
McDonald's Tells Its Employees to Sign Up for Food Stamps - csomar
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/10/audio-mcdonalds-tells-its-employees-to-sign-up-for-food-stamps/280812/
======
cperciva
I don't understand what the problem is here. McDonald's is trying to help its
employees access government services to which they are entitled.

This seems like a very good thing; all the more so given that Mcdonald's
disproportionately employs minorities and individuals with low levels of
education -- both groups which historically encounter "paperwork challenges"
in accessing government services.

~~~
dchest
I think the McDonald's story is used in the article for illustration purposes
for the main subject of article, which is "Taxpayers [...] are subsidizing the
industry's profits."

~~~
qwerty989
That's not right. Taxpayers are subsidizing every industry that employs low
wage workers, which is basically every industry. That includes janitors at
Google and Apple.

~~~
dchest
Wouldn't be a good example for propaganda. Apple is busy abusing _Chinese
slave workers_ ; it's always McDonald's that abuses poor Americans.

------
ck2
Walmart does this too. And don't even whisper the word "union" in walmart,
they have an emergency legal team that flys into any location where there is
even a hint of a union forming.

This is why people should not fight against a decent minimum wage, because
otherwise all taxpayers are subsidizing the below-standard income.

Yes, your items might cost a penny more in the store.

~~~
dchest
Why does the government issue food stamps to people who have jobs?

~~~
d4mi3n
Because those same people are unable to make enough money to feed themselves
and their families working multiple part-time/full-time jobs paying these
sorts of wages.

~~~
qwerty989
Wrong.

[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%...](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202013-03-07%20at%203.54.49%20PM.png)

~~~
dchest
How do you interpret this chart?

~~~
qwerty989
The poor in America spend a small percentage of their income on food.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/cheap-
ea...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/cheap-eats-how-
america-spends-money-on-food/273811/)

~~~
smtddr
So, because of this article you conclude that the OP is wrong to say poor
people are _" unable to make enough money to feed themselves and their
families working multiple part-time/full-time jobs paying these sorts of
wages."_? Maybe they spend less because they simply can't afford to spend
more? I spend less on private-jets & high-end cars than rich people do, is it
because I simply don't want those items or because I can't afford it?

Actually, this article appears to be saying the opposite of what you think
it's saying:

FTA:

 _The short answer is that relative food costs are low and falling fast for
everybody -- but they 're not falling for the poor. In 1984, the poorest
Americans spent 16 percent of their income to eat. The median-income family
also spent 16 percent of its (slightly higher) income on food. And the rich
spent the least. In the last three decades, food's share of the family budget
has fallen for all but the poorest families, where it's stayed the same._

So... poor people are spending _more_ on food than the rich? Whatever way one
interprets this article, I don't think it can be used to to prove anything in
regards to affordability of food for the poor and what else they may have
sacrificed to pay for food.

~~~
qwerty989
Yes, he is wrong. The poor in America are far likelier to be overweight than
starving.

~~~
smtddr
Ah, here we go. So overweight because why? Eating 99-cent menu items from
fast-food menus 4 times a day and filling their homes with the cheapest
industrial-processed food ever. Liters of soda, microwave-TV-dinners, huge
bags of cheetos, etc. That junk isn't food, IMHO. If a low-income person wants
to give their family something better, they can't afford it. Low-income,
probably low-education & stressful-job(s), not enough motivation/energy after
coming home from work to cook a proper meal or get exercise. Personally, I
think they can't afford it in ways that go beyond just money...

~~~
qwerty989
This is so wrong. I'm not sure why this argument is always made when it's
obviously incorrect. Beans, rice, cabbage, tomatoes, chicken, pasta, bread,
potatoes, bananas, yogurt, eggs, vegetables, etc. are cheap.

[http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/cheap-
healthy-15-...](http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/cheap-
healthy-15-nutritious-foods-about-2-dollars)

[http://www.workingmother.com/food-nutrition/cheap-and-
health...](http://www.workingmother.com/food-nutrition/cheap-and-healthy-
eating-tips)

[http://www.fitbie.com/slideshow/20-ridiculously-cheap-and-
he...](http://www.fitbie.com/slideshow/20-ridiculously-cheap-and-healthy-
foods)

~~~
smtddr
Don't forget the last part of my comment:

 _Low-income, probably low-education & stressful-job(s), not enough
motivation/energy after coming home from work to cook a proper meal or get
exercise. Personally, I think they can't afford it in ways that go beyond just
money..._

_____ways that go beyond money____

stressful-job(s) = not enough motivation/energy to cook. Multiple jobs
probably means get home, just in time to take a 3 hour nap, take shower and
head out to the next job. Forget about any meaningful attendance at the local
gym. Assuming it's even safe enough to be at said gym during after-work hours
in a low-income area.

low education = Not knowing just _how damaging_ junk food really is.

~~~
qwerty989
Again, that is not correct. Despite conventional wisdom, the poor have more
leisure time than the rich.

