Forum Post: No $5 foot longs at Subways in SF
Posted 12 years ago on March 29, 2012, 10:42 a.m. EST by Jflynn1964
(-206)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The catchy Subway sandwich shop jingle involving a variety of foot-long sandwiches available for $5 doesn't apply in San Francisco.
The sandwich-making chain stopped selling the five-dollar footlongs in San Francisco due to the "high cost of doing business," according to SF Weekly.
Signs posted at Subway sandwich shops sadly inform San Francisco patrons -- we hear Willie Brown is a big fan -- that "all SUBWAY Restaurants in SF County DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN Subway National $5.00 Promotions," according to the newspaper.
Customers can still buy the sub of the month for $5, according to an employee at Subway on Market and Castro streets.
Apparently, the city's new minimum wage, raised to $10.24 as of Jan. 1, make $5 footlongs an impossible business model.
Unless you want tuna fish, which is the sub of the month. Yum.
For the amount of meat, measured in fractions of ounces, on most Subway sandwiches, they could afford to sell their foot-long for $3 and still make a profit, regardless of the minimum wage.
Check on the most lucrative franchises; Subway ranks right at the top. Care to guess why? The profit margin is very high. The only purpose in relating profit to minimum wage or forced benefits, like SF mandatory health insurance for employers that employee twenty or more people, is simply to keep minimum wage at near slave-labor rates and increase profits.
There is no god, who engraved a law that businesses should make x amount of profit, except the god of greed.
Maybe the sandwich on it own could sell for $3 at a profit, but add all of the overhead that goes into running a business and that profit on a $3 sandwich is probably gone. Truth is we would need to have more information to accurately detail their profit margin based on a complete report of overhead expenditures.
good point everyone just looks at the final product and nothing else
But it is not up to you to dictate to the owners of Subway what they should pay their employees. You are not the dictator.
The only way I dictate to the owners of Subway what to pay their employees is by not patronizing Subway, which I don't. So, I am the dictator in that sense.
Agreed, so why should a community tell a private business owner what they should pay their employees.
It's called a minimum-wage law; the purpose is, simply put. to insure that working people are not abused or exploited by their employers, which, I'm sure you would agree, has occurred in the past.
People exploiting people has occurred in the past and is occurring now. I saw OWs vandalize property a few months ago in a major city. When cities attempt to tell private individuals how to act and run their business, then I think it is an overreach.
4 tacos extra lettuce Jack in the Box $2
Each subway shop is individually owed all deals that they can do are up to them. The just by the name and suppliers most of this doesn't deal with corporate
Well Its a weird system sometimes they have more power than others all depends on the contract you sign.
Yes, you are correct.
So sorry they are stuck with franchise rules limits and suppliers. The franchise is the business you just buy in to use their stuff, you want your own stuff? Start your own business.
Yes some people want to have that because of security of the name. They only own the name nothing more its an interesting set up but some people like it.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
Fine by me. I'd rather pay $8 for good healthy food that is also helping someone live a real life.
I think the $5 Footlong promotion was unrealistic for Subway to continue running anyway. It was a great marketing ploy, but its time for Subway to get back to making a profit on their subs. There is a reason why Firehouse Subs and Quiznos are not jumping on the $5 footlong bandwagon...
Well you would think that if the subs were less expensive that there might be more traffic going through the store. I don't care if the food is fresh or healthy or whatever, the cost of the food is basically the same throughout most of America. Typical California bs. And since the trend is starting in CA, it's bound to catch on all over America.
This is how Govt drive small business out of business. Congrats CA! $10.24 to put together a low end sub sandwich lol!
Yeah it probably does take them an hour to make a sandwich, with their pretentious California customers.
"I said toasted for eight seconds not ten! Start over make me a new one. You put pickles on top of the olives??? What the fuck is wrong with you!? I said olives and pickles, not pickles and olives."
You have no idea how right you are.
I don't buy into the "Wal Mart mentality." I'd rather pay more for better quality, service, and doing the right thing than get a cheap sub from someone who has to take welfare because their job isn't paying enough.
You want to get rid of welfare? Make businesses pay their employees a living wage!
You have to have revenue to fund the living wage. Where do you think it comes from?
Taxing the rich.
We'll actually have more revenue when the living wage is adopted, because that means more people will be paying income tax.
Taxing one group relative to another just takes from one bucket (the people) and gives it to another bucket (the government). It doesn't do anything for the amount of money in circulation or the amount of activity.
