Latest recipes

Fast-food workers in Denmark Can Make $45,000 a Year

Fast-food workers in Denmark Can Make $45,000 a Year



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

In America, fast-food workers are fighting for living wages to improve their quality of life and the average $10 an hour paycheck, but in Denmark, fast-food workers live fairly comfortably with, at minimum, a $20 per hour average hourly wage.

In a recent Reuters blog post, a woman wrote about her $21-per-hour wages at a McDonald’s in Denmark. According to the blog post, fast-food workers in her country are unionized and enjoy five weeks’ vacation in addition to double the salary of the average American fast-food worker. The woman also stated that in Denmark, most fast-food workers are students or young people looking to earn money to pay off debt while attending school. But in America, most fast-food workers are past high school or college age, and an average of 30 percent of fast-food workers are trying to support their children.

The difference between the average compensation for American and Danish fast-food workers is startling. But is it possible for Americans to catch up? Analysts say it’s difficult to tell.

“Trying to compare the business and labor practices in Denmark and the U.S. is like comparing apples to autos,” Steve Caldeira, president of the International Franchise Association, a group based in Washington that promotes franchising and has many fast-food companies as members, told The New York Times.

Denmark is a small country with a 30-percent higher cost of living than America, but even adjusted for inflationary differences, Danish workers earn the equivalent of 3.4 Big Macs an hour, while Americans earn 1.8. Also, even though the tiny country has no minimum wage law, according to the unions, the lowest wage a salaried food worker can earn is $20 per hour.

“We don’t want there to be a big difference between the richest and poorest, because poor people would just get really poor,” Martin Drescher, the general manager of airport restaurants operator HMSHost Denmark, told The New York Times. “We don’t want people living on the streets. If that happens, we consider that we as a society have failed.”

For the latest happenings in the food and drink world, visit our Food News page.

Joanna Fantozzi is an Associate Editor with The Daily Meal. Follow her on Twitter @JoannaFantozzi


“It is utterly embarrassing that ‘pay people enough to live’ is a stance that’s even up for debate,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted. “Override the parliamentarian and raise the wage. [McDonald’s] workers in Denmark are paid $22/hr + 6 wks paid vacation. $15/hr is a deep compromise—a big one, considering the phase in.”

The most obvious problem with the New York Democrat’s contention is that Denmark, like other Scandinavian nations, doesn’t have a statutory minimum wage.

Industries and workers engage in sector-by-sector salary negotiations, which might well undermine intra-industry competition, but which is a much better idea than the flat national-wage floor being peddled by Democrats.

So, this popular progressive talking point about Denmark’s miracle middle-class fast-food worker doesn’t make much sense to begin with.

Especially when one considers that the per-capita income in the United States is virtually the same as in Denmark—quite a feat given that we’re a pluralistic nation of around 330 million people that naturalizes another 900,000 people every year, many from poor nations, and that Denmark is a homogeneous country of fewer than 6 million citizens that, in recent years, has effectively shut down its borders to poor immigrants.

Denmark’s generous welfare state is propped up by shared social and cultural norms, and institutions that are habitually reviled by American progressives: unimpeded international trade, low regulatory burdens on business, and sometimes oil and gas checks—Denmark and Norway are Western Europe’s largest oil and gas producers.

Then there is the matter of what exactly $45,000—the salary an employee making $22 an hour on a full-time basis would earn—means in each country. Denmark can afford its system because high taxes are paid by all its citizens, not just the wealthy.

Not only do Danish fast-food employees making $45,000 hand over around half their earnings to the government, they pay a 25% value-added tax on most purchases, as well as a number of other levies. In return, Danes are afforded all kinds of government-provided services.

Presumably, Ocasio-Cortez approves of this arrangement. Either way, Americans whose eyes light up at the prospect of making $22 per hour should know that nearly $11 of that goes straight to the state.

Further, how much does a hamburger cost in Denmark? Spoiler: considerably more.

If the federal government forced fast-food chains to start paying employees $22 per hour, and giving them six weeks paid vacation, and health care, and all the other goodies that progressives want to compel companies to offer, American consumers should be prepared to pay more for food or to be served by robots.

The last time there was a push for a $15 minimum wage, in 2015-2016, McDonald’s quickly rolled out a touchscreen self-service kiosk makeover. Since then, that technology has only gotten better—and cheaper. Big chains like to offer up rhetoric that pleases the activist left, but in the end, they are not charities but businesses with stakeholders. And profits matter.

Now, I understand that socialists would be happy creating a permanent proletariat that is reliant on government to fix their wages and dictate all benefits. And, certainly, there is nothing demeaning about taking a job at a fast-food restaurant.

For many young people, it’s a temporary stop where they can take on responsibility for the first time and earn some money. For others, who need these jobs, it offers flexible hours and part-time work.

Most people do not make careers out of working at Wendy’s. Fast-food chains have massive employee turnover rates. Some experience a 100% turnover every year.

The other day, Ocasio-Cortez argued that, “when we keep the minimum wage artificially low, it’s at a huge cost to our government, … they’re essentially enormous subsidies to Walmart.”

The notion that Ocasio-Cortez is apprehensive about government subsidies is, of course, risible. But she’s also wrong.

Walmart, which revolutionized shopping by offering millions of low-income Americans affordable goods (progressives never mention that part of the equation), recently increased its internal minimum wage to $13-$19 per hour for most workers, while Amazon, Target, and Costco have raised their minimum wages to $15 per hour.

