Comments about ‘Study examines public cost of fast-food wages’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Oct. 21 2013 7:27 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Cedar City, UT

Non-managerial fast-food jobs are meant to be entry-level, first-job experiences, NOT a career with the purpose of supporting a family. The problem is that “More of the workers are parents raising a child than teenagers living with parents", not that wages are too low.

Study hard in high school, pursue a post-high school trade or profession and embark on a career that provides a living wage in exchange for you providing high-skilled value to your employer or society.

I can understand a few breadwinners down on their luck working entry-level jobs and getting assistance while they work themselves into a better position, but this report shows far too many people making poor life choices and expecting a high school education (or less) to suffice in a high-tech twenty-first century economy.

Orem, UT

The solution: Allow supply and demand to remedy the situation without government interference. If government assistance wasn't supplementing the income of fast food workers, restaurants would have to increase wages or else they wouldn't have any workers. This would lead to an increase in fast food prices so that the end user is primarily footing the cost as opposed to the taxpayer. It would also result in the big bosses taking home less for themselves in order to stay competitive, thus reducing the income discrepancy. Fast food consumption would likely go down with healthier options filling the void. Ultimately the system would balance itself out and we would be better off as a society for it.

Moral of the story: By trying to fix the poor problem, the government is actually making it worse.

Breadth and Depth
Salt Lake City, UT

Of course low paying jobs cost the taxpayers in social programs. These jobs include not only fast food jobs, but migrant farm labor as well. This same claim is asserted by opposition to amnesty for undocumented workers. The only difference is that when it is fast food workers it is taken seriously. How about using free market principles, in place of excessive, unnecessary, and unwanted federal intervention in civilian labor markets, to reduce the need for social programs by reducing the number of working poor through increased hourly wages via supply and demand principles?

West Valley, UT

Ya, blame fast food chains for their employees' lack of education or skills and a bad economy that prevents them from getting higher paying jobs. Sorry, low pay is the consequence for being a high school drop out, ex-con or someone with offensive tatoos and gaged ears. Obviously that isn't the case with all fast food employees, but if they are worth higher pay, then do a job worth higher pay. McDonalds shouldn't pay a civil engineer's wages to someone flipping burgers.


I am certainly no student of economics, but wouldn't raising minimum wage only adjust who pays this rather than make it go away?

For example, raising minimum wage might mean fewer jobs at McDonald's as they move to a more automated (think self check-out) model and decrease the work force to keep prices relatively constant. The cost in salary lost by these individuals is picked up (at least initially) by individuals in more "skilled" areas (IT, hardware design, etc.) and costs stay more or less the same (as far as taxes/government spending is concerned), shifting from lots of people receiving help to fewer people receiving MORE help, but probably remains pretty much the same.

Also, it is important to take in to account the franchise model of McDonald's to recognize that the CEO's salary is obscene but he is not the one that will take the hit if salary costs increase. Certainly those who "own" a McDonald's are not poor, but they are not so outrageously wealthy that we should lump them in with the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.


The assertion that "The fast-food industry’s practice of paying low wages and providing few benefits is costing American taxpayers $7 billion a year in the form of public assistance" is a complete fallacy. The $7B cost which this article attributes to the likes of McDonalds and Subway are only costs to the taxpayers because at some point the US Congress and a US President passed laws which created public assistance and placed those costs on the backs of the taxpayers. The correct statement is the practice of the Federal Government of subsidizing living expenses of fast-food workers is costing American taxpayers $7 billion a year in the form of public assistance. Whether it is right for the government to do so is another debate.

Layton, UT

The only thing that bugs me about this is,
1 I pay my house payment, and have 2 kids and am a single dad.
I was able to do this off the 9.00 an hour I made without and Government help.
So why pay fast food workers $15 an hour when people that bust their butts to go to school and get an education to make that much are paying for everything themselves?
I can see $10 tops, but come on let's not get greedy. Go to school and better yourselves.

Central, UT

REALLY!!! How many fast food employees are there that actually make a living to support a family. Some of the managerial positions and a few others? But in reality, most people working in fast food are there as single individuals, students, or youth just trying to make a few bucks. Was this taken into consideration in the study? These are also very low skill jobs that anybody can perform with a few hours of training. Lets not start legislating this to the point that these kids are making as much as educated people that have been trained in a skilled career. I like the idea mentioned above about letting the free market dictate the wages and in some cities, that is the case, where they have to pay more than current minimum wage to attract employees.