Increasing the minimum wage will shift income from the employer to the employee but won't effect the overall take of the government. It will also make the cost of employment higher, which could be passed on in either higher prices or lower demand for workers.
Currently we have a large amount of people who don't pay any income taxes due to their income level. If their income levels are increased to the point where they are in a tax bracket that pays taxes, then yes, the government will get more money in taxes. There will also be more people that have disposable income to use to revitalize the economy. More demand = more business = more $ for business. Those business owners that will supposedly hurt from the wage increase will make all of their money back and more from the increase in customer base.
The Federal government doesn't care if they get their money from the low income worker or the high income worker; I suppose they would prefer it from the latter as the rate is higher so theoretically they would get more.
As wages rise, there wil be less demand for workers as their costs go up so less workers will be employed. What happens when your increase the price of a good, demand goes down until you reach equilibrium.
Those employees who receive the increased minimum wage might spend it but also might save it depending on their confidence in the economy. It is the same option that the employer has with that money, either spend it or save it. Either way, the money is in the system and will be effected by the overall trends.
Taxing the Rich their fair share is a start, it is common sense that only the greedy would deny.
A living wage for the population does more than just broaden the tax base it also broadens the consumer market. More things of all kinds being sold due to the ability to buy more then bare necessities.
Cut loop holes out of successful business taxing leave incentives in place for new developing business.
Regulate Fossil Fuel Prices/Profits, and you start to have a really healthy economy.
It comes from off the top. Reduce executive pay by 200% so that they are only making 40 to 80% more than their employee base instead of 300% or more and there you have a start on readjusting wage disparity. Pump that Executive pay reduction into existing payroll on an even basis through the lowest paid and then see how things stand.
[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (193) 16 hours ago
You have to have revenue to fund the living wage. Where do you think it comes from? ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink
Why do you want to reduce wage disparity? I don't care what you make I care what I make. If somebody is more talented that me and is able to do better than me, so be it. I am not jealous of Peyton Manning making more money than me since I can't do what he does.
People pay to see Peyton Manning so he gets what he deserves. I. on the other hand, am 20 pounds overweight so...
Start a cardio routine you will thank yourself later for getting in shape now.
Peyton Manning? You seem to like calling his number in these discussions.
Professional sports pay and compensation is all out of proportion. There is not a player today that should be paid by their team more than one million a year, and that is excessive.
Players should be compensated "for life" though for medical care due to the beating that they take as a part of their job - this should be funded by each professional league.
The professional Leagues should also be responsible for funding their own stadiums in concert with team owners - this should not ever depend on any public money - unless the public is gaining ownership and revenue. PERIOD.
If advertisers want a spokesman they can hire a sports star if they want and if the league approves of the product or message as it involves a sports professional in a public arena. If they are retired then it is all their own decision to make who they might represent.
Getting a handle on these issues could greatly reduce costs involved in owning a team and so reduce cost for fan participation.
Excess profits could be taxed appropriately and these revenues could go into state and federal programs.
The same should go for any business. Smart money management with realistic pay-scales for all concerned Executive positions to entry level positions.
Wage disparity is plainly and simply wrong.
Period.
You might be correct in your opinion of sports compensation but the marketplace, which is the people and a voting mechanism, says otherwise. So why should a law be encacted that goes against the wishes of the people to meet your thinking?
It's a bit tyrannical, no?
Let it be presented to the people and let them weigh in on it. This is supposed to be a democracy. How else do you reign in greed and inequity if the greedy are not willing to see reason? It should be presented to the public for the benefit of all. Then it can be discussed and hammered out into something that is beneficial to all - including the greedy.
I'd sure like to do some hammering. Silver hammer fell down...
It already is via people buying tickets for these events and watching them on TV. If they are against it, they wouldn't buy the tickets. So why do you want to impose your beliefs on the majority when they don't agree. By the way, I don't attend professional events because they are to expensive for me.
So why are you the dictator? I thought the OWS was suppose to represent the people?
How am I dictating if I want it presented to the public for debate and resolution. This is not only about professional sports ( that was your thing and I answered it in an example ) this is about greed and wage inequality through-out all business as well as in government.
So Instead of my being a dictator I am the voice of reason asking why our government is not working with and for it's people in resolving these issues. The government of The People By The People For The People.
We are getting left out of all decision making and that is wrong.
It is presented to the public, everyday. We don't have to talk about sports, let's talk about what the CEO of Boeing makes. Boeing is a public company owned by its shareholders. It is disclosed what he makes. If the shareholders, who pay his salary, don't like it they can vote by selling their shares. If the buyer of Boeing products don't liek it they can vote, by not getting on Boeing planes. So how is it that the public has not vote?
