

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
His new dietary guidelines promoting saturated fats are a recipe for disaster, and a heart attack.
Fat is now phat, at least according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
When President Donald Trump’s Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary unveiled new federal dietary guidelines this January, he declared: “We are ending the war on saturated fats.” Seconding Kennedy was Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary, who promised that children and schools will no longer need to “tiptoe” around fat.
Kennedy’s exaltation of fat comes complete with a new upside-down guidelines pyramid where a thick cut of steak and a wedge of cheese share top billing with fruit and vegetables. This prime placement of a prime cut is the strongest endorsement for consuming red meat since the government first issued dietary guidelines in 1980.
The endorsement reverses decades of advisories, which the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and HHS jointly issue every five years, to limit red meat consumption issued under both Democratic and Republican administrations given the strong evidence that eating less of it lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease. Multiple studies over the last decade have linked red and processed meats not only to cardiovascular disease, but also to colon polyps, colorectal cancer, diabetes, diverticulosis, pneumonia, and even premature death.
Given the scientific evidence, we should intensify the war against saturated fats, not call it off.
The new dietary guidelines even contradict those issued under the first Trump administration just five years ago, warning Americans not to eat too much saturated fat. “There is little room,” those guidelines stated, “to include additional saturated fat in a healthy dietary pattern.” A significant percentage of saturated fat comes from red meat. Americans, who account for only 4% of the people on the planet, consume 21% of the world’s beef.
Kennedy’s fatmania even extends to beef tallow and butter, which the new pyramid identifies—along with olive oil—as “healthy fats” for cooking. In fact, beef tallow is 50% saturated fat. Butter is nearly 70%. Olive oil, meanwhile, is just 14% saturated fat and is, indeed, healthy.
This rendering of recommended fats muddles a message that could have been stunningly refreshing, given the Trump administration’s penchant for meddling with science. Some of the new pyramid’s recommendations were applauded by mainstream health advocacy groups, particularly one advising Americans to consume no more than 10 grams of added sugar per meal and others, as Kennedy pointed out, calling for people to “prioritize whole, nutrient-dense foods—protein, dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, and whole grains—and dramatically reduce highly processed foods.”
But such wholesomeness could easily be wasted if Americans increase their meat consumption. That would not, as Kennedy professes, make America healthy again. Given the scientific evidence, we should intensify the war against saturated fats, not call it off.
The 420-page report by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee prepared in 2024 for the USDA and HHS found that more than 80% of Americans consume more than the recommended daily limit of saturated fat, which is about 20 grams—10% of a 2,000 calorie-per-day diet. The report concluded that replacing butter with plant-based oils and spreads higher in unsaturated fat is associated with lower cardiovascular disease risk and eating plant-based foods instead of meat is “associated with favorable cardiovascular outcomes.”
A March 2025 peer-reviewed study in JAMA Internal Medicine came to a similar conclusion. It found that eating more butter was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer. Using plant-based oils instead of butter, the researcher found, was associated with a 17% lower risk of death. Such a reduction in mortality, according to study co-author Dr. Daniel Wang, means “a substantial number of deaths from cancer or from other chronic diseases … could be prevented” by replacing butter with such plant-based oils as soybean or olive oil.
What does a “substantial” number of deaths look like? Heart disease is the No. 1 killer in the United States, and heart disease and stroke kill more people than all cancers and accidents combined. The annual number of American deaths tied to cardiovascular disease is creeping toward the million mark. According to the American Heart Association (AHA), it killed more than 940,000 people in 2022.
Over the next 25 years, AHA projects that the incidence of high blood pressure among adults will increase from 50% today to 61%, obesity rates will jump from 43% to 60% and diabetes will afflict nearly 27% of Americans compared to 16% today. Reducing mortality by 17% for those and other related health problems would go a long way to make Americans healthier.
A good place to begin reducing food-related mortality is by cutting highly processed foods out of the American diet. That would require a drastic change in eating habits for a lot of people. A July 2022 study found that nearly 60% of calories in the average American diet comes from ultra-processed foods, which have been linked to cancer, cardiovascular disease, depression, diabetes, and obesity.
One of the main culprits is fast food. A January 2025 study of the six most popular fast-food chains in the country—Chick-fil-A, Domino’s Pizza, McDonald’s, Starbucks, Subway and Taco Bell—found that 85% of their menu items were ultra-processed. And, according to a 2018 study, more than a third of US adults dine at a fast-food chain on any given day, including nearly half of those aged 20 to 39.