[http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2007/0...](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2007/03/the_theory_of_the_leisure_class.html)

~~~
smtddr
Okay, I'm done here. I'm not even clicking on that link. Go tell that to the
illegal immigrants doing back-breaking labor everyday, poor people barely
making ends meet with their 2 or 3 jobs, that they have more _quality_ leisure
time than high-level executives in some financial company, a Bay Area software
engineer making nearly 6-figures or rich celebrities who took their daughter,
and all her friends to Paris for her sweet 16 birthday-party, bought her a car
and had Justin Timerlake perform live with a song written just for her....

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Super_Sweet_16](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Super_Sweet_16)

------
JonnieCache
Similarly, the second largest chunk of the UK welfare payouts goes to the
working poor, at 20.8%. Payments to the unemployed are at 2.57%.

The government brings this constant drip-drip of poisonous rhetoric about
scroungers, when what's really happening is the ultra-rich are scrounging from
the middle class to subsidise their empires while keeping the poor mentally
broken and unable to form a political force. I should really start some sort
of PR campaign, there's an election next year.

Data: [http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf](http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf)

~~~
anon1385
>I should really start some sort of PR campaign, there's an election next
year.

Nice try but the toffs are one step ahead of you and are banning such
political campaigns in an election year:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_of_Lobbying,_Non-...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_of_Lobbying,_Non-
party_Campaigning_and_Trade_Union_Administration_Bill)

[https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/m/74c04b7f/2d565a2f/521...](https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/m/74c04b7f/2d565a2f/52107803/4669ffc2/214504013/VEsE/)

 _Campaigns could fall within regulation if they: -￼promote policies which,
for whatever reason, are associated with one or more political ￼parties or
candidates – such as housing, welfare, a referendum on EU membership, wind
￼farms or HS2._

As you might imagine a huge range of campaign groups and charities are up in
arms about this.

------
qwerta
There is other side of this: McDonald care about its employees. I wish someone
would give me advice like this, when I used to work at similar place. Articles
like this will only cause stricter rules and food stamps will go away.

Sure minimum wage should be better, but ask yourself: how often do you leave a
tip at a fast food?

------
room271
Set a minimum wage to a reasonable level (i.e. enough that you can eat without
extra support if earning it) and the issue goes away.

The idea that you can shame companies into action doesn't work - it might in
one or two cases, but people quickly forget, and there are too many companies
to target anyway.

------
Osiris
McDonalds made $1.52 billion in profit last quarter. [1] I do think that it's
irresponsible for the company to rely on the government to subsidize their
employees, especially considering their profits.

[1]
[http://stream.wsj.com/story/markets/SS-2-5/SS-2-359306/](http://stream.wsj.com/story/markets/SS-2-5/SS-2-359306/)

~~~
dchest
Why is it irresponsible?

~~~
Osiris
The company isn't absorbing the true cost of doing business.

Many businesses have problems like this, like coal power plants that dump CO2
into the air. They don't have to pay the costs of dealing with their actions.
Tobacco companies don't have to pay for health care when people get sick from
their product. This shifts part of the cost of doing business onto someone
else, thus distorting their market.

------
stevoski
I went to university in Australia; there McDonald's et al employed primarily
high-school and university students. The feeling was that a fast food job was
something you did part-time while studying. The employees are generally people
on the way up to a degree and a career. Some of these people were also on
welfare; specifically a government program that augments the income of
students from not-too-wealthy households.

I then visited the US, and was surprised to find a completely different group
of employees at fast food chains. The staff seemed to be older, more
permanently in the fast food industry, and often seemed like they had been
beaten down by the daily drudge of many years.

~~~
gadders
When I was a student, 20+ years ago, I had a summer job in America selling
aerial photos door to door. I got chatting to an older guy serving in a
MacDonalds who asked me a lot of questions about what cameras were used etc
etc. I told him he knew a lot about cameras, and he said "I used to be a
professional photographer, but I went out of business. Now it's either this or
suicide."

Poor bastard. I always wondered what happened to him and I hope he got back on
his feet.

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
He lives in the USA and he thinks his only options are McDonalds or Suicide?
That is the true definition of a sad loser. There's billions of people who
wish they had the same opportunities he had.

People dye trying to sneak into this country through shipping containers and
makeshift rafts and he's already here and unable to weigh the endless options
he has. From Target to Walmart, Kmart to Macy's, Taco Bell to Burger King, Gas
Stations to Jiffy Lubes... I'm sorry, I just can't feel sorry for him. There's
too many other people in worse situations, in worse countries, who deserve
more sympathy.

~~~
JonnieCache
It sounds to me like he was just exercising a bit of morbid humour to cope
with having gone from professional photography to burger flipping.

------
kubiiii
If profits are reasonable and workers still have to sign up for food stamps,
maybe the price of food at mac donalds is too cheap. So taxpayer are
subsidizing both profits and cheap food. They also subsidize it through
healthcare for ppl eating too much mac donalds. A few decades ago, people
would spend roughly one third of their income for food. How much do we spend
now? Far less.

------
Noughmad
It's pretty simple. There will be low-paying jobs as long as people are
willing to work there. McDonald's knows there is more than enough job
candidates, so there is no reason for them to raise wages.

~~~
Pitarou
Whence the call to raise the minimum wage.