Is this a good idea? We’ll see.

As Thomas Sowell once pithily noted, all public policy is about trade-offs. The increases will help some workers, no doubt. But they will also cost jobs, either by leading to less overall hiring or by forcing consumers to pay “artificially” high prices, rather than spending the difference elsewhere.

Ocasio-Cortez’s rhetoric implies that there is something artificial about a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour but nothing artificial about a minimum wage of $15. This is ridiculous.

The only nonartificial minimum wage is zero—which, incidentally, is what the 1.4 million people the Congressional Budget Office says would lose work due to a $15 national minimum wage will be making if Ocasio-Cortez’s side of the argument wins.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.


“It is utterly embarrassing that ‘pay people enough to live’ is a stance that’s even up for debate,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted. “Override the parliamentarian and raise the wage. [McDonald’s] workers in Denmark are paid $22/hr + 6 wks paid vacation. $15/hr is a deep compromise—a big one, considering the phase in.”

The most obvious problem with the New York Democrat’s contention is that Denmark, like other Scandinavian nations, doesn’t have a statutory minimum wage.

Industries and workers engage in sector-by-sector salary negotiations, which might well undermine intra-industry competition, but which is a much better idea than the flat national-wage floor being peddled by Democrats.

So, this popular progressive talking point about Denmark’s miracle middle-class fast-food worker doesn’t make much sense to begin with.

Especially when one considers that the per-capita income in the United States is virtually the same as in Denmark—quite a feat given that we’re a pluralistic nation of around 330 million people that naturalizes another 900,000 people every year, many from poor nations, and that Denmark is a homogeneous country of fewer than 6 million citizens that, in recent years, has effectively shut down its borders to poor immigrants.

Denmark’s generous welfare state is propped up by shared social and cultural norms, and institutions that are habitually reviled by American progressives: unimpeded international trade, low regulatory burdens on business, and sometimes oil and gas checks—Denmark and Norway are Western Europe’s largest oil and gas producers.

Then there is the matter of what exactly $45,000—the salary an employee making $22 an hour on a full-time basis would earn—means in each country. Denmark can afford its system because high taxes are paid by all its citizens, not just the wealthy.

Not only do Danish fast-food employees making $45,000 hand over around half their earnings to the government, they pay a 25% value-added tax on most purchases, as well as a number of other levies. In return, Danes are afforded all kinds of government-provided services.

Presumably, Ocasio-Cortez approves of this arrangement. Either way, Americans whose eyes light up at the prospect of making $22 per hour should know that nearly $11 of that goes straight to the state.

Further, how much does a hamburger cost in Denmark? Spoiler: considerably more.

If the federal government forced fast-food chains to start paying employees $22 per hour, and giving them six weeks paid vacation, and health care, and all the other goodies that progressives want to compel companies to offer, American consumers should be prepared to pay more for food or to be served by robots.

The last time there was a push for a $15 minimum wage, in 2015-2016, McDonald’s quickly rolled out a touchscreen self-service kiosk makeover. Since then, that technology has only gotten better—and cheaper. Big chains like to offer up rhetoric that pleases the activist left, but in the end, they are not charities but businesses with stakeholders. And profits matter.

Now, I understand that socialists would be happy creating a permanent proletariat that is reliant on government to fix their wages and dictate all benefits. And, certainly, there is nothing demeaning about taking a job at a fast-food restaurant.

For many young people, it’s a temporary stop where they can take on responsibility for the first time and earn some money. For others, who need these jobs, it offers flexible hours and part-time work.

Most people do not make careers out of working at Wendy’s. Fast-food chains have massive employee turnover rates. Some experience a 100% turnover every year.

The other day, Ocasio-Cortez argued that, “when we keep the minimum wage artificially low, it’s at a huge cost to our government, … they’re essentially enormous subsidies to Walmart.”

The notion that Ocasio-Cortez is apprehensive about government subsidies is, of course, risible. But she’s also wrong.

Walmart, which revolutionized shopping by offering millions of low-income Americans affordable goods (progressives never mention that part of the equation), recently increased its internal minimum wage to $13-$19 per hour for most workers, while Amazon, Target, and Costco have raised their minimum wages to $15 per hour.

Is this a good idea? We’ll see.

As Thomas Sowell once pithily noted, all public policy is about trade-offs. The increases will help some workers, no doubt. But they will also cost jobs, either by leading to less overall hiring or by forcing consumers to pay “artificially” high prices, rather than spending the difference elsewhere.

Ocasio-Cortez’s rhetoric implies that there is something artificial about a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour but nothing artificial about a minimum wage of $15. This is ridiculous.

The only nonartificial minimum wage is zero—which, incidentally, is what the 1.4 million people the Congressional Budget Office says would lose work due to a $15 national minimum wage will be making if Ocasio-Cortez’s side of the argument wins.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.


“It is utterly embarrassing that ‘pay people enough to live’ is a stance that’s even up for debate,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted. “Override the parliamentarian and raise the wage. [McDonald’s] workers in Denmark are paid $22/hr + 6 wks paid vacation. $15/hr is a deep compromise—a big one, considering the phase in.”

The most obvious problem with the New York Democrat’s contention is that Denmark, like other Scandinavian nations, doesn’t have a statutory minimum wage.

Industries and workers engage in sector-by-sector salary negotiations, which might well undermine intra-industry competition, but which is a much better idea than the flat national-wage floor being peddled by Democrats.

So, this popular progressive talking point about Denmark’s miracle middle-class fast-food worker doesn’t make much sense to begin with.