Our overreliance on fast food presents a huge conundrum. US food systems are structured in a way that it is unlikely you can tell people to cut processed foods and eat more meat at the same time. Hamburgers and processed deli meat are among the main ways Americans consume red meat. And given the blizzard of TV ads for junk food and fast-food joints, which have proliferated across the country and especially in low-income food deserts—it is also unlikely that many people will use the new guidelines to comb through their local grocer’s meat department for the leanest (and often most expensive) cut of beef.
According to the University of Connecticut’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health, food, beverage, and restaurant companies spend $14 billion a year on advertising in the United States. More than 80% of those ad buys are for fast food, sugary drinks, candy, and unhealthy snacks. That $14 billion is also 10 times more than the $1.4 billion fiscal year 2024 budget for chronic disease and health promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And don’t expect the CDC to get into an arms race with junk food advertisers any time soon. Kennedy slashed the CDC staff by more than 25%, from 13,500 to below 10,000.
All of this adds up to the probability that Americans will see the new guidelines’ recommendation to eat red meat as a green light to gorge on even more burgers and other fast-food, ultra-processed meat.
The new guidelines’ green light for consuming red meat and saturated fats is particularly vexing given the guidelines produced five years ago during Trump’s first term did not promote them. Why the about-face?
During the run-up to Trump’s second term, the agribusiness industry went into overdrive to install Trump in the White House and more Republicans in Congress. In 2016, agribusinesses gave Trump $4.6 million for his campaign, nearly double what it gave Hillary Clinton. But in 2024, they gave Trump $24.2 million, five times what it gave Kamala Harris. Agribusinesses also donated $1 million to Kennedy’s failed 2024 campaign, making him the fourth-biggest recipient among all presidential candidates during that election cycle.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is nowhere near making America healthy again by declaring in his new food pyramid that red meat is as healthy as broccoli, tomatoes, and beans.
Despite claiming he wanted dietary guidelines “free from ideological bias, institutional conflicts, or predetermined conclusions,” Kennedy rejected the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee and turned over the nation’s dietary data to 9 review authors, at least 6 of whom had financial ties to the beef, dairy, infant-formula, or weight-loss industry.
Three of them have received either research grant funding, honoraria, or consulting fees from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which is known for funding dubious research downplaying or dismissing independent scientific findings that show read meat to be threat to public health and the environment. In 2024, the trade group gave nearly all of its $1.1 million in campaign contributions to Republican committees and candidates.
Kim Brackett, an Idaho rancher and vice president of the beef industry trade group, hailed the new guidelines, claiming “it is easy to incorporate beef into a balanced, heart-healthy diet.”
Perhaps, but the grim reality is most Americans do not follow a balanced, heart-healthy diet. Four out of five of us are already consuming more than the recommended daily limit of saturated fat and we are well on our way to a 60% obesity rate.
So, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is nowhere near making America healthy again by declaring in his new food pyramid that red meat is as healthy as broccoli, tomatoes, and beans. Beholden to Big Beef, he is driving us full speed ahead on the road to a collective heart attack.
This article first appeared at the Money Trail blog and is reposted here at Common Dreams with permission.
"Fast food companies can afford to pay $20/hour without raising prices or cutting hours," said the California Fast Food Workers Union. "Doing either is a choice. Don't let them tell you otherwise."
A new California law raising the minimum wage for most fast food workers from $16 to $20 an hour took effect Monday, a move cheered by labor advocates who dismissed—and debunked—claims by an industry reaping record profits that the pay hike would force restaurant chains to raise prices and cut jobs.
The law applies to restaurants at national fast food chains with at least 60 locations and that have limited or no table service. Restaurants inside supermarkets and establishments that bake and sell bread are exempt. Twenty dollars is just a starting point, as a state law also established a Fast Food Council that can raise wages by up to 3.5% annually through 2029.
"The vast majority of fast food locations in California operate under the most profitable brands in the world," Joseph Bryant, executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, said in a statement. "Those corporations need to pay their fair share and provide their operators with the resources they need to pay their workers a living wage without cutting jobs or passing the cost to consumers."
As the California Fast Food Workers Union noted:
BREAKING: Today hundreds of fast food workers from across California are in LA to officially launch the California Fast Food Workers Union
We've won a Fast Food Council
We've won $20/hr
Now we're doing whatever it takes to win annual raises, just cause, and more#UnionsForAll pic.twitter.com/pykRKZF0PV
— California Fast Food Workers Union (@CAFastFoodUnion) February 9, 2024
The union highlighted various studies, including one in 2024 that found no fast food jobs were lost when California and New York increased their minimum wage to $15; another in 2018 that showed a slight increase in restaurant and food service employment in six cities that raised their minimum wage; and yet another in 2021 revealing hikes in state and local minimum wages had no effect on McDonald's opening or closing restaurants.
