最低工資太低與美國快餐連鎖店的罪大惡極

關於最低工資太低的“高調”，已經被高唱了很多年。很多關心大眾福利的“善良”人們，一直期待着，通過提高薪酬待遇，來讓更多的藍領工人們，能在美國這樣經濟強大的國家過的更好。

有了如此善良的領導者，又有了一次次成功的最低工資標準的提高，讓很多普通的美國人習慣了一種容易且簡單的活法：從小就輕輕鬆鬆過日子，不需要像中國孩子那樣苦！從小就不得不整天為了長大之後一個好的教育和職業，而犧牲太多的人生快樂與樂趣。

也是因為這個大環境的存在和無形影響，造就了多數普通美國人不求上進，只是滿足於開心和低薪生活的現狀。

我有時候想：如果真的實現最低工資$15 美元的新“美國理想”和“美國夢”的實現，結果會是什麼？

第一，大批靠低薪雇員運行的連鎖公司，可能會關門大吉！而那些由家庭經營的小公司，可能為了保住自己給創造的可憐工作機會，而不得不延長自己已經到了極限的工作時間，以達到減少雇員開支，控制人工成本，生存下去的目的。

第二，大批沒有足夠技能的藍領工人，可能會因此而找不到一份簡單到他們可以做下來的工作。畢竟，市場需求會因此而小很多。結果，他們之中的多數，將不得不選擇失業和靠政府養活。當然，一部分人可能會就此醒悟，靠提高自己的教育水準來獲得一份工作——是“一份”工作，不是“好不好”的工作！

第三，在上面的短期效果出現之後，也就是一代人的被迫調整之後，就是物價成本的大幅提高，伴隨的也許就是質量的更好保證，和全民教育水準的提高。如果真的是這樣的話，或許也是一件好事。否則，如果結果是大量外包和相關就業機會的繼續喪失，那麼，美國未來不得不面臨的，恐怕除了衰敗之外，也沒有什麼其他的更好選擇。到時候再將人工成本降下來？恐怕不可能。

當然，憑藉美國的軍事實力和經濟規模，也可以選擇增加貿易壁壘，和提高司法限制的辦法，強行讓每個本土的公司，將更多的工作機會留給國內成本高得多的美國人，雖然結果是物價的大幅上升。就此形成的循環是不是良性？真的還難以斷定。

有時候我在想：如果完全避開來自中國造的廉價，讓美國來個基本上的自給自足，或許也是件好事。物價高了，工作機會多了，工資高了，人們少消費點，對於環境保護和避免資源浪費，也是好事。中國造帶給世界的，除了自己子孫萬代不得不面對的環境污染和幾代人的健康透支，就是大量自然資源的浪費。你不覺得，中國造帶來的低價服裝和鞋子與電器什麼的，仔細算下來，最終還是沒有為你節省什麼開支？！單位的低價所帶來的節省，最終被更多數量的浪費性消費所抵消！

下面是人們對於快餐業佼佼者對於自己雇員“不負責任”的指責之詞。作者的理由是：這些公司已經非常賺錢了，為什麼不將自己所賺到利潤多拿一些出來，支付給自己的雇員？！

當然，作者也知道，公司可以不這樣做，是因為有不這樣做的條件。如果強制性的提高最低工資，公司不就乖乖的就範例嗎？

只是在這裡，作者好像有點不能理解：公司面對的不僅僅只是雇員，還有股東和顧客。三位一體，誰更重要？公司的管理者很多時候是知道的。

無論如何，美國人是不想像中國人那樣，為了錢可以犧牲一切都活法活着的。作者的這個着眼點，似乎也比較積極。對於中國人的活法和這種活法的好處和尷尬，我有機會再議。

Fast-Food Chains Costing Taxpayers the Most Money

October 21, 2013 by Mike Sauter

Source: Thinkstock

The fast-food industry is one of the nation’s largest employers of low and minimum wage workers. According to one group, often the industry workers’ pay is not enough and many turn to government programs for assistance. In fact the group calculated the largest of these companies, McDonald’s, cost U.S. taxpayers close to $3.8 billion each year.