Pull your head out of your (x). The public currently has no say in wage inequality. It is take it or leave it, that is not a choice. So now we have a very large portion of the population that is struggling just to keep fed and a roof of some sort over their head. Hell it used to be that entry level people could afford to live and support a family on one job, two jobs would guarantee a house and extras. Upper management pay and profits are way out of proportion to the workers contributions and their needs.
Of course the public has a say. Do you buy Apple products? When I walked by the OWS campsites, Apple products were everywhere - phones, Ipods, Pads. These people are funding the low wages Chinese worker. If you don't like it don't buy it.
I love Ben & Jerry Vanilla Ice Cream - to my own detriment. I was in the store the other day with my kids and I passed on buying it and bought the Safeway brand instead. Why, because they support the vandalism of the OWS.
It seems to me you are all big talkers but when it comes to making it pay, you pass. Don't buy Apple goods if you don't like it.
I don't buy apple. They are also beginning to respond to public criticism of their Chinese sweatshop.
Now we just need to keep the pressure on so that they need to keep improving what they do - that is how they conduct business. The People are waking up. It will not be long before the pressure is turned up on all asshole corporations. Then we will see about outsourcing to bypass financial and human responsibility.
Too bad it doesn't work that way. When the minimum wage goes up, the price of everything goes up. And what it actually does is hurt the people that were already making more than minimum wage which is most people, cause it's not like they're going to get an equivalent pay raise - so they're either back to minimum wage or their quality of life goes down because prices go up, but they're stuck making the same wage. And you don’t even help the people you’re supposed to be trying to help. A raise in the minimum wage helps very few people for a temporary time until prices find equilibrium (which is a very short time frame). Then the cost of living is the same as it was when they were making $5.25, and they're not any better off. This is basic economics. And you all know it. Otherwise, why not make the minimum wage $50 an hour? Then we'd all be making good money right? Wrong. We'd all be paying higher prices and be right back where we started so that politicians can pretend to care for the poor and all their supporters can pat themselves on the back and feel morally superior to everyone else.
That's not true. When the federal minimum wage was raised to $7.25 we didn't lose any dollar menus, and I didn't notice any price increases.
The price of goods are set by supply and demand. Demand being the price that the market will bear. Basic economics.
I want the minimum wage to go up, and if that means I have to pay more for fast food, then fine by me. Fast food im general is bad for you anyway. You should stop eating it.
Raising the minimum wage will do so much good for this country that the small bump in sub prices will be more than worth it. We'll have less crime. Less people on welfare (less of our tax $ being spent.) Less use of EBT. Less foreclosures, which leads to less homelessness. More people that can afford goods and services, aka more potential customers. More people that can pay taxes. A happier, less stressed-out populace. Good things happen when the minimum wage is increased.
Prove all those claims with links or kiss my ass.
Getting a little testy today? Did I hit a nerve? Too bad no one agrees with your asinine opinions...
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/min_wage.htm
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5632.html
http://people.virginia.edu/~jvp3m/abstracts/LW.pdf
http://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/w9061.html
"Increases in the real minimum wage also significantly reduce robberies and murders: 3.4 to 3.7 percent fewer robberies with a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage and 6.3 to 6.9 percent fewer murders."
And just for you, since you have a hard time with Economics 101: www.socialstudiesforkids.com/subjects/economics.htm
More truth for the liar.
http://www.city-data.com/top26.html
Notice? All are in low minimum wsge locations. So much for the liberal politically slanted links you posted.
Would you happen to have that DATA for major cities like Detroit or New Orleans?
NO is fucking dangerous. All in all in my experience the south is one of the most dangerous areas in the country. Memphis is reallly bad. Its definiatley a correlation between the high poverty rates in south and violent crime.
[Deleted]
The doofus has not proven to be a very accurate provider of DATA, let alone it's analysis.
Wikipedia does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
detroit has the highest crime rate in America and a MW in the middle of the pack. So much for bogus college research. haha
It also has among the lowest wages and highest unemployment figures.
Try and stay with the subject at hand.
And like a court of law since you opened up an entirely new line of questioning, i can now redirect the emphasis to unemployment, which really does lead to more crime and adk the quextion " Does a high minimum wage create more unemployment, epecially in teens and minority teens specifically?"
There is a lot of thought that high MW does cause more unemployment. Its not a phony ginned up bullshit lie like those other links but questions are being asked. Nit conclusive but its food for thought.