"According to the data, there's no reason why the new fast food minimum wage of $20 per hour in California should mean layoffs or increased prices," Alí Bustamante, deputy director for the Worker Power and Economic Security program at the Roosevelt Institute, said last week. "Profits in the fast food industry are sufficiently high to absorb the greater operating costs and ensure industry workers are paid fairly."
As More Perfect Union noted, McDonald's made $8.5 billion in profit last year, while Burger King's parent company raked in $1.2 billion, and Starbucks enjoyed $4.1 billion in profits.
Additionally, a new Roosevelt Institute analysis co-authored by Bustamante found that the 10 largest publicly traded fast food companies spent $6.1 billion on stock buybacks last year alone. This, while fast food prices soared by 46.8% over the past decade compared with 28.7% for the average of all prices. In 2023, fast food companies charged their customers 27% above their production costs. Critics have accused these and other corporations of "greedflation."
"In 2022, fast food industry employment in California had increased to approximately 553,000 workers—a 20.1% increase since 2014," the analysis notes. "Trends in the California fast food labor market have mirrored the national averages. Yet between 2014 and 2023, the federal minimum wage remained stagnant at $7.25 per hour, while California's minimum wage increased from $9 to $15.50 an hour—further evidence that California fast food firms can readily adjust to minimum wage increases."
The U.S. federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour has not been raised since 2009, and that amount is worth far less now than it was then due to inflation.
"This is an insult to American workers and bad for our economy," former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich said in a video published Monday by the Gravel Institute.
"It's simply a myth that raising the wage automatically means lost jobs," Reich asserted. "Here's the bottom line: If your business depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business."
Workers have shown "when they come together what kind of power they can have to really take on massive corporations like Starbucks, McDonald's, and Burger King," said one labor leader.
With plans to win annual raises and other labor protections for fast food cooks and cashiers across California, hundreds of workers in the industry gathered in Los Angeles on Friday to mark the launch of a first-of-its kind union.
Part of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the new California Fast Food Workers Union represents workers at companies including McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, and Jack in the Box, and organizers hope to eventually expand its membership to other employees in the industry in addition to cooks and cashiers.
The union was formed after fast food workers, the SEIU, and the Fight for $15 movement fought for the passage of a California law last year that created a fast food council, allowing labor unions and companies to negotiate over minimum wages and work conditions—a first for the industry.
The SEIU reached a deal with several chains to raise the minimum pay for 500,000 fast food workers to $20 per hour starting in April.
"California fast food workers have powered through and we've been winning against one of the largest industries in the world," said one worker in a video posted on social media by the union to celebrate the launch.
Joseph Bryant, international executive vice-president of the SEIU, noted that the push for labor protections and higher wages in the industry has "been led in California over the last decade by primarily Black and Latino cooks and cashiers."
The workers "have been fighting and have been able to show when they come together what kind of power they can have to really take on massive corporations like Starbucks, McDonald's, and Burger King, which have done everything to crush their workers and crush the idea of them pulling together a union," Bryant told The Guardian.
The union plans to push for a 3.5% increase of the minimum wage over the next three years, protections to ensure companies have "just cause" to fire workers, rules to ensure that employees are scheduled to work enough hours to sustain themselves, and protections against retaliation for organizing.
Fight for $15 called the launch "an historic day."
"Fast food workers have worked for more than a decade to come to this point," said the nationwide grassroots organization. "We're so excited to be here, and even more excited for what's to come."
Here is my National Mandate. Close all fast-food chains. Put orange cone roadblocks on all Dunkin' Donuts drive-thrus. Ban the sale of Coca-Cola and Pepsi. The war was not between those two Colas; it was a war against the human body.
The masks mask the elephant in the room. No human being can make a potent immune system with a diet of processed food and sugar. This promiscuous virus seems to have a field day with the obese and the immune-compromised. The national and worldwide addiction to sugar presents a feeding frenzy for a virus that, like all viruses, feeds on sugar. Where are the scientists and leaders who can guide the populations of the world to actually combat the virus by starving it and also by strengthening its targets? We are told to behave like boxers in a corner with our gloves up to our faces as we are pummeled.