According to the National Employment Law Project’s (NELP) newest report, because the fast-food industry pays its workers less than a living wage, U.S. taxpayers must foot the bill in the form of the public assistance programs these workers must use to get by. McDonald’s alone, according to the group, cost taxpayers $1.2 billion last year. Based on NELP’s estimates, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the annual costs of providing public assistance to low wage employees working at the seven largest publicly traded fast-food companies.

 “What this report shows,” explained NELP policy analyst Jack Temple, “is that whether or not you work in the fast-food industry or eat fast-food, the industry is costing you. The low wage business model that this industry is based on drains resources from the economy by forcing low-pay workers to rely on public assistance in order to make ends meet.”

These public assistance programs include the earned income tax credit, SNAP benefits (also known as food stamps), Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The largest of these is Medicaid. “Almost 90% of workers in the fast-food industry do not get health insurance,” Temple said. “In addition to being a low-wage business model, it is also a virtually no-benefit business.”

Temple added that while these companies are attempting to save money by paying their employees less, they may in fact be saving much less than they think. One such cost may come in the form of the industry’s high turnover rate. “Companies are just churning workers, and that’s due to low wages. When you invest in higher wages, you actually get significant savings in the form of reduced employee turnover.”

At least one group has taken issue with NELP’s argument. Employment Policies Institute research director Michael Saltsman explained that the current system of lower wages and government benefits is much more ideal than raising the minimum wage substantially. “The earned income tax credit has lifted thousands of people out of poverty, and it has done it without the consequences of increasing the minimum wage,” Saltsman said.

Saltsman added that companies simply are not going to hire as many people if wages increase substantially. “You can have a $15 minimum wage, or have the same number of opportunities that currently exist in the fast-food restaurant industry — but you can’t have both.”

NELP argues, on the other hand, that these companies are in fact in the position to pay their workers more without hurting their bottom line. The two largest companies, McDonald’s and Yum! Brands, had a combined net income of $7 billion. These companies are profitable and growing, the group argues, and they owe it to the employees who help make them successful to pay them closer to a living wage.

In addition, while these companies pay many of their low-level workers a minimum wage, CEO compensation for these seven companies was a combined $52.7 million in fiscal 2012. Yum! Brands CEO David Novak alone earned $14.1 million last year.

Based on a recent report by the National Employment Law Project (NELP), “Super-Sizing Public Costs,” 24/7 Wall St. determined the seven publicly-traded companies that cost the government the most money. Figures on CEO compensation, and the money the companies’ spent on dividends and share buybacks for stockholders in fiscal 2012, were also provided by NELP. Income and revenue figures are from Morningstar and also for fiscal 2012. Salary figures for individual occupations are from Glassdoor.com. Changes in share prices are from Google Finance.

7. Domino’s
> Cost to U.S. taxpayers: $126 million
> CEO Compensation: $9.1 million
> U.S. restaurant workforce: 73,920
> Revenue: $1.68 billion
> Net income: $112 million

Domino’s has more than doubled its net income since 2008, when the company posted $54 million in earnings. Many of Domino’s employees are likely enrolled in government programs. According to NELP, the company could have raised employee wages rather than spend that money expanding aggressively overseas and investing heavily in technology aimed at easing the ordering and delivery process. The stock has surged over the last five years with the share price up more than 900%. Meanwhile, the compensation of J. Patrick Doyle, Domino’s CEO since 2010, amounted to more than $6 million in 2011 and more than $9 million in 2012.

6. Sonic
> Cost to U.S. taxpayers: $164 million
> CEO Compensation: $1.7 million
> U.S. restaurant workforce: 96,012
> Revenue: $544 million
> Net income: $36 million

Unlike the other major fast-food restaurants, Sonic operates exclusively as a drive-in restaurant, with skating carhops who serve customers in their cars. The company notes that carhops are a “brand treasure,” and because many are tipped, some do actually earn better than minimum wage. Sonic generated $36 million in profits in fiscal 2012. The company also returned about $30 million to shareholders with stock buybacks and dividends, while paying its CEO a total compensation of $1.7 million. Sonic’s CEO stated in February that a hike in the minimum wage “would put pressure on profit margins,” although he also noted the company would adapt to a change. As of the last fiscal year, the company’s net profit margin was less than 7%.