Which allows me to say "high MWs cause higher unemployment, which causes more crime."
Too quick for you dolts. hahahahaha
No you stay on topic. I was on topic. Michigans MW is $7:40/hr. Thats above the Federal standard, so in no way is Detroit "low wage."
He wasnt talking unemployment, thats entirely different. I will and can make the argument high MW creates more unemployment which causes more crime.
I win, again.
http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp150/
"Alaska
In recognition of its high cost of living, for decades Alaska set its minimum wage to be 50 cents above the federal rate.2 In 2002, the Alaska legislature passed a minimum wage increase. As a result, on January 1, 2003 the Alaskan minimum wage went to $7.15, two dollars above the federal rate—an immediate bump of $1.50 per hour. This increase seems to have had no impact on the state’s unemployment rate, which has remained constant since the summer of 2002."
"The Oregon unemployment rate rose in the months directly following the 40-cent increase, but again there is no reason to blame the minimum wage. Employment in leisure and hospitality, which had fallen by an annual average rate of 1.5% from 2000 to 2002 when the minimum wage was constant, bounced back in 2003, adding 1,300 jobs (see Figure 4). In other words, the industry that employs the largest share of minimum wage workers added jobs during a year when the state as a whole lost 10,500 jobs."
"The national perspective
The connection between minimum wages and unemployment looks even weaker when all 12 states with minimum wages above the federal level are considered (see Table 1):
"
You don't know when to pack it in, do ya?
This is too easy.
San Fancisco has the highest minimum wage and the highest crime rate!!
the safest cities
http://www.areavibes.com/library/10-cities-lowest-crime/
also have the lowest minimum wages.
I just destroyed your lying bogus link in 5 mins. Hilarious!!
And you proved yourself wrong in 2 minutes flat...
From your link (Top 10 safest cities):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages
Minimum wage in California is $8... California occupies four spots on that list, and its minimum wage is higher than the federal rate by nearly a dollar! Seems like paying minimum wage workers just $.75 more is really paying off for California citizens.
And Texas, Hawaii, Virginia, Indiana and Arizona pay the federal rate of $7.25... so how does this data correlate between minimum wage and crime rates?
Hilarious!!!!
San Francisco has the highest MW and a crime rate that exceeds 90% of all cities.
So what I proved is there is no correlation, the stats are all over the place. The links you provided said there was a correlation. You and I proved there wasnt.
I win, thanks for helping.
Actually your link proved your point wrong. The fact that California occupies four of the slots on that list proves that it is generally safer to live there, where the minimum wage is higher, than in, say St. Louis Missouri.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
In fact, out of the thirty five cities on that list that have a total crime ratio of > 2:100 people, only 13 are from states that have a minimum wage above the federal minimum, and by above I mean I counted even the states that are only paying $7.50 instead of just $7.25. So 62.9% of the higher crime ratio cities are from states that are only paying the federal rate. You're nearly twice as likely to be living in a high crime city if you live in a state without any extra minimum wage.
But enough about the US. There's this data all over the world:
"Spatial Crime Patterns and the Introduction of the UK Minimum Wage
Kirstine Hansen
London School of Economics & Political Science (LSE) - Department of Sociology
Stephen J. Machin
University College London - Department of Economics; Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)
Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 64, pp. 677-697, August 2002
Abstract:
This paper provides an empirical evaluation of whether one can uncover a link between crime and the labour market using a research methodology that is different to that utilized in existing work. We exploit a large regulatory change that was made to the UK labour market when a national minimum wage was introduced in April 1999. This minimum wage introduction provided pay increases for quite a large number of low paid workers. From a theoretical perspective we argue that this wage boost could have altered individual incentives to participate in crime. We then go on to develop empirical tests of this hypothesis comparing spatial crime patterns, measured at police force area level, in the years before and after the introduction of the minimum wage floor. Our empirical study of area-level crime rates before and after the minimum wage introduction uncovers a statistically significant link between changes in crime and the extent of area low pay before the minimum wage was introduced. Overall our results are in line with the notion that altering wage incentives can affect crime and therefore that there exists a link between crime and the low wage labour market. "
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=423339
"Findings include that real minimum wage has a negative effect on violent, property and total crime, while a lagged real minimum wage has a negative effect on violent, other and total crime. By including unemployment in the model, it becomes apparent that one cannot ignore its possible intermediate effect between real minimum wage and crime. This finding holds for property and violent crime. Interestingly contrary to many economics and crime studies performed in the United States, a proxy for ethnic difference is never significant."