We need to resuscitate the slogan Resist and put it at the center of our actual physical bodies. The Thymus gland makes T-cells. Thymus is a Greek word for courage and anger; two strong words that will strengthen resistance.
Ireland determined recently that the rolls produced by the fast-food chain Subway have too much sugar in it to be called bread. This just begins to tell the tale. Biden, Fauci, and the posse of "experts" say nothing about what evolution and nature has made clear - T-cells are our Personal Protective Device. You cannot make powerful T-cells from a Big Mac, fries and Coke or a cream filled, white flour doughnut. A virus can present itself to a human body and a human body armed with healthy T-cells will most likely evict it quickly and not give it a chance to colonize and inflame. The primary exhortation from the top should be about about this aspect of human health.
Government guidance and a support stipend is the best path forward. Like Victory gardens during WWII, there ought to be individual citizen projects of cultivating potent health as the wall of resistance to this virus which, like a predator, will pick out the weak targets in a herd.
I can't speak for the rest of the world but America seems to have a romance with disease. Cable stations exist to sell drugs and as they do, they romanticize disease. The wistful looks of the stricken, the sentimental music, the loving looks of spouse and family on the patient all work to make the disease seem to be a pathway to love and enlightenment, and the patented drug you must take forever will keep you alive long enough to bask in this glow. Hopefully one day we will look at these commercials the way we look at doctor-recommended cigarette ads from the 1950's we now watch on Youtube with horror and macabre amusement.
In the case of COVID, we are presented with numbers and charts and interviews with beleaguered hospital workers. Experts tell us what they know and what they don't know both ending up by the end of the interview to be useless. By omission or myopia, these experts seem to be saying to all of us is, "Eat any junk you want and live any way you care to but wear a mask and wash your hands and stay six feet apart." This has always had the echo of six feet under - a distance that has the hint of death to it.
The ultimate infantilizing of the citizenry - mask, wash up, and go to your room. Not to say that these prescriptions don't have a place at this moment but to me, if this is all you've got, it smacks of impotence and surrender and a serious abdication.
Driving here in Connecticut in the morning I will pass a line at the drive-thru at Dunkin' Donuts - 20 cars long. Burger King will do "no contact delivery." It's not the contact that's the real or only risk factor it's what is being delivered. Processed, sugar-laced food is like sludge in a human body and a human body can only make new cells with what it is being given. The revolution does indeed start in the kitchen.
Until the feckless and myopic experts begin to take this point as seriously as they do the mask instruction, no matter how much obedience they are able to influence, we will continue to have more spikes than the shoe franchise at a Trump golf course.
Coca-Cola is funding influential scientists pushing a message that diminishes the role of junk food and sweetened beverages in the obesity crisis--a partnership that has drawn the ire of nutritional experts since it was highlighted earlier this week.
On Monday, the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN) released a promotional video claiming "no compelling evidence" that soft drinks or fast food contribute to Americans' declining health and that consumers should worry more about exercising than cutting calories to lose weight. In turn, media outlets swiftly highlighted that the GEBN lists the world's largest producer of sugary sodas as one of its major financial backers.
That's an association that, as nutrition professor Barry Popkin told the Guardian on Tuesday, exposes the GEBN as "merchants of doubt" akin to the scientists-for-hire who deny the harmful effects of tobacco.
"Essentially, Coke is following the strategy used by the tobacco industry as they tried to create doubt among the general public and politicians. It was very effective in the fight to regulate cigarettes. We have learned from this that it is essential to address these attempts and uncover what they are very rapidly," said Popkin, who teaches global nutrition at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
More concerning is the consensus among nutritional experts that sugary sodas not only contribute to the obesity epidemic--they're a leading cause. As the Harvard University School of Public Health explains, sodas are more rightfully described as "liquid candy," and as sugary drink portion sizes have grown over the past 40 years, children and adults have all drastically increased their consumption.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. While physical activity is an essential component of a healthy lifestyle and helps prevent diseases that are associated with obesity, diet is the most important factor, Popkin said.
"[O]besity and NCD scholars and the WHO and many other bodies have all realized that for prevention, we must change our diet," Popkin told the Guardian. "First and foremost, these are sugary sweetened beverages."
Added Scott Grundy, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, "[I]n the bigger picture it's food intake over exercise that dominates as a cause of obesity--you cannot exercise your way out of overeating, that's kind of a misguided idea."