5. Dunkin’ Donuts
> Cost to U.S. taxpayers: $274 million
> CEO Compensation: $1.9 million
> U.S. restaurant workforce: 160,732
> Revenue: $658 million
> Net income: $108 million

When Dunkin’ Brands went public in 2011, its debt level was relatively high, according to The Wall Street Journal. In spite of the high debt load, Dunkin’ owners borrowed more money and paid themselves $500 million in dividends. Much of the company’s workforce is paid a low wage, with crew members and cashiers earning slightly above minimum wage on average, according to Glassdoor.com. The company’s ability to raise wages may be constrained by its debt load. Last year, Dunkin’ Brands had over five times its equity in debt and paid out more than 11% of its sales in interest expenses. Still, the donut and coffee company recently revealed plans to expand to the U.K. over the next five years.

4. Wendy’s
> Cost to U.S. taxpayers: $278 million
> CEO Compensation: $5.8 million
> U.S. restaurant workforce: 162,876
> Revenue: $2.51 billion
> Net income: $7 million

Wendy’s returned $39 million to shareholders in fiscal 2012 and paid CEO Emil Brolick $5.8 million in total compensation. Most of the company’s workers earn low wages, and according to NELP, they cost U.S. taxpayers more than a quarter of a billion dollars. While labor advocates have pushed the company to pay its workers more, Wendy’s may not be well positioned to pay its employees a higher salary. As of last year, the company’s net income was just $7 million. Over the last 12 months, that number rose only slightly, to $15 million.

3. Burger King
> Cost to U.S. taxpayers: $356 million
> CEO Compensation: $6.4 million
> U.S. restaurant workforce: 208,307
> Revenue: $1.97 billion
> Net income: $118 million

Burger King has struggled to compete with Wendy’s and McDonalds in recent years. Poor pricing, a limited menu, and a “target market of men in their early 20s — a demographic that has been hit hard by unemployment,” contributed to the company’s troubles, according to a 2012 report by The Wall Street Journal. Last year, Wendy’s overtook Burger King in total sales at its restaurants. Despite the recent slide in sales, the company has been able to increase its profitability, and net income rose from $88 million in 2011 to $118 million in 2012. This is likely due in large part to Burger King’s shift towards franchising all of its stores. Critics of the chain, including New York mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio, have argued Burger King has a responsibility to improve its workers’ pay.

2. Yum! Brands (Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and KFC)
> Cost to U.S. taxpayers: $648 million
> CEO Compensation: $14.1 million
> U.S. restaurant workforce: 379,449
> Revenue: $13.63 billion
> Net income: $1.60 billion

Yum! Brands has had enormous success in China due to rising incomes, as well as the popularity of KFC and Pizza Hut in the country. However, concerns over food safety in the wake of avian bird flu outbreaks, as well as inappropriate antibiotics use on the part of its suppliers, have recently resulted in lower sales. Still, Yum! Brands’ net income has been steadily rising since 2008. Compared with CEOs of other low paying fast-food chains, David Novak received the highest compensation, at more than $14 million in 2012. There has been much criticism that the company’s workers are underpaid and assertions this costs U.S. taxpayers nearly $650 million per year. Despite this, Yum! professes a strong relationship with its employees, and claims “to recognize and compensate employees based on their performance.”

1. McDonald’s
> Cost to U.S. taxpayers: $1.2 billion
> CEO Compensation: $13.7 million
> U.S. restaurant workforce: 707,850
> Revenue: $27.57 billion
> Net income: $5.47 billion

McDonalds remains extremely profitable. The burger chain’s net income was nearly $5.5 billion last year. The company also effectively returned all of its profits to shareholders, paying out a total of $5.5 billion in dividends and stock buybacks. While arguments have persisted on both sides as to whether McDonald’s should or should not increase its workers’ pay, the company itself recently demonstrated just how difficult living on less than $8 an hour can be. In July, a sample budget from the company’s financial planning website for employees was leaked. The planners made several questionable assumptions, including that an employee could work two nearly-full time jobs and spend $20 a month on health insurance.