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~fsummerf/papers/MinWage.pdf
No answer? What a pussy.
Then please have one of your scholars explain Sa Francisco?
Do you have a link to back up your claims about San Fransisco?
yes i do i posted it above but here it is again.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/san-francisco/crime/
now answer the question, you sniveling deflecting coward.
Why should I care about that city? Its one city out of thousands. You're just butthurt because your own link from earlier disproved your own point. The data (THAT YOU POSTED!) showed that California as a whole is safer because of the higher minimum wage. You don't want to admit that you're wrong, so you're trying to deflect, just like any good conservative does when presented with the truth.
Who do you work for? I want to tell your boss that they need to do better screening for idiots.
I live in San Francisco. Who ever told dipshit SF is a dangerous place to live lied. It's much more dangerous were I grew up in Nashville. Hell its probably more dangerous where you live in Charlotte.
I agree. Its based more on the neighborhood than anything. I remember that there were streets in Atlanta that you just didn't walk down. What was odd was that those notorious streets would be one or two blocks away from a thriving arts district, or a high-end apartment community. I have a feeling that the people who were living in the gated, $1 million+ homes were taking home more than minimum wage, LOL!
Why ask for the link then.
And answer this: the state with the highest overall MW is New Mexico, and New Mexico has the second highest crime rate of all states. # 1 state crime? Nevada, with a minimum wage of $8.25, higher than California. California is 15th in crime. In fact there is zero correlation between MW and crime stats. I have proven beyond all doubt that minimum wage has no correlation to crime stats and the occuturd college professors who claimed it does are completely full of shit.
I win, again. BTW anecdotal stories of safety are worthless. A buddy just gave a lecture to the Radiology society in SF and he said the city is a dump.
You're a compulsive liar, aren't you? Think you're not going to get caught?
Washington state has the highest MW:
"Washington $9.04
Employees aged 14 or 15 may be paid 85% of the minimum wage, which is $7.68 as of January 1, 2012. Minimum wage increases annually by a voter-approved cost-of-living adjustment based on the federal Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). The wage increased 37 cents from $8.67 to $9.04 on January 1, 2012."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages
http://www.lni.wa.gov/workplacerights/wages/minimum/
There is a weak correlation, but still a correlation. The fact is that giving the poor enough money to eat removes the incentive for them to steal food or items to sell for food. I don't want to live in a community where people are stealing food in order to afford life's necessities. Its a safety issue. I want to live in a community where the people around me have a stable home, food to eat, and some financial security because those people aren't going to mug me or start breaking into my neighborhood grocery store.
If we want a safer country, then we want to increase the MW so that its a living wage, adjust it every year for inflation, and end the war on drugs. People are stealing from each other because they either need food or want drugs. Legalize the drugs, regulate & tax them, raise the MW, and voila, thefts are reduced to just those who have a criminal mindset (a small minority.)
You are hysterical. People are stealing food because the MW is $7.25 not $8? Sure. Obesity levels are upwards of 40% and you can fund people starvng? No you cant. You just make stuff up.
Give me the % of people in America who are starving, please. Find a correlation then to that starvation with minimum wage. You wont.
Drugs however are a reason for crime, but that nothing to do with minimum wage. At least admit that.
Are you making this easy on purpose? Seriously, EBT & minimum wage go hand-in-hand like Peanut Butter & Jelly. Who do you think collects food stamps? People who don't make enough money to afford food!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/us-usa-poverty-foodstamps-idUSTRE77L45Z20110822
"Over the past 20 years, the characteristics of the program's recipients have changed. In 1989, a higher percentage were on benefits than working, but as of 2009 a higher percentage had earned income.
"SNAP is increasingly work support," said Ed Bolen, an analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
And that's only likely to get worse: So far in the recovery, jobs growth has been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, with minimal growth in middle-income wages as many higher-paid blue collar jobs have disappeared.
And 6 percent of the 72.9 million Americans paid by the hour received wages at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour in 2010. That's up from 4.9 percent in 2009, and 3 percent in 2002, according to government data.
Bolen said just based on income, minimum wage single parents are almost always eligible for food stamps.
"This becomes an implicit subsidy for low-wage jobs and in terms of incentives for higher wage job creation that really is not a good thing," said Arindrajit Dube, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, whose research shows raising the minimum wage would spur economic activity.
Until a couple of weeks ago Tashawna Green, 21, from Queens Village, New York, worked 25 hours a week at an $8.08 hourly rate at retailer Target. She is on food stamps, and says a good number of her former colleagues are too.
