The phrase ‘McJobs’ is once again making its way into the vocabulary of the American people, finding popularity particularly among Kamala Harris and her compatriots in the Democratic Party. During the campaign season, Harris and her supporters declared her brief stint at McDonald’s as a victory for the everyman – a symbol of her ‘middle-class roots’. Interestingly, they used this piece of history as a tool to belittle President Donald Trump’s well-off upbringing. A recent campaign advertisement also featured this narrative, striking a chord with the challenges faced by minimum wage workers.
Kamala Harris purports to have gained perceptiveness from her time at McDonald’s. She claims that she was initially working to supplement her pocket money while in college but soon realized that many of her co-workers were relying on that same wage to support families. Despite her relatively privileged position, she allegedly learned from this experience and now as the Vice President, she vows to relieve such workers by reducing day-to-day costs, supposedly making it her ‘top priority’.
However, her viewpoint evidently stands in contrast to the historical Democratic stance on minimum wage jobs. For example, during his second term, President Bill Clinton emphasized the concept of ‘welfare to work’, asserting it as a paramount part of his vision for American social welfare. Back then, the majority of Americans believed that starting point of anyone’s journey out of poverty should be a job, perhaps at a McDonald’s or Wendy’s. They saw the government’s role as facilitating this transition.
It is clear that Harris’s approach towards poverty, wages, and fast-food jobs greatly differs from that of her predecessors, which may indicate a change in American attitudes over the past two decades. History shows us that during his presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan made a point of discussing the story of a woman in Chicago who allegedly used fraudulent means to collect thousands of dollars in benefits. These stories of so-called ‘welfare queens’ stirred up significant resentment, arguably bolstered by racial undertones.
While such stories were often proven exaggerated or entirely false, they served to build consensus around the notion that only paid work counts as genuine work. This consensus conveniently overlooked the significant work undertaken by many welfare recipients in their roles as mothers and caretakers. Clinton, in alignment with these skewed public perceptions, announced his intention to ‘end welfare as we know it’ during his 1992 campaign. By 1996, he managed to enact the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, commonly referred to as ‘Welfare Reform’, which embodied these biases against welfare.
This reform introduced strict limitations, allowing individuals to receive funds for a maximum of five years and necessitating employment after two years of being on welfare. However, this policy did not consider the geographical implications on American employment. Throughout the decades leading up to the ’90s, the majority of job opportunities had shifted towards the suburbs, following the relocation of middle-class Americans and even corporate headquarters. Contrastingly, the majority of welfare recipients resided in inner cities or rural areas.
Consequently, when their welfare benefits were due to expire, these individuals faced limited local job options. Yet, there was a glimmer of hope – the fast-food industry, which held a strong presence in America’s inner cities. However, even with these job opportunities, fast food chains struggled to attract employees due to the extremely low wages they offered.
The choice faced by poor inner city youths was essentially trading one form of poverty for another. Accepting a job in fast-food would, at best, barely meet survival needs, while imposing harsh regulations regarding appearance and speech. The Welfare Reform, however, drastically limited their options, as they needed to find work to keep their benefits. The reform effectively forced a new pool of labor into these low-wage jobs and fast-food chains filled their staff shortages through this tactic.
By 1997, various companies had formed a partnership named the Welfare to Work Partnership, offering guidance to state and federal agencies on hiring welfare recipients in an attempt to steer them ‘from lives of dependence to independence’. Welfare recipients, who tended to retain their jobs longer than other employees, were a cost-effective solution for these corporations, substantially reducing training expenses.
In an underhand move, corporations also used their hiring of welfare recipients – who were disproportionately African-American – as evidence of their ‘commitment to diversity and opportunity’. This allowed them to claim that their actions were a public service worthy of taxpayer compensation, after years of widespread disdain and pity towards welfare recipients broached by media personalities and politicians.
However, it soon became apparent that the expected benefits from the Welfare Reform were not materializing. Indeed, while a $0.90 per hour increase to the federal minimum wage was eventually introduced during Clinton Presidency, the relief provided for those at the brink was meager at best. Following the 2008 financial crisis and exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, public sentiment has shifted towards favoring broad-based government assistance.
It was against this backdrop that Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan, lauded for offering more relief than any single legislation since the New Deal, was passed. Even opponents in Congress mostly refrained from objecting. The aforementioned Kamala Harris now talks about an ‘opportunity economy’ where everyone manages to join the middle class – a romantic notion that seems to lack any sense of reality.
Her vision suggests a society where even fast-food workers could own houses, further underlining the stark contrast between her stance and those of her predecessors. Harris seems to be pushing for a new perspective, centered on large-scale direct assistance rather than laying the responsibility of escaping poverty solely on the poor.
Still, it comes across as rhetoric that has yet to materialize into practical policies that could alleviate the burdens faced by those working minimum wage jobs. The struggle of ‘McJob’ workers remains largely unchanged. The focus continues to be on making ends meet rather than ascending to the middle class.
Attempting to draw a line between an idyllic future and a grim past, while lacking substantial, actionable policies, seems like an ineffective approach. To many, it seems like an effort to obtain approval without making real changes.
As the discussion around ‘McJobs’ continues to evolve, the glaring issues faced by those in these roles should not be overlooked or trivialized. Efforts should be concentrated on creating effective policies for minimum wage workers, rather than using their struggles as mere campaign rhetoric.