Bloomberg has an excellent story on low-wage work and inequality, comparing a longtime McDonald’s worker to the company’s CEO, who makes several hundred times as much money.
It’s a notable departure from often frustrating Bloomberg-style writing and editing. Even the headline, while still Bloombergian, is pretty great:
McDonald’s $8.25 Man and $8.75 Million CEO Shows Pay Gap
And this story shows a lot more than that.
Bloomberg profiles Tyree Johnson, a 44-year-old Chicagoan who’s worked at McDonald’s for 20 years but still makes minimum wage, which in Illinois is $8.25 an hour. That’s about $16,500 a year, assuming 2,000 hours of work.
It’s actually worse. Like many retail workers, Johnson wants full-time work but often doesn’t get it, even after picking up hours at a second McDonald’s. Because he splits time between two restaurants, and his other boss, oddly enough, doesn’t like him smelling like greasy food, we get this vivid lede:
Tyree Johnson scrubs himself with a bar of soap in a McDonald’s (MCD) bathroom and puts on fresh deodorant. He stashes his toiletries in a Kenneth Cole bag, a gift from his mother who works the counter at Macy’s, and hops on an El train. His destination: another McDonald’s.
Johnson isn’t one of Chicago’s many homeless people who seek shelter in fast-food joints. He’s a McDonald’s employee, at both stores — one in the Loop, the other about a mile away in the shadow of Holy Name Cathedral.
But Johnson is about one step above homelessness, living in a single-room occupancy hotel—a flophouse—for $320 a month.
The first reaction for lots of people reading this piece will be: There must be something wrong with his work if he’s still making minimum wage.
But if Johnson was such a bad employee, he presumably wouldn’t have lasted 20 years with the same chain. And Bloomberg reports his own explanation: That he’s had his wages reduced when a franchise changes hands or when he gets transferred, which has happened several times. Now his bosses tell him he’s getting slow. What will Johnson do in another 20 years? What happens if the “Rise Above” crowd succeeds in raising his retirement/Medicare age?
Bloomberg doesn’t ask these questions, but it doesn’t need to: They’re implicit. And it gives us good context.
For instance, we not only learn that fast-food employment has been growing much faster than overall employment, Bloomberg also reports that older workers have increasingly been taking these jobs as better work has become harder to find:
In 2010, 16- to 19-year-olds made up 17 percent of food preparation and serving workers, down from almost a quarter in 2000, as older, underemployed Americans took those jobs.
There’s a lot going on in this piece, and Bloomberg weaves us together pretty seamlessly: The expansion and aging of the fast-food workforce, the mistreatment of workers and increasing-activism angle, inequality, executive compensation, and even for-profit education. Johnson went to one of these schools in the late 1980s, got a computer certificate, and never got a job with it. Bloomberg says he finally paid off his student loans after twenty-something years.
This, though, isn’t right (emphasis mine):
The last federal increase to the minimum wage was in 2009, to $7.25. When adjusted for inflation, the wage was worth $9.07 an hour in 1968, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
The minimum wage was $1.60 in 1968, which is $10.58 when adjusted for inflation.
But that’s a relatively minor miss in a terrific story, which is itself part of a worthy series on inequality.

Speaking of the rise above a-holes.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000136750&play=1
"Scott Wapner: i don't know what he's talking about. let me ask you one final question, sir, because we have to figure the threshold that we're talking about is to eventually move. the president says it should be 400,000. the republicans stay should be 1 million. what are you prepared to do above 400,000 that can get us closer to rising above and finding agreement, common ground?
Democratic Seanator Ben Cardin: we need 1.2 trillion of real revenue that we can count on to fill the gap. that is the minimum amount.
Complete Idiot Maria Bartiromo: well, you can get 1.2 trillion by changing the tax code. that means eliminating loopholes. are you prepared to vote to limit the loophole of charitable deductions? are you prepared to put that on the table? no. aou prepared to put on the table the mortgage deduction? will you put on the table the mortgage deduction, yes or no?
Ben Cardin: i'm not going to make a decisionen th i next couple of days.
CIMB: are you willing to take away the carried interest loophole? yes or no.
Senator Ben Cardin: are you interested in me responding?
CIMB: because you're talking about 4 trillion in revenue but you're not prepared to put news oin on the table. people are not stupid i know they are not, and they are expect the congress to act in the right way.
Senator Ben Cardin: i'm not going to vote today on changing a tax code provision without knowing the impact of it. we're now a few days away from christmas. the easiest way to get the revenues is to get the rates from the higher income tax --
CIMB:that's all you want to do. it's your way or the highway. raise the rates on the rich. no other way. your way or the highway. that's where we are. senator --
Senator Ben Cardin: next time let me answer the questions. it would very nice.
CIMB:you've answered quite clearly. thank you. senator cardin, we thank you for joining us, and we'll catch up with you again. i am certain sometime soon."
They're getting pretty bad over there. Nice to see the CIMB support the elimination of the carried interest loophole, but man is she ever breaking democratic balls over the republicans failure to deal. BEND DAMN YOU!
She really doesn't want those Clinton tax rates.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 27 Dec 2012 at 04:17 AM
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000127662&play=1
"CIMB: what are you willing to give on then? what would you be willing to compromise on. we know the issues. tax cuts extending for everybody or just those making under $200,000 versus spending cuts. what do you want to give on?
Republican Eric Cantor: i think as you have seen and what mitt romney is proposing and what all of us on both sides of the aisle are proposing that we want to lower rates for everybody but we need to fill these loopholes. we need to get government out of the business of picking winners and losers so that we can see growth again premised on economics and not a skewed tax policy. that's where the discussion will be throughout the end of next year and the entire next year is how we're going to shape that so we can bring tax rates down."
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/11/830391/eric-cantor-refuses-to-compromise-on-anything-to-avoid-fiscal-cliff/
"BARTIROMO: So what are you willing to give on, Congressman? ..
Republican Eric Cantor: First of all, raising taxes is not the answer. We all know that. This problem is too large to think we can tax our way out of it. What we really need to be focused on is how big do we want the government to be, and begin to assess our priorities so we can manage down the deficit. That’s clearly how it is. Once we get a plan in place where, in fact, we’ve got a solution to the overspending, you know, we can begin to tell people their tax revenues will go to be paying off the deficit."
Funny, didn't see any interrupting there. Don't see any accusations that "the republicans are taking the market hostage!!11" Don't see any anger about republican "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!" when it comes to their desire to lower tax rates.
There just seems to be a different approach with republicans. Maybe it's just me.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 27 Dec 2012 at 04:56 AM