"It's a good thing that the government helps, but if employers paid enough and gave enough hours, then we wouldn't need to be on food stamps," said Green, who has a six-year-old daughter."
http://raiseillinois.com/my-life-on-minimum-wage/
"Even though I work full-time, I have to use government programs like food stamps and a medical card to get by. This assistance helps, but it is still really difficult for me to pay my rent and bills on a minimum wage salary. My son and I have to live with two other adults in a two bedroom apartment because we can’t afford to live on our own."
"We have to use things like food stamps and a medical card. If the minimum wage was raised then we wouldn’t have to rely on that. It’s crazy because the government will spend so much money downtown on building luxury condos, even though no one in Alton can afford to live there, but they ignore the working people that make up most of this town. "
"I work almost everyday, yet we still have trouble providing basic needs for our family. Most of my paycheck goes to rent. We have had to move around five times in the past couple of years because we couldn’t find any place that was affordable. We depend on food stamps to feed our kids and a medical card for healthcare. A raise in the minimum wage would help us have a stable place to live and a way to stop relying on government assistance."
http://halfinten.org/uploads/support_files/Poverty_Diet_Template.pdf
"If you make minimum wage, what is left for food?: In central Virginia, a worker earning minimum wage ($7.25/hour) must work 99 hours per week in order to afford a two-bedroom apartment at the fair market rent of $958. If a person works 40 hours a week making minimum wage, he or she can only afford a monthly rent of $377. What money is left to spend on food for their family?"
"My husband, James, and I have four children between the ages of one and 15. James used to make a decent living as a drafter, making over $15 an hour with benefits. In 1999, he was laid off, and since then he has had a difficult time finding work. The last job he held was at Rite Aid, working for $10 an hour. However, he had to quit because his schedule kept getting switched around and we were paying too much in daycare when we both had to work at the same time. We are receiving SNAP benefits, but not enough. When James was working at Rite Aid and bringing home about $1,300 a month (for a family of six), we received $120 in SNAP benefits. James and I only ate one meal a day then. We were always hungry. We wanted our children to eat, so we didn’t. Now that James is out of work our SNAP amount has gone up, but not by very much. We go to the food bank, but you can only go once a month. Plus we don’t have a car, which makes it difficult because the food bank isn’t close by. If my family had enough to eat, things would be less stressful and we would be able to do more to change our situation. I feel like I am dealing with crisis after crisis now and not making any progress."
http://independentreport.blogspot.com/2011/09/food-stamp-use-rising-with-poverty.html
"Low wages and rising poverty are behind the large increase of Americans needing food assistance. While there may indeed be some fraud, the fact that wages have been stagnant for nearly four decades has manifested itself in some rather stark ways.
Six percent of the 72.9 million Americans paid by the hour received wages at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour in 2010. That's up from 4.9 percent in 2009, and 3 percent in 2002, according to government data.
Due to their low incomes, minimum wage single parents are almost always eligible for food stamps. Assuming they work 40 hours every week of the year, a minimum wage worker earns about $15,000 annually. An $800 per month apartment would eat up nearly $10K of that income."
Sure, you get the drug point. I agree, drugs use/sales/abuse leads to a lot of crime. I want to end the war on drugs, because it is clear as day that no matter when anybody does, people are going to buy and sell narcotics. It is a fact of life, and much like the prohibition era, it is time for the government to decide whether they want to keep wasting money fighting the inevitable, or turn this issue into a new source of revenue.
On the obesity point, how much low-price food is filled with empty carbohydrates, excess sodium, and large amounts of hydrogenated oils (trans fat)? How many food products can be bought for under $1 that are rich in vitamins, minerals, AND are low-calorie? How many people on minimum wage can afford a vegetarian diet? A vegan diet? Organic foods? How many nutrient-rich items are available on the dollar menus at every fast food chain?
Its not a black-and-whtie issue like you conservatives like to think everything is. The cheap food (that those on MW can afford) is full of fattening things like fats, sugars, and sodium. The healthier food is more expensive.
The fact that a bigot like Santorum agrees with you should clue you in to how poor your position is:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/07/383788/santorum-we-dont-need-food-stamps-because-obesity-rates-are-so-high/?mobile=nc
[Removed]
[Removed]
California is going Bankrupt through mismanagement. Yeah Subway I'm sure the minimum wage is just killing you.
NOT
You are a quality control guy, what do you know?
QA there is a difference. And I know quite a lot of things. Why do you ask?
[Removed]