Especially when one considers that the per-capita income in the United States is virtually the same as in Denmark—quite a feat given that we’re a pluralistic nation of around 330 million people that naturalizes another 900,000 people every year, many from poor nations, and that Denmark is a homogeneous country of fewer than 6 million citizens that, in recent years, has effectively shut down its borders to poor immigrants.

Denmark’s generous welfare state is propped up by shared social and cultural norms, and institutions that are habitually reviled by American progressives: unimpeded international trade, low regulatory burdens on business, and sometimes oil and gas checks—Denmark and Norway are Western Europe’s largest oil and gas producers.

Then there is the matter of what exactly $45,000—the salary an employee making $22 an hour on a full-time basis would earn—means in each country. Denmark can afford its system because high taxes are paid by all its citizens, not just the wealthy.

Not only do Danish fast-food employees making $45,000 hand over around half their earnings to the government, they pay a 25% value-added tax on most purchases, as well as a number of other levies. In return, Danes are afforded all kinds of government-provided services.

Presumably, Ocasio-Cortez approves of this arrangement. Either way, Americans whose eyes light up at the prospect of making $22 per hour should know that nearly $11 of that goes straight to the state.

Further, how much does a hamburger cost in Denmark? Spoiler: considerably more.

If the federal government forced fast-food chains to start paying employees $22 per hour, and giving them six weeks paid vacation, and health care, and all the other goodies that progressives want to compel companies to offer, American consumers should be prepared to pay more for food or to be served by robots.

The last time there was a push for a $15 minimum wage, in 2015-2016, McDonald’s quickly rolled out a touchscreen self-service kiosk makeover. Since then, that technology has only gotten better—and cheaper. Big chains like to offer up rhetoric that pleases the activist left, but in the end, they are not charities but businesses with stakeholders. And profits matter.

Now, I understand that socialists would be happy creating a permanent proletariat that is reliant on government to fix their wages and dictate all benefits. And, certainly, there is nothing demeaning about taking a job at a fast-food restaurant.

For many young people, it’s a temporary stop where they can take on responsibility for the first time and earn some money. For others, who need these jobs, it offers flexible hours and part-time work.

Most people do not make careers out of working at Wendy’s. Fast-food chains have massive employee turnover rates. Some experience a 100% turnover every year.

The other day, Ocasio-Cortez argued that, “when we keep the minimum wage artificially low, it’s at a huge cost to our government, … they’re essentially enormous subsidies to Walmart.”

The notion that Ocasio-Cortez is apprehensive about government subsidies is, of course, risible. But she’s also wrong.

Walmart, which revolutionized shopping by offering millions of low-income Americans affordable goods (progressives never mention that part of the equation), recently increased its internal minimum wage to $13-$19 per hour for most workers, while Amazon, Target, and Costco have raised their minimum wages to $15 per hour.

Is this a good idea? We’ll see.

As Thomas Sowell once pithily noted, all public policy is about trade-offs. The increases will help some workers, no doubt. But they will also cost jobs, either by leading to less overall hiring or by forcing consumers to pay “artificially” high prices, rather than spending the difference elsewhere.

Ocasio-Cortez’s rhetoric implies that there is something artificial about a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour but nothing artificial about a minimum wage of $15. This is ridiculous.

The only nonartificial minimum wage is zero—which, incidentally, is what the 1.4 million people the Congressional Budget Office says would lose work due to a $15 national minimum wage will be making if Ocasio-Cortez’s side of the argument wins.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.


“It is utterly embarrassing that ‘pay people enough to live’ is a stance that’s even up for debate,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted. “Override the parliamentarian and raise the wage. [McDonald’s] workers in Denmark are paid $22/hr + 6 wks paid vacation. $15/hr is a deep compromise—a big one, considering the phase in.”

The most obvious problem with the New York Democrat’s contention is that Denmark, like other Scandinavian nations, doesn’t have a statutory minimum wage.

Industries and workers engage in sector-by-sector salary negotiations, which might well undermine intra-industry competition, but which is a much better idea than the flat national-wage floor being peddled by Democrats.

So, this popular progressive talking point about Denmark’s miracle middle-class fast-food worker doesn’t make much sense to begin with.

Especially when one considers that the per-capita income in the United States is virtually the same as in Denmark—quite a feat given that we’re a pluralistic nation of around 330 million people that naturalizes another 900,000 people every year, many from poor nations, and that Denmark is a homogeneous country of fewer than 6 million citizens that, in recent years, has effectively shut down its borders to poor immigrants.

Denmark’s generous welfare state is propped up by shared social and cultural norms, and institutions that are habitually reviled by American progressives: unimpeded international trade, low regulatory burdens on business, and sometimes oil and gas checks—Denmark and Norway are Western Europe’s largest oil and gas producers.

Then there is the matter of what exactly $45,000—the salary an employee making $22 an hour on a full-time basis would earn—means in each country. Denmark can afford its system because high taxes are paid by all its citizens, not just the wealthy.

Not only do Danish fast-food employees making $45,000 hand over around half their earnings to the government, they pay a 25% value-added tax on most purchases, as well as a number of other levies. In return, Danes are afforded all kinds of government-provided services.

Presumably, Ocasio-Cortez approves of this arrangement. Either way, Americans whose eyes light up at the prospect of making $22 per hour should know that nearly $11 of that goes straight to the state.

Further, how much does a hamburger cost in Denmark? Spoiler: considerably more.

If the federal government forced fast-food chains to start paying employees $22 per hour, and giving them six weeks paid vacation, and health care, and all the other goodies that progressives want to compel companies to offer, American consumers should be prepared to pay more for food or to be served by robots.

The last time there was a push for a $15 minimum wage, in 2015-2016, McDonald’s quickly rolled out a touchscreen self-service kiosk makeover. Since then, that technology has only gotten better—and cheaper. Big chains like to offer up rhetoric that pleases the activist left, but in the end, they are not charities but businesses with stakeholders. And profits matter.

Now, I understand that socialists would be happy creating a permanent proletariat that is reliant on government to fix their wages and dictate all benefits. And, certainly, there is nothing demeaning about taking a job at a fast-food restaurant.

For many young people, it’s a temporary stop where they can take on responsibility for the first time and earn some money. For others, who need these jobs, it offers flexible hours and part-time work.

Most people do not make careers out of working at Wendy’s. Fast-food chains have massive employee turnover rates. Some experience a 100% turnover every year.

The other day, Ocasio-Cortez argued that, “when we keep the minimum wage artificially low, it’s at a huge cost to our government, … they’re essentially enormous subsidies to Walmart.”

The notion that Ocasio-Cortez is apprehensive about government subsidies is, of course, risible. But she’s also wrong.

Walmart, which revolutionized shopping by offering millions of low-income Americans affordable goods (progressives never mention that part of the equation), recently increased its internal minimum wage to $13-$19 per hour for most workers, while Amazon, Target, and Costco have raised their minimum wages to $15 per hour.

Is this a good idea? We’ll see.

As Thomas Sowell once pithily noted, all public policy is about trade-offs. The increases will help some workers, no doubt. But they will also cost jobs, either by leading to less overall hiring or by forcing consumers to pay “artificially” high prices, rather than spending the difference elsewhere.

Ocasio-Cortez’s rhetoric implies that there is something artificial about a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour but nothing artificial about a minimum wage of $15. This is ridiculous.

The only nonartificial minimum wage is zero—which, incidentally, is what the 1.4 million people the Congressional Budget Office says would lose work due to a $15 national minimum wage will be making if Ocasio-Cortez’s side of the argument wins.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.


“It is utterly embarrassing that ‘pay people enough to live’ is a stance that’s even up for debate,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted. “Override the parliamentarian and raise the wage. [McDonald’s] workers in Denmark are paid $22/hr + 6 wks paid vacation. $15/hr is a deep compromise—a big one, considering the phase in.”

The most obvious problem with the New York Democrat’s contention is that Denmark, like other Scandinavian nations, doesn’t have a statutory minimum wage.

Industries and workers engage in sector-by-sector salary negotiations, which might well undermine intra-industry competition, but which is a much better idea than the flat national-wage floor being peddled by Democrats.

So, this popular progressive talking point about Denmark’s miracle middle-class fast-food worker doesn’t make much sense to begin with.

Especially when one considers that the per-capita income in the United States is virtually the same as in Denmark—quite a feat given that we’re a pluralistic nation of around 330 million people that naturalizes another 900,000 people every year, many from poor nations, and that Denmark is a homogeneous country of fewer than 6 million citizens that, in recent years, has effectively shut down its borders to poor immigrants.

Denmark’s generous welfare state is propped up by shared social and cultural norms, and institutions that are habitually reviled by American progressives: unimpeded international trade, low regulatory burdens on business, and sometimes oil and gas checks—Denmark and Norway are Western Europe’s largest oil and gas producers.

Then there is the matter of what exactly $45,000—the salary an employee making $22 an hour on a full-time basis would earn—means in each country. Denmark can afford its system because high taxes are paid by all its citizens, not just the wealthy.

Not only do Danish fast-food employees making $45,000 hand over around half their earnings to the government, they pay a 25% value-added tax on most purchases, as well as a number of other levies. In return, Danes are afforded all kinds of government-provided services.

Presumably, Ocasio-Cortez approves of this arrangement. Either way, Americans whose eyes light up at the prospect of making $22 per hour should know that nearly $11 of that goes straight to the state.

Further, how much does a hamburger cost in Denmark? Spoiler: considerably more.

If the federal government forced fast-food chains to start paying employees $22 per hour, and giving them six weeks paid vacation, and health care, and all the other goodies that progressives want to compel companies to offer, American consumers should be prepared to pay more for food or to be served by robots.

The last time there was a push for a $15 minimum wage, in 2015-2016, McDonald’s quickly rolled out a touchscreen self-service kiosk makeover. Since then, that technology has only gotten better—and cheaper. Big chains like to offer up rhetoric that pleases the activist left, but in the end, they are not charities but businesses with stakeholders. And profits matter.

Now, I understand that socialists would be happy creating a permanent proletariat that is reliant on government to fix their wages and dictate all benefits. And, certainly, there is nothing demeaning about taking a job at a fast-food restaurant.

For many young people, it’s a temporary stop where they can take on responsibility for the first time and earn some money. For others, who need these jobs, it offers flexible hours and part-time work.

Most people do not make careers out of working at Wendy’s. Fast-food chains have massive employee turnover rates. Some experience a 100% turnover every year.

The other day, Ocasio-Cortez argued that, “when we keep the minimum wage artificially low, it’s at a huge cost to our government, … they’re essentially enormous subsidies to Walmart.”

The notion that Ocasio-Cortez is apprehensive about government subsidies is, of course, risible. But she’s also wrong.

Walmart, which revolutionized shopping by offering millions of low-income Americans affordable goods (progressives never mention that part of the equation), recently increased its internal minimum wage to $13-$19 per hour for most workers, while Amazon, Target, and Costco have raised their minimum wages to $15 per hour.

Is this a good idea? We’ll see.

As Thomas Sowell once pithily noted, all public policy is about trade-offs. The increases will help some workers, no doubt. But they will also cost jobs, either by leading to less overall hiring or by forcing consumers to pay “artificially” high prices, rather than spending the difference elsewhere.

Ocasio-Cortez’s rhetoric implies that there is something artificial about a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour but nothing artificial about a minimum wage of $15. This is ridiculous.

The only nonartificial minimum wage is zero—which, incidentally, is what the 1.4 million people the Congressional Budget Office says would lose work due to a $15 national minimum wage will be making if Ocasio-Cortez’s side of the argument wins.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.


“It is utterly embarrassing that ‘pay people enough to live’ is a stance that’s even up for debate,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted. “Override the parliamentarian and raise the wage. [McDonald’s] workers in Denmark are paid $22/hr + 6 wks paid vacation. $15/hr is a deep compromise—a big one, considering the phase in.”

The most obvious problem with the New York Democrat’s contention is that Denmark, like other Scandinavian nations, doesn’t have a statutory minimum wage.

Industries and workers engage in sector-by-sector salary negotiations, which might well undermine intra-industry competition, but which is a much better idea than the flat national-wage floor being peddled by Democrats.

So, this popular progressive talking point about Denmark’s miracle middle-class fast-food worker doesn’t make much sense to begin with.

Especially when one considers that the per-capita income in the United States is virtually the same as in Denmark—quite a feat given that we’re a pluralistic nation of around 330 million people that naturalizes another 900,000 people every year, many from poor nations, and that Denmark is a homogeneous country of fewer than 6 million citizens that, in recent years, has effectively shut down its borders to poor immigrants.

Denmark’s generous welfare state is propped up by shared social and cultural norms, and institutions that are habitually reviled by American progressives: unimpeded international trade, low regulatory burdens on business, and sometimes oil and gas checks—Denmark and Norway are Western Europe’s largest oil and gas producers.

Then there is the matter of what exactly $45,000—the salary an employee making $22 an hour on a full-time basis would earn—means in each country. Denmark can afford its system because high taxes are paid by all its citizens, not just the wealthy.

Not only do Danish fast-food employees making $45,000 hand over around half their earnings to the government, they pay a 25% value-added tax on most purchases, as well as a number of other levies. In return, Danes are afforded all kinds of government-provided services.

Presumably, Ocasio-Cortez approves of this arrangement. Either way, Americans whose eyes light up at the prospect of making $22 per hour should know that nearly $11 of that goes straight to the state.

Further, how much does a hamburger cost in Denmark? Spoiler: considerably more.

If the federal government forced fast-food chains to start paying employees $22 per hour, and giving them six weeks paid vacation, and health care, and all the other goodies that progressives want to compel companies to offer, American consumers should be prepared to pay more for food or to be served by robots.

The last time there was a push for a $15 minimum wage, in 2015-2016, McDonald’s quickly rolled out a touchscreen self-service kiosk makeover. Since then, that technology has only gotten better—and cheaper. Big chains like to offer up rhetoric that pleases the activist left, but in the end, they are not charities but businesses with stakeholders. And profits matter.

Now, I understand that socialists would be happy creating a permanent proletariat that is reliant on government to fix their wages and dictate all benefits. And, certainly, there is nothing demeaning about taking a job at a fast-food restaurant.

For many young people, it’s a temporary stop where they can take on responsibility for the first time and earn some money. For others, who need these jobs, it offers flexible hours and part-time work.

Most people do not make careers out of working at Wendy’s. Fast-food chains have massive employee turnover rates. Some experience a 100% turnover every year.

The other day, Ocasio-Cortez argued that, “when we keep the minimum wage artificially low, it’s at a huge cost to our government, … they’re essentially enormous subsidies to Walmart.”

The notion that Ocasio-Cortez is apprehensive about government subsidies is, of course, risible. But she’s also wrong.

Walmart, which revolutionized shopping by offering millions of low-income Americans affordable goods (progressives never mention that part of the equation), recently increased its internal minimum wage to $13-$19 per hour for most workers, while Amazon, Target, and Costco have raised their minimum wages to $15 per hour.

Is this a good idea? We’ll see.

As Thomas Sowell once pithily noted, all public policy is about trade-offs. The increases will help some workers, no doubt. But they will also cost jobs, either by leading to less overall hiring or by forcing consumers to pay “artificially” high prices, rather than spending the difference elsewhere.

Ocasio-Cortez’s rhetoric implies that there is something artificial about a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour but nothing artificial about a minimum wage of $15. This is ridiculous.

The only nonartificial minimum wage is zero—which, incidentally, is what the 1.4 million people the Congressional Budget Office says would lose work due to a $15 national minimum wage will be making if Ocasio-Cortez’s side of the argument wins.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.


“It is utterly embarrassing that ‘pay people enough to live’ is a stance that’s even up for debate,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted. “Override the parliamentarian and raise the wage. [McDonald’s] workers in Denmark are paid $22/hr + 6 wks paid vacation. $15/hr is a deep compromise—a big one, considering the phase in.”

The most obvious problem with the New York Democrat’s contention is that Denmark, like other Scandinavian nations, doesn’t have a statutory minimum wage.

