BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
Here is my question: if it is truly so inconsequential why wouldn't McDonald's do just that and take the pick of the best employees?
Primarily because they don't have to. There is a plethora of unskilled labor willing to take the job, and if they can't live on it then they can still use social programs. You don't have to pay a living wage, because the government will subsidize your wages with food stamps, medicare, etc. A program designed to help the poor ends up subsidizing the rich, because the working poor can accept lower wages (and survive to keep working) thanks to the social safety net.
It might surprise you to know that when Pepsi Co ran restaurants directly, even entry level workers had benefits including paid vacation, medical insurance, life insurance, etc. The wages weren't much better than other fast food places, but the benefits blew them out of the water. Turn over was a lot lower, reducing training costs and increasing efficiency, but then Yum! took over the formerly Pepsi Co owned restaurants, and they went away from that model.