I would like to present a fair and balanced account of both sides of the steady simmering minimum wage controversy, as it plays out in the fast food industry. But I don't really have the time or motivation for that, so instead, I'm opting for selective petty and snarky snipes, fired from behind the safety of an internet blog.
To the fast food companies:
You're greedy. Your CEO has a clean office, wears suits, never smells of frying oil (is that really a positive?), and doesn't have to fetch extra sauce packets for incoherent, obese, drug-addicts at 1:30 am. But does that really entitle him to earn several billion dollars per year above the workers who fit that description? Are you aware that some of your employees may actually be fully grown adults? With kids? And electric bills? $450 per month is fair sustainable income--in Myanmar.
To the workers:
You're stupid, or at least nearsighted. Should people of your qualifications have a job? Is some money better than no money? If you answered yes to either of the previous questions, you may wish to reconsider your position. Raising the minimum income will mean the supplier of your dough may have to get a little more selective about who reaps the benefits. If fast food work becomes a “real job” then before you know it, people with “real resumes” will be applying. I know we're all eager to see those communications majors gainfully employed, but at what cost? Bottom line, for those who don't understand supply and demand: if Subway was having difficulty successfully staffing their chains, then they would begin offering more money.