'Bleeding' fast-food workers
By James Sherk
Published: Sunday, Sept. 22, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Medieval doctors bled their patients with leeches. Far from improving their condition, it left them worse off.
Raising the wages of fast-food workers to $15 an hour would produce similar results for those the proposal is intended to help.
Competition forces businesses to pay workers according to their productivity. If companies pay less, their employees will jump ship to competitors. And if they pay workers more than they produce, they go out of business.
For better or worse, fast-food jobs are relatively low-productivity positions, typically filled by inexperienced workers. Most fast-food customers want a quick, inexpensive meal. They will not regularly pay premium prices for a burger and fries.
Doubling McDonald's wages would raise the company's total costs by 25 percent — well above profit margins. And raising prices would drive away customers.
If Congress mandated fast-food restaurants to pay $15 an hour, they would have to change operations to deliver the kind of productivity to justify those higher costs. That would mean replacing current workers with machines and hiring fewer, more skilled workers to maintain them.
Restaurants could do this in a variety of ways, such as using iPad kiosks instead of cashiers to take orders or installing a new, robotic burger flipper, which makes up to 400 hamburgers an hour.
At current wages, these high-tech investments make sense for only a few restaurants; if wages doubled, they would become widespread. The end result: far fewer jobs in the fast-food industry and higher pay for those who remain.
Those who consider such a trade-off worthwhile miss the economic role of minimum-wage jobs. For most workers, they are entry-level positions where they can gain experience that makes them more productive and helps them command higher pay in their next job.
Most Americans started out in jobs paying within a dollar of the minimum wage. Few stay there long. The average fast-food employee stays at his or her restaurant for less than a year. These are simply gateway jobs, the first step on a career ladder. That is why the vast majority of fast-food workers are under the age of 25.
American Samoa offers a case study of what would happen if the “living wage” lobby prevailed.
The island territory used to have a separate minimum wage because of its lower incomes. But in 2007, Congress applied the U.S. minimum wage to Samoa. For the tiny Pacific Ocean nation, this was the economic equivalent of $20 an hour.
It did not boost purchasing power, stimulate demand or raise living standards. Instead unemployment septupled to more than 35 percent.
The governor begged Congress to suspend the wage hikes, pleading, “How much does our government expect us to suffer?”
Good intentions do not repeal the laws of economics. Requiring dramatically higher fast-food wages would eliminate hundreds of thousands of entry-level jobs. This would no more help fast-food workers than bleeding them with leeches.
James Sherk is a senior policy analyst in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- UPMC doctor killed trying to help at 50-vehicle pileup
- Penguins’ Neal suspended five games for Marchand hit
- Expert: KO doesn’t mean ‘worst’ concussion for Pens’ Orpik
- Steelers WR Brown says ‘I thought I had it clean’ after wild, near-miss finish
- Kovacevic: Enough of these Steelers already
- Police: Argument between exes sparked kidnapping, chase and fatal shooting
- Police: Witness’ tip leads to arrest
- Penguins players are not out looking for fights
- Aliquippa’s Henry picks West Virginia over Pitt
- Woman accused of assault over rap music to attend anger management classes
- Rullo demotion hearing postponed