When a company doesn't pay its staff a living wage the staff has to get government assistance. We as the taxpayers are directly subsidizing the profits of these companies. That is a far more dangerous and unhealthy system than any idea of a "welfare state".
you'll only modify the welfare state by increasing the paycheck slightly and decreasing the welfare slightly OF THE EMPLOYEED. you'll increase significantly the welfare paid to those who are let go and now have no job because our mindless gov't has decided that, just like they can print money for whatever they want to afford, the businesses can too.
Let it cut into their profits and prevent them from gouging prices in response.
businesses close. Please see 2006/2007/2008.
As for the argument that a fast food job isn't supposed to maintain a family, what do you expect people to do? The job market is still tight in many areas and that's the only place where some people can get jobs.
What needs to be done to create more jobs???? giving raises to people that have minimum wage jobs does not increase employment.
It's a shame that those people had to lose their jobs because of a economic crash that none of the bankers responsible have gone to jail for but that's the reality of the situation.
a) businesses make bad decisions all the time. the businesses pay for it by readjusting and moving forward. sometimes this includes selling or closing. This happens every day. But so that our gov't could expand into more power grabs they decided that they would take control of banking. Instead of the banks liquidating / consolidating / and being broken up again, the 'people that claim to know better' put giant freezes on everything the banks do and REGULATED the shit out of it. The bankers sat their earning their $, the gov't employees sat there opining about things they have no experience in earning their money. The people who took it in the ass is everyone else. Us. The little guys. To assuage the voters, phones were passed out. Polls were recited repeatedly in the Media. And yet, 7 years later, here we sit.
b) the gov't could have raised interest rates by 2% (btw, I said this before and during the height of the pretend crash. & I say pretend because I would kill to have a 2% loss -yup- that's what got the bankers all crying and slowing down the lending, crushing the economy.) 2% and reimbursed the banks a small portion of their losses while the banks themselves also used the new interest calculations to keep lending at higher costs of funds. This is business 101. It's not, "everyone remembers FDR's new deal, so how can I put my big stamp on this?"
No one remembers the crash after 9/11 when bush gave all american's $600 to spend as they want, and incentivized businesses. Why? because it prevented it from becoming worse.
It's not so simple for someone to just learn a new skill.
Life isn't so simple.
And after thinking about it, it wouldn't be that bad of a thing if fast food prices were to rise. We'd have fewer people eating fast food and more people eating proper, healthy food in an effort to stave off the horrifying epidemic of obesity in the country.
So you're of the impression that if the people on the bottom rung can't afford fast food they'll turn to more expensive healthy food? I disagree. You'll further impoverish them.
But the government absolutely has to step in and force the change, healthy and nutritious food can be cheaper than fast food but the prices are artificially inflated and the fast food industry gets to make additional profit off the public funds.
if it could be cheaper, why isn't it already? How are these prices artificially inflated? The fast food industry is profiting solely due to the competitive nature of fast food.
I do not understand the whole 'gubment needs to step in and fix the economy.' It's not working out so far.