Industries and workers engage in sector-by-sector salary negotiations, which might well undermine intra-industry competition, but which is a much better idea than the flat national-wage floor being peddled by Democrats.

So, this popular progressive talking point about Denmark’s miracle middle-class fast-food worker doesn’t make much sense to begin with.

Especially when one considers that the per-capita income in the United States is virtually the same as in Denmark—quite a feat given that we’re a pluralistic nation of around 330 million people that naturalizes another 900,000 people every year, many from poor nations, and that Denmark is a homogeneous country of fewer than 6 million citizens that, in recent years, has effectively shut down its borders to poor immigrants.

Denmark’s generous welfare state is propped up by shared social and cultural norms, and institutions that are habitually reviled by American progressives: unimpeded international trade, low regulatory burdens on business, and sometimes oil and gas checks—Denmark and Norway are Western Europe’s largest oil and gas producers.

Then there is the matter of what exactly $45,000—the salary an employee making $22 an hour on a full-time basis would earn—means in each country. Denmark can afford its system because high taxes are paid by all its citizens, not just the wealthy.

Not only do Danish fast-food employees making $45,000 hand over around half their earnings to the government, they pay a 25% value-added tax on most purchases, as well as a number of other levies. In return, Danes are afforded all kinds of government-provided services.

Presumably, Ocasio-Cortez approves of this arrangement. Either way, Americans whose eyes light up at the prospect of making $22 per hour should know that nearly $11 of that goes straight to the state.

Further, how much does a hamburger cost in Denmark? Spoiler: considerably more.

If the federal government forced fast-food chains to start paying employees $22 per hour, and giving them six weeks paid vacation, and health care, and all the other goodies that progressives want to compel companies to offer, American consumers should be prepared to pay more for food or to be served by robots.

The last time there was a push for a $15 minimum wage, in 2015-2016, McDonald’s quickly rolled out a touchscreen self-service kiosk makeover. Since then, that technology has only gotten better—and cheaper. Big chains like to offer up rhetoric that pleases the activist left, but in the end, they are not charities but businesses with stakeholders. And profits matter.

Now, I understand that socialists would be happy creating a permanent proletariat that is reliant on government to fix their wages and dictate all benefits. And, certainly, there is nothing demeaning about taking a job at a fast-food restaurant.

For many young people, it’s a temporary stop where they can take on responsibility for the first time and earn some money. For others, who need these jobs, it offers flexible hours and part-time work.

Most people do not make careers out of working at Wendy’s. Fast-food chains have massive employee turnover rates. Some experience a 100% turnover every year.

The other day, Ocasio-Cortez argued that, “when we keep the minimum wage artificially low, it’s at a huge cost to our government, … they’re essentially enormous subsidies to Walmart.”

The notion that Ocasio-Cortez is apprehensive about government subsidies is, of course, risible. But she’s also wrong.

Walmart, which revolutionized shopping by offering millions of low-income Americans affordable goods (progressives never mention that part of the equation), recently increased its internal minimum wage to $13-$19 per hour for most workers, while Amazon, Target, and Costco have raised their minimum wages to $15 per hour.

Is this a good idea? We’ll see.

As Thomas Sowell once pithily noted, all public policy is about trade-offs. The increases will help some workers, no doubt. But they will also cost jobs, either by leading to less overall hiring or by forcing consumers to pay “artificially” high prices, rather than spending the difference elsewhere.

Ocasio-Cortez’s rhetoric implies that there is something artificial about a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour but nothing artificial about a minimum wage of $15. This is ridiculous.

The only nonartificial minimum wage is zero—which, incidentally, is what the 1.4 million people the Congressional Budget Office says would lose work due to a $15 national minimum wage will be making if Ocasio-Cortez’s side of the argument wins.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.


“It is utterly embarrassing that ‘pay people enough to live’ is a stance that’s even up for debate,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted. “Override the parliamentarian and raise the wage. [McDonald’s] workers in Denmark are paid $22/hr + 6 wks paid vacation. $15/hr is a deep compromise—a big one, considering the phase in.”

The most obvious problem with the New York Democrat’s contention is that Denmark, like other Scandinavian nations, doesn’t have a statutory minimum wage.

Industries and workers engage in sector-by-sector salary negotiations, which might well undermine intra-industry competition, but which is a much better idea than the flat national-wage floor being peddled by Democrats.

So, this popular progressive talking point about Denmark’s miracle middle-class fast-food worker doesn’t make much sense to begin with.

Especially when one considers that the per-capita income in the United States is virtually the same as in Denmark—quite a feat given that we’re a pluralistic nation of around 330 million people that naturalizes another 900,000 people every year, many from poor nations, and that Denmark is a homogeneous country of fewer than 6 million citizens that, in recent years, has effectively shut down its borders to poor immigrants.

Denmark’s generous welfare state is propped up by shared social and cultural norms, and institutions that are habitually reviled by American progressives: unimpeded international trade, low regulatory burdens on business, and sometimes oil and gas checks—Denmark and Norway are Western Europe’s largest oil and gas producers.

Then there is the matter of what exactly $45,000—the salary an employee making $22 an hour on a full-time basis would earn—means in each country. Denmark can afford its system because high taxes are paid by all its citizens, not just the wealthy.

Not only do Danish fast-food employees making $45,000 hand over around half their earnings to the government, they pay a 25% value-added tax on most purchases, as well as a number of other levies. In return, Danes are afforded all kinds of government-provided services.

Presumably, Ocasio-Cortez approves of this arrangement. Either way, Americans whose eyes light up at the prospect of making $22 per hour should know that nearly $11 of that goes straight to the state.

Further, how much does a hamburger cost in Denmark? Spoiler: considerably more.

If the federal government forced fast-food chains to start paying employees $22 per hour, and giving them six weeks paid vacation, and health care, and all the other goodies that progressives want to compel companies to offer, American consumers should be prepared to pay more for food or to be served by robots.

The last time there was a push for a $15 minimum wage, in 2015-2016, McDonald’s quickly rolled out a touchscreen self-service kiosk makeover. Since then, that technology has only gotten better—and cheaper. Big chains like to offer up rhetoric that pleases the activist left, but in the end, they are not charities but businesses with stakeholders. And profits matter.

Now, I understand that socialists would be happy creating a permanent proletariat that is reliant on government to fix their wages and dictate all benefits. And, certainly, there is nothing demeaning about taking a job at a fast-food restaurant.

For many young people, it’s a temporary stop where they can take on responsibility for the first time and earn some money. For others, who need these jobs, it offers flexible hours and part-time work.

Most people do not make careers out of working at Wendy’s. Fast-food chains have massive employee turnover rates. Some experience a 100% turnover every year.

The other day, Ocasio-Cortez argued that, “when we keep the minimum wage artificially low, it’s at a huge cost to our government, … they’re essentially enormous subsidies to Walmart.”

The notion that Ocasio-Cortez is apprehensive about government subsidies is, of course, risible. But she’s also wrong.

Walmart, which revolutionized shopping by offering millions of low-income Americans affordable goods (progressives never mention that part of the equation), recently increased its internal minimum wage to $13-$19 per hour for most workers, while Amazon, Target, and Costco have raised their minimum wages to $15 per hour.

Is this a good idea? We’ll see.

As Thomas Sowell once pithily noted, all public policy is about trade-offs. The increases will help some workers, no doubt. But they will also cost jobs, either by leading to less overall hiring or by forcing consumers to pay “artificially” high prices, rather than spending the difference elsewhere.

Ocasio-Cortez’s rhetoric implies that there is something artificial about a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour but nothing artificial about a minimum wage of $15. This is ridiculous.

The only nonartificial minimum wage is zero—which, incidentally, is what the 1.4 million people the Congressional Budget Office says would lose work due to a $15 national minimum wage will be making if Ocasio-Cortez’s side of the argument wins.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.


“It is utterly embarrassing that ‘pay people enough to live’ is a stance that’s even up for debate,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted. “Override the parliamentarian and raise the wage. [McDonald’s] workers in Denmark are paid $22/hr + 6 wks paid vacation. $15/hr is a deep compromise—a big one, considering the phase in.”

The most obvious problem with the New York Democrat’s contention is that Denmark, like other Scandinavian nations, doesn’t have a statutory minimum wage.

Industries and workers engage in sector-by-sector salary negotiations, which might well undermine intra-industry competition, but which is a much better idea than the flat national-wage floor being peddled by Democrats.

So, this popular progressive talking point about Denmark’s miracle middle-class fast-food worker doesn’t make much sense to begin with.

Especially when one considers that the per-capita income in the United States is virtually the same as in Denmark—quite a feat given that we’re a pluralistic nation of around 330 million people that naturalizes another 900,000 people every year, many from poor nations, and that Denmark is a homogeneous country of fewer than 6 million citizens that, in recent years, has effectively shut down its borders to poor immigrants.

Denmark’s generous welfare state is propped up by shared social and cultural norms, and institutions that are habitually reviled by American progressives: unimpeded international trade, low regulatory burdens on business, and sometimes oil and gas checks—Denmark and Norway are Western Europe’s largest oil and gas producers.

Then there is the matter of what exactly $45,000—the salary an employee making $22 an hour on a full-time basis would earn—means in each country. Denmark can afford its system because high taxes are paid by all its citizens, not just the wealthy.

Not only do Danish fast-food employees making $45,000 hand over around half their earnings to the government, they pay a 25% value-added tax on most purchases, as well as a number of other levies. In return, Danes are afforded all kinds of government-provided services.

Presumably, Ocasio-Cortez approves of this arrangement. Either way, Americans whose eyes light up at the prospect of making $22 per hour should know that nearly $11 of that goes straight to the state.

Further, how much does a hamburger cost in Denmark? Spoiler: considerably more.

If the federal government forced fast-food chains to start paying employees $22 per hour, and giving them six weeks paid vacation, and health care, and all the other goodies that progressives want to compel companies to offer, American consumers should be prepared to pay more for food or to be served by robots.

The last time there was a push for a $15 minimum wage, in 2015-2016, McDonald’s quickly rolled out a touchscreen self-service kiosk makeover. Since then, that technology has only gotten better—and cheaper. Big chains like to offer up rhetoric that pleases the activist left, but in the end, they are not charities but businesses with stakeholders. And profits matter.

Now, I understand that socialists would be happy creating a permanent proletariat that is reliant on government to fix their wages and dictate all benefits. And, certainly, there is nothing demeaning about taking a job at a fast-food restaurant.

For many young people, it’s a temporary stop where they can take on responsibility for the first time and earn some money. For others, who need these jobs, it offers flexible hours and part-time work.

Most people do not make careers out of working at Wendy’s. Fast-food chains have massive employee turnover rates. Some experience a 100% turnover every year.