Coca-Cola's efforts at convincing consumers that a balanced diet is less important than exercise for weight loss and overall health rely on exactly that dubious science. As Mark Morford succinctly posits at the SF Chronicle:
"Just how dumb are you, average American? How gullible, blindly trusting of corporate double-speak, murky science, the idea that companies famous for making drinks that burn rust off your car really care about your health? If you're the Coca-Cola company...the answer is Very. You are very stupid. Still. Now and forever. They are counting on it."
Sadly, it's a pertinent question: Just how dumb are you, average American? How gullible, how blindly trusting of corporate double-speak, of murky science, the idea that companies famous for making drinks that burn rust off your car really care about your health?
If you're the Coca-Cola company (or the NRA, or Monsanto, or RJ Reynolds, or Taco Bell, et al), the answer is: Very. You are very stupid. Still. Now and forever. They are counting on it.
Here's a big story from the NYT not long back, re-confirming a whole raft of studies that point to one rather significant truth, one known to nutritionists and educated fitness gurus for years: While exercise - regular, vigorous, addictive, sweaty, heart-racing, OMG take an Instagram of me exercise - is wildly essential for a whole range of human happy, it's not actually the key to weight loss.
For that, it's all about the food. Portion control, better choices, minimal processing, real ingredients. It's about dramatically reducing the garbage, the chemicals, the excess sugar, the oversized portions, the eating until you're "stuffed."
Did you know the all-American "three square meals a day" eating plan is a myth? That eating yourself into a "food coma" is disastrous for your body? That there's a good reason why one of the Internet's first smash-hit viral photosets, "This is Why You're Fat" was made into a book, and into a cultural phenom? It's common sense made... pornographic. Our dietary choices are killing us.
Don't misunderstand. Vigorous exercise is still incalculably wonderful. It makes you feel great, builds strength and tone, cranks serotonin, alleviates depression, improves everything from sex to sleep. Few things better for you in the world than moving your body, preferably around some trees, preferably partially naked. I mean, obviously.
But if it's weight loss you're after - and more than two-thirds of Americans are overweight, and one-third are clinically obese - it's mostly about food choices. Less of it, more plants, grazing lightly only when truly hungry, cutting way back on sugar, salt, excess fats, the usual. Simple, right?
Amusing, then, this story about the Coca-Cola company funding a whole new batch of studies (fronted by a big nonprofit) that entirely reverse this understanding, magically deflecting attention away from their toxic, obesity-inducing products.
Can you guess what their reputable, totally honest, not-at-all-on-Coke's-payroll scientists discovered?
That's right! To paraphrase: "There's virtually no compelling evidence that eating too much fast food or drinking a billion tons of sugary crap causes obesity, depression, or ill health overall. Poisonous, heavily processed junk food is not the enemy it's been made out to be. What Americans really need is more exercise."
Amazing, no? All those other studies are false! Your common sense is flawed! Coke loves kids and families! Also, guns have been great for America, climate change is God's will and it's just so great how there's no more racism.
It's no wonder Coke is on the defensive. Sodas are finally getting their comeuppance as a destroyer of children, a bringer of obesity and diabetes. And not just sodas; pretty much all of Coke's product family is grossly unhealthy, from Powerade to Sprite, Vitamin Water to "sugar free Full Throttle" (ugh), Barq's to Fruitopia. All horrible, all the time.
This just in: Juice boxes are terrible for kids. Snapple is utter crap. Energy drinks are revolting. Vitamin Water is a total scam, has nearly as much sugar (32 grams per bottle!) as a can of Dr. Pepper. If they didn't add phosphoric acid to soda, you'd instantly vomit from all the sugar. Also: You're a sucker for paying more for the same Coke in smaller, cuter cans. Also: This is the way it's always been. They're counting on it.
Coca-Cola knows something. They know just how ignorant most Americans are. They know he who has the biggest marketing budget, wins. And they know exactly how much they can get away with, that SCOTUS has made it easier than any time in history for billionaires and corporations to own all sides of an argument (hi, Monsanto!)
Let's not get too lopsided. It's possible to get overly fanatical about the anti-sugar thing, too, to get sucked in to the pseudo-scientific BS being touted in something like the popular Australian documentary "Sugar," another of those "Supersize Me"-style stunt movies which, according to Slate's 'Medical Examiner' columnist Daniel Engber anyway, races right past sugar's obvious deleterious effects, to claim it's the root cause of every human calamity you can name, from liver disease to to genitals warts, depression to who killed JFK. Or something. (And you thought gluten was the cause of all human suffering - you're so 2011). "Sugar" is apparently full of bogus, New Age science, wild exaggerations, experts who aren't really experts.
