Tons of people have been sharing this, so I’ll weigh in. I am glad McDonald’s is trying to help people with personal finance. If we can boost financial literacy across lower income strata, maybe those incomes will rise.

Nevertheless, I’m still confused by a number of recent pieces defending this budget from all the criticism it’s received. Timothy Lee at the Washington Post writes here that “while working two jobs is tough, it’s not that uncommon. About 7 million Americans, or about 5 percent of the workforce, do it.“

To be clear: to reach the monthly net income numbers McDonald’s reports while earning minimum wage, you’d have to work 75 hours a week.

Ok. Plenty of people do that. Lee’s defense pivots on the fact that these numbers are realistically what many people have to live on, making this budget a valuable tool for them. But that’s not the point any critics of this budget should be trying to make. The point is why, in the wealthiest country in the world, should a full 5% of the population have to spend 75 hours a week flipping burgers just to pay the bills?

Gus Lubin at Business Insider points out that this could be a budget for a household with two employees. Right, and they’re paying for two people’s health insurance with $20 a month. And I guess they’re sharing a car and a phone?

Let’s stop avoiding the real issue. It’s not that this post from McDonald’s is some kind of unrealistic slap in the face to minimum wage earners. Rather, it’s precisely because it’s so realistic that it deserves our attention.

Author: Dylan West