South Jordan, UT

This is looking at the situation from the wrong angle. You raise the minimum wage and these restaurants will no longer be able to afford them as workers, then what? The proper way to gauge this situation is to look at what these people are earning and then you'll know how much less in public assistance they are getting BECAUSE they have a minimum wage job as opposed to NO job. I have owned and operated several restaurants, I know first hand, if you raise the minimum wage then the restaurant owners will have to raise their prices to be able to pay the higher wage, higher prices will mean fewer customers which in turn will mean fewer employees and fewer hours for those employees. These restaurant owners would only be able to employ about half the amount of people... which means half would lose their jobs. If the cost to the public is $7 Billion a year, how much would it cost if half these people earning minimum wage had no job at all? This study is crap!

South Jordan, UT

Once again, DNews commenters go straight to the poor-shaming. I find it disgusting.

West Valley, UT

Schwa- Nope, not "poor-shaming," just reality. Blaming companies for paying low-skill wages to perform low-skill jobs is the reason our country is in trouble.

West Valley, UT

Even if we increase wages which will increase fast food prices, I bet that government assistance will stay at the same level. So consumers will pay more for less. But it may help some over weight people from going out as much. But probably not.

Sandy, UT

Low wages are not the "cause" of public assistance expense. The real cause of the expense is that people who have an insufficient education to obtain higher paying jobs get stuck for life in low-wage jobs. They complain that the low-wage is their problem, but in reality the problem is that they are not qualified to obtain a higher paying position. Education is the answer, not forcing higher pay.

jim l
West Jordan, UT

And what happens when we hire illegal immigrants? We school their kids, pay for their families health care, and on and on. And they are not even Americans and most don't want to be.

high school fan
Huntington, UT

Education is easy to blame here, or lack thereof, but equally to blame is an absence of work ethics. Lots of these people simply are not motivated to do anything and I guess you blame us parents for not doing a better job. Out of my many children, only one has a low paying job and that one refuses to go on food stamps as she believes she can take care of her self. She is self motivated and has risen into management. She will be fine.

Omaha, NE

I am SOOOO amazed that only 45% of them are on the lam. Must be a lot more teenagers out their working these jobs then I thought. Here in Omaha, there might be one out of a crew of 10 that is a teenager. The rest are adults. That is the truth at almost every fast food place.
Either that or these fast food employees are really really smart with their money. But if that was the case, why would they be working at McDonalds or the like?

United Kingdom , 00

I find ths discussion both fascinating and offensive. The argument that wages would be higher in a better economy I think is very flawed because of two reasons.
1) In the roaring 90's did you have people getting paid higher wage because the economy/business were doing well? NO
2) When companies are profitable do the profits (McDonalds and apparently $7 billion plus last year) flow down to low level employees? NO.

No one is saying they should be paid the same as an engineer that is a nonsensical. How about them earning a decent living above the poverty line while they earn an education so that they can earn it with some dignity. Higher wages do mean ighest costs but it also means more spending and a stronger multiplier effect for the economy at large.

Incentive? Do you really think fast food workers want to stay in their greasy clothes for the rest of their lives? Stop with the elitism and do what Henry Ford did back in the day. Paid twice the minimum wage and his company's profitably exploded.

Good luck

Centennial, CO

@JR85 "Do what Henry Ford did back in the day. Paid twice the minimum wage and his company's [profits] exploded."

You seem to be missing one key point here: AFAIK, Ford had to train his workers to put together cars, and then they were worth twice the minimum wage because of training. It was the training that made them worthwhile, not Ford's being an altruist.

Tell me how much training is really needed for non-managers to work in fast food today, and then we can talk. Even 30 years ago when I worked in fast food, the system was set up to minimize training: put burger on griddle, push button to set timer, do something useful till buzzer sounds, flip burger, do something useful until second buzzer, burger's done. Even a 16-year-old could do it. Not much training needed ? Not much pay earned. Very little of that has changed since then.

United Kingdom , 00

The point I was making is that the fast food industry is misguided on what the effect would be with paying their entry level workers more. Studies show that the workers would actually spend more during and after work which is money back into the business (just like Fords theory of the more he paid his workers the more Ford cars they bought). Yes putting together cars would require more training (for some parts of the assembly line) but both working at Ford in the 1930's and McDonalds today both didn't require a college degree. Both had some form of in house training. I agree that costs wiould go up for fast food and other things if wages were raised but history has shown around the world that when low income earners have more buying power the more they spend and gets the economy ticking. A good economy needs people wo spend the most to spend. Businesses love it.

Agree to disagree.

Take care

Moab, UT

Many of those living on SS also get food stamps. So lets double SS payments. look at all the money the taxpayers would save. Right? Same difference.

to comment encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments