo]

american socialist|5.23.14 @ 2:43AM|#
"So libertarians would do away with labor organizers?"

Sorry, that's not even worth a bronze in the conclusion-jumping competition.
You're a miserable loser at most everything you try.

[american socialist]

You are a corporatist. I get it. Want to explain to the 10% of people here that have some appreciation of libertarianism, as opposed to an appreciation of right-wing talking points, why they should care about labor unions.

[Sevo]

american socialist|5.23.14 @ 1:13PM|#
..."Want to explain to the 10% of people here that have some appreciation of libertarianism, as opposed to an appreciation of right-wing talking points, why they should care about labor unions."

YOU are to make a judgement WRT libertarianism? YOU?!
You wouldn't know what the word means if the definition were printed in 50pt type!
And you think you are going to offer some new justification for gov't supported thugs and make 'em all warm and loveable?
Buzz off, commie kid.

[american socialist]

There aren't leftist libertarians? Might want to talk to Noam Chomsky about that one.

The original question is why should libertarians care about labor unions. I didn't mention anything about dreaded g-men. Want to try it again or give your 100 million deaths response another go. Those are good for laughs.

[Zing]

There aren't leftist libertarians? Might want to talk to Noam Chomsky about that one.

Aw man, you had a point and then you shit all over it.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Chomsky? Um, try again.

Unions are OK as long as no one is compelled to join them. I assume you support Right-to-Work laws, since you're so concerned about liberty. Right? Or are you going to trot out the "freeloader" accusation? Funny how that doesn't apply to your socialist policies.

[Sevo]

In answer to nothing at all, you write:

There aren't leftist libertarians? Might want to talk to Noam Chomsky about that one."
Uh: "That unwanted history is of Chomsky himself casting aspersions on critics of the Khmer Rouge. During Pol Pot's reign, Chomsky disputed the refugees themselves. Since Cambodia, he has expanded his game to North Korea and Bosnia."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/20.....-observer/

We're to ask YOU who is a libertarian?!
----------------
"The original question is why should libertarians care about labor unions."

Look, slimeball, back-pedal all you please, but the quote is right there for anybody to read.
Yes, we know lefties lie, and then try to hide it. In fact, it's about all they do.

[Librlrevolution]

There's no such thing as "right wing corporatists". Corporatism is a form of socialism. Corporatism is the opposite of right wing. And the general strike is something concocted by the proto-fascists and is a Sorelian myth.

[AlgerHiss]

Unions are for losers.

If you're a cop or a fire fighter and you belong to a union, then yes, you are a loser too.

A pathetic, weak, ignorant, lazy, untrustworthy loser.

[XM]

I rarely eat at Mcdnolds, other than to occasionally buy their 1 dollar items or coffee. I went there a few days ago and saw their Big Mac meal was like $6.27 (this is in So. Cal)

Yeah, I'm not spending 6 bucks plus tax to buy a mini burger with two small patties, mediocre fries and a drink. I might as well go to In n outs (higher wage, incidentally) and get something better cheaper.

Mcdonalds will probably have to shrink their menu and location if min wage goes up.

[Rufus J. Firefly]

Which is fine by the left given they would rather it go under since it serves "bad" food. Damn all those who would lose their jobs because unhealthy.

They're evil. Simple as that.

[crazyfingers]

No union member makes minimum wage, so why are the unions pushing for this?

Could it possibly be that they want to price low-skilled, non-union out of the market, so that employers are forced to hire their members? I mean, right now you can get 2 minimum wage employees for 1 union member, but not if you raise it to $10+.

Far be it from me to subscribe such motives to the venerable SEIU. I'm sure they just care about _all_ the workers.

[The Knuckle]

Or union contracts are based upon m/w plus and would increase their wages.

[Sevo]

Pretty sure it's both of those, and they have useful idiots like as to pitch their lies.

[Vulgar Madman]

You know what the truly beautiful part is?
When those people lose their jobs: MARKET FAILURE

[XM]

It just seems mind boggling to me that "American Socialist" thinks the country will be fine and dandy if minimum wage is doubled to (not "incremental") 15 dollars an hour.

Yeah, I get it, raising the minimum wage by a few cents in the 60s or 70s didn't wipe out a million jobs. Tax burdens, demographics, everything was different back then. But Blockbuster video and its friends went out of business a long time ago and the Americans who would benefited from those entry level jobs have dramatically increased.

I'm like 10 minutes from a Niko Niko (Sushi chain) joint that pays Korean international students five dollars an hour. FIVE dollars. You think these businesses can turn a profit while keeping prices low after the cost of labor doubles, well, you're an American socialist.

And what about our good friend inflation and cost of living? When I first came to America, the price of admission in Disneyland was 20 dollars. TWENTY dollars. I would accept a DECREASE of minimum wage of 1 dollar if we go back to those days.

[american socialist]

Why would a libertarian even care about the unemployment rate? If the market deems an unemployment rate of 25% to be acceptable and the government isn't involved isn't that good enough for you?

[Sevo]

american socialist|5.23.14 @ 2:39AM|#
"Why would a libertarian even care about the unemployment rate?"

Why would a socialist care about starving people?

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Why wouldn't a libertarian care about it? Why would a socialist care about murder? Why would a socialist care about rape? Socialism is an economic philosophy. so therefore it cannot have opinions on anything outside of that.

The market doesn't deem a 25% unemployment rate acceptable or unacceptable. The market makes no judgement on it whatsoever.

Now what's the next stupid argument you have?

[Jordan]

Why would a socialist care about murder?

Because statists hate competition.

[american socialist]

I don't own any shares of MCD as I tend to keep all my money in Litecoin and gold bullion and stash it away behind my moat. If I did own stock in this particular company my question at a stockholders meeting would be something like this.

We pay you, the CEO, around 1,000 times what we pay an average MCD worker in the United States. Why shouldn't we fire you and most of the VPs and redirect that money to the people that actually do the work. Wouldn't we as shareholders be better off if we worked to retain and train existing employees so they can deliver good food and service to our customers instead of spending the money on overpaid executives who shuffle paper around and, among other things, help design creepy and culturally insensitive mascots? I mean, wasn't Ronald McDonald the child molester enough? http://www.dailydot.com/busine.....py-racist/

[Sevo]

american socialist|5.23.14 @ 2:11AM|#
"Why shouldn't we fire you and most of the VPs and redirect that money to the people that actually do the work."

And the answer, you dolt, is that if you didn't have those folks, there would be no place to work.

[american socialist]

I'm just trying to figure out where to put my bitcoins. Like most corporatists you overestimate the contributions of its CEOs and have contempt for the people that work there. Too much Ayn Rand on the brain, I guess.

[Sevo]

american socialist|5.23.14 @ 1:07PM|#
"I'm just trying to figure out where to put my bitcoins."

I'm sure it's a real struggle for somone of your mental 'abilities'.

[Anon E. Mouse]

"Like most corporatists you overestimate the contributions of its CEOs..."

Indeed, almost anyone can run a multinational corporation with 38,000 outlets in 119 countries employing 1.7 million people serving 68 million customers daily, right?

[Knarf the Yenrabian]

You mean to tell me that entrepreneurs do something other than sit back and count their ill-gotten gains while the proletariat slaves away to gather the wealth that bubbles up out of the ground Ridiculous! If history demonstrates anything, it's that socialism and top-down planning benefits the working class and employees far more than freedom to contract possibly could.

And that entrepreneurs are lazy rentiers, obviously.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Here's a little secret: What McD decides to do with its money isn't your concern. It doesn't affect you at all just as me deciding what to do with my money isn't any concern of yours. Now if you become a shareholder in McD, then it becomes your money, and you have a say in how it's spent.

Your problem is that your precious democracy (shareholder votes) doesn't agree with you. So you try to find another way to steal the property of others around you when the honest way of dealing with it would be to buy a controlling interest in McD and implement your strategy. Or create a competitor that displaces McD from the market due to your brilliant management. I await your success with baited breath.

[Brian D]

We pay you, the CEO, around 1,000 times what we pay an average MCD worker in the United States. Why shouldn't we fire you and most of the VPs and redirect that money to the people that actually do the work.

http://insiders.morningstar.co.....tion?t=MCD

McDonald's key executive compensation totalled $24,269,073 in 2013. McDonald's has roughly 1.7 million employees. Take that money and divide it up for the workers and you've given each of them a raise of $14.28 a year, or a penny and a half per hour if they're full time employees.

YAY!!!!

[Brian D]

Of course, the workers will only be able to enjoy that enormous windfall for as long as it takes for the company to go bankrupt, but whatever.

LIVING WAGE, BITCHEZ!!

[Sevo]

"Of course, the workers will only be able to enjoy that enormous windfall for as long as it takes for the company to go bankrupt, but whatever."

One Starbucks extra mocha and off to the unemployment office!

[Brian D]

http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_company.html

Oh, crap, McDonald's claims to employ 1.9 million employees, not 1.7 million. That's only a $12.77 raise per employee over the course of a year, or just under 1.3 cents per hour until bankruptcy hits.

[Brian D]

While we're at it, let do some more math. The next most popular socialist argument for raising the minimum wage is that corporations are wallowing in record profits and can afford to give more money to the workers.

Let's say the federal minimum wage goes up to $10.10 from the current $7.25 per hour rate. That's a difference of $2.85. If you want to preserve your wage scale and not piss off people who've worked for several years to make it to $10.25 and watch new hires make just under them, you will have to give all workers close to the same raise.

To raise one full time employee's pay $2.85 per hour will cost $5928 by the end of a year. Multiply that by the 1.9 million employees McDonald's claims and you come up with an annual cost of $11,263,200,000. Over eleven billion dollars.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines...../2262.html

McDonald's made %5.5 billion in profits for all of 2012.

[Mudhen]

Of course after McD's raises prices to compensate for the increased wages, the left will whine that they're ripping off the consumers.

[Katy1493]

If you think about applying for a job, an internship, you will definetely need at least two basic documents. A good resume and a well written cover letter is the very first requirement for a successful job search. Very often people don't believe that resume can help to success but it is the first information your potential employer learns about you and it's very important to have welll-written and clear resume. Resume Writing Laboratory is a professional resume writing service, that can help you to submit good resume and avoid common mistakes. Its expert writers will provide with all necessary information about resume, CV, cover letter writing and editing.