With respect to ongoing attempts, started by fast food workers in 2013 to with hold a $15 minimum pay per hour, what are the advantages and disadvantages of each position, and for what reason might these food workers have been the group to get this development moving? It would be ideal if someone can assist me in analyzing such a discussion to be deferential and circumspect in tone while tending to this dubious subject.
One important reason why fast-food workers deserve more money is the enormous disparity between their pay and that of CEOs in their industry. This disparity exists throughout the entire American economy, but it is especially evident and appalling in the fast-food industry. While the average hourly fast-food worker makes $13 an hour, the CEOs make $6617 an hour. This means the executives make more than 500 times as much. At McDonald's, this discrepancy is even worse.
Fast food has also been very profitable for stockholders. With so much money being given to executives and shareholders, fast-food companies should be able to dole out enough to pay all their workers at least $15 an hour. Half of fast-food workers rely on public assistance to survive economically. Why should taxpayers subsidize fast-food workers when that industry is so profitable?
A $15 minimum wage is good for the national economy. Workers who make that amount usually spend it—fueling the entire American economy. Wealthy executives and stockholders, on the other hand, typically invest their money—further enriching themselves but doing nothing for the economy as a whole.
In recent years, a $15 minimum-wage movement has gained momentum in much of the United States. Its proponents argue that all workers are entitled to a living wage. Fast-food workers are just as deserving as factory workers—or any other employees—to a decent wage.
check Approved by eNotes Editorial