Too bad. Coke (and PepsiCo, and fast food titans, the makers of HFCS, and the rest) deserve much condemnation for their ruthless marketing to children and to the lesser-educated, to forcing their way into schools, to manipulating the message however they like. They do not make tasty, all-American happiness. They made junk. Always have, always will.
But they do not seem to care. Why should they? The FDA isn't nearly nimble enough to keep up (though some progressive cities, increasingly, are). No one stops them from marketing their swill however they want, or from buying their own studies to "prove," well, whatever calculated deflection of truth they like.
This is the American way, no? Get some exercise! Have a Coke and a smile! Sorry about the obesity and diabetes (but not really).
To be "poor" in America isn't an identifying characteristic or a defining trait, like being forgetful or creative or tall.
Being a low-income American comes from being paid a low income.
It seems like a basic point, but it's one Andy Puzder needs to review. Puzder is CEO of CKE Restaurants, Inc., which employs more than 20,000 people and worldwide owns, operates and franchises more than 3,300 fast food restaurants, including Hardee's and Carl's Jr.
In a recent op-ed, Puzder made the specious claim that the social safety net "can lock [people] into poverty."
He argues that "these programs have the unintended consequence of discouraging work rather than encouraging independence, self-reliance and pride," and that, because of government assistance, his low-wage employees across the U.S. are refusing promotions and additional hours "for fear of losing public assistance."
What Puzder forgets to point out is that it is poverty wages--poverty wages paid by institutions like Hardee's and Carl's Jr. to many of their 20,000-plus employees-- that force families to turn to nutrition and housing assistance, and other government-supplemented work supports, just to get by.
Media Matters reports that a 2013 study by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) found that "the overwhelming majority of fast food employees (89.1 percent) make less than $9 per hour and face significant 'barriers to upward mobility' in the profession."
In a recent interview with Fox News, Puzder doubled down on his flawed thesis.
"We need a different system," he concluded.
On that point he's right.
We need a system where people like Savino, a father of two in Brooklyn and a member of the New York Communities for Change, don't have to work 72 hours a week at a local supermarket for wages that are so low they still struggle to get by.
"Sometimes things are so bad that I have to decide- should I pay rent this month, or should I eat?" said Savino.
We need a system where mothers like Ashely, a Washington, D.C. resident and a member of Working Families, don't have to sleep with a young child on the floor because jobs don't pay enough to cover rent.
"If I were paid a living wage, I could get my own place," Ashley said. "As it is, I feel stuck, and don't see a way out."
We need employers to pay enough money so that people like Darrell, who works in the auto parts industry in Ohio, can bring home more than $272 a week. Darrell hopes to move out of the two-bedroom trailer he shares with his daughter, son-in-law and 17-month-old granddaughter.
"I just want enough to survive," Darrell said, "and I think that is a reasonable expectation for someone who goes to work and works hard every day."
We need a system where parents aren't forced to choose between working more hours for low wages and paying exorbitant child care fees, or staying home with their kids and barely scraping by on government assistance.
We need a system where people are paid enough during their working years to put money away in order to retire peacefully in old age.
We need to change the current system, where people like Puzder make more in one day ($17,192) than one of his minimum wage employees would earn after working full-time for an entire year ($15,130).
This system was created by people like Puzder and political leaders who, like him, blame the very people who are just trying to make ends meet. But we have the power to change how the system works.
Not surprisingly, the road to change doesn't involve taking away supports from the people who need them most. It involves creating good jobs for the people who need them most; jobs that provide a fair wage and benefits--that give people options rather than forcing them to choose between bad and worse.

Worker strikes and public protests outside fast food restaurant chains are kicking off across the country on Thursday as low-wage employees in the industry are demanding a federal living wage of $15 an hour.
Organizers for the day's events include the groups Low Pay Is Not OK, Fast Food Forward and Fight for 15.
Those groups are being supported by various local, regional and national workers' rights groups and labor organizations who all agree that low wages are keeping huge segments of the population trapped in poverty across all fifty states. The giant fast food companies, they say--who make huge profits while dodging taxes and paying their executives exorbitant salaries--can easily afford to pay more. More than that, according to economists, an increase to the federal minimum wage would bolster the economy as a whole.
Organizers created this tool to help individuals locate protests that might be in their area, and received support for their efforts from former U.S. Secretary of Labor and economist Robert Reich, who released this video to explain why workers are right to be making their demands for a $15 wage:
Robert Reichwww.youtube.com
With actions expected in over 100 cities, the Twitter hashtag #FastFoodStrikes is being used to post updates and photos throughout the day.