The other day, Ocasio-Cortez argued that, “when we keep the minimum wage artificially low, it’s at a huge cost to our government, … they’re essentially enormous subsidies to Walmart.”

The notion that Ocasio-Cortez is apprehensive about government subsidies is, of course, risible. But she’s also wrong.

Walmart, which revolutionized shopping by offering millions of low-income Americans affordable goods (progressives never mention that part of the equation), recently increased its internal minimum wage to $13-$19 per hour for most workers, while Amazon, Target, and Costco have raised their minimum wages to $15 per hour.

Is this a good idea? We’ll see.

As Thomas Sowell once pithily noted, all public policy is about trade-offs. The increases will help some workers, no doubt. But they will also cost jobs, either by leading to less overall hiring or by forcing consumers to pay “artificially” high prices, rather than spending the difference elsewhere.

Ocasio-Cortez’s rhetoric implies that there is something artificial about a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour but nothing artificial about a minimum wage of $15. This is ridiculous.

The only nonartificial minimum wage is zero—which, incidentally, is what the 1.4 million people the Congressional Budget Office says would lose work due to a $15 national minimum wage will be making if Ocasio-Cortez’s side of the argument wins.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.


“It is utterly embarrassing that ‘pay people enough to live’ is a stance that’s even up for debate,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted. “Override the parliamentarian and raise the wage. [McDonald’s] workers in Denmark are paid $22/hr + 6 wks paid vacation. $15/hr is a deep compromise—a big one, considering the phase in.”

The most obvious problem with the New York Democrat’s contention is that Denmark, like other Scandinavian nations, doesn’t have a statutory minimum wage.

Industries and workers engage in sector-by-sector salary negotiations, which might well undermine intra-industry competition, but which is a much better idea than the flat national-wage floor being peddled by Democrats.

So, this popular progressive talking point about Denmark’s miracle middle-class fast-food worker doesn’t make much sense to begin with.

Especially when one considers that the per-capita income in the United States is virtually the same as in Denmark—quite a feat given that we’re a pluralistic nation of around 330 million people that naturalizes another 900,000 people every year, many from poor nations, and that Denmark is a homogeneous country of fewer than 6 million citizens that, in recent years, has effectively shut down its borders to poor immigrants.

Denmark’s generous welfare state is propped up by shared social and cultural norms, and institutions that are habitually reviled by American progressives: unimpeded international trade, low regulatory burdens on business, and sometimes oil and gas checks—Denmark and Norway are Western Europe’s largest oil and gas producers.

Then there is the matter of what exactly $45,000—the salary an employee making $22 an hour on a full-time basis would earn—means in each country. Denmark can afford its system because high taxes are paid by all its citizens, not just the wealthy.

Not only do Danish fast-food employees making $45,000 hand over around half their earnings to the government, they pay a 25% value-added tax on most purchases, as well as a number of other levies. In return, Danes are afforded all kinds of government-provided services.

Presumably, Ocasio-Cortez approves of this arrangement. Either way, Americans whose eyes light up at the prospect of making $22 per hour should know that nearly $11 of that goes straight to the state.

Further, how much does a hamburger cost in Denmark? Spoiler: considerably more.

If the federal government forced fast-food chains to start paying employees $22 per hour, and giving them six weeks paid vacation, and health care, and all the other goodies that progressives want to compel companies to offer, American consumers should be prepared to pay more for food or to be served by robots.

The last time there was a push for a $15 minimum wage, in 2015-2016, McDonald’s quickly rolled out a touchscreen self-service kiosk makeover. Since then, that technology has only gotten better—and cheaper. Big chains like to offer up rhetoric that pleases the activist left, but in the end, they are not charities but businesses with stakeholders. And profits matter.

Now, I understand that socialists would be happy creating a permanent proletariat that is reliant on government to fix their wages and dictate all benefits. And, certainly, there is nothing demeaning about taking a job at a fast-food restaurant.

For many young people, it’s a temporary stop where they can take on responsibility for the first time and earn some money. For others, who need these jobs, it offers flexible hours and part-time work.

Most people do not make careers out of working at Wendy’s. Fast-food chains have massive employee turnover rates. Some experience a 100% turnover every year.

The other day, Ocasio-Cortez argued that, “when we keep the minimum wage artificially low, it’s at a huge cost to our government, … they’re essentially enormous subsidies to Walmart.”

The notion that Ocasio-Cortez is apprehensive about government subsidies is, of course, risible. But she’s also wrong.

Walmart, which revolutionized shopping by offering millions of low-income Americans affordable goods (progressives never mention that part of the equation), recently increased its internal minimum wage to $13-$19 per hour for most workers, while Amazon, Target, and Costco have raised their minimum wages to $15 per hour.

Is this a good idea? We’ll see.

As Thomas Sowell once pithily noted, all public policy is about trade-offs. The increases will help some workers, no doubt. But they will also cost jobs, either by leading to less overall hiring or by forcing consumers to pay “artificially” high prices, rather than spending the difference elsewhere.

Ocasio-Cortez’s rhetoric implies that there is something artificial about a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour but nothing artificial about a minimum wage of $15. This is ridiculous.

The only nonartificial minimum wage is zero—which, incidentally, is what the 1.4 million people the Congressional Budget Office says would lose work due to a $15 national minimum wage will be making if Ocasio-Cortez’s side of the argument wins.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.


Watch the video: COOLEST MCDONALDS IN DENMARK. LEILA LIFE (August 2022).