McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[hadit]

Only lousy capitalists cannot double wages and realize gains through productivity.

Show the numbers.

Easy. A McDonalds franchisee runs a labor cost of no more than twenty percent. Probably closer to fifteen. Yet that same McDonalds will send 30 to 35% to corporate in the form of royalties and franchise fees. Flip the percentages and poof, we have doubled the wage of the employees and cut the royalty and franchise fees by half.

But oh no, horrors. Cutting the franchise fees by half would cut McDonalds revenue from them by half. Comes to less than five billion dollars a year. Interestingly enough, they have spent 20 billion dollars in stock buybacks the last two years.

And again, that doesn't address the vast majority of companies that do not have large profit margins, nor does it address the economic reality that automation WILL become cheaper than human labor. Consider as well that some 62% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. Do you really think that those earning between $15/hr and $20/hr are going to sit by quietly as their wages goes from comfortably above MW to just a few dollars above it? Not so. They're going to demand higher pay as well. Over half the work force suddenly getting or demanding higher pay is not a good thing. Take 20 years to do it, and you may not see immediate negative effects. Do it in less than 5 years and you will.

What negative effects?

The erosion of low skilled, low demand jobs. You know, the ones teenagers use to establish a work history and learn how to work a job.

 

[hadit]

And there you have it. You just made my argument.

See, I contend that the minimum wage in no way represents some minimal level of labor value, but instead, is a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated.

For instance, if the employee currently making fifteen is only worth fifteen, won't the employer just pay him fifteen, no matter how much he bitches and moans? And if his value of production is worth more than fifteen, why didn't he ask for a raise a long time ago?

See, neither he nor his employer measure and negotiate his wage from the value of his production. They value it from the floor of the minimum wage.

Now, what we do notice when we see a minimum wage increase in a given area is wage compression. In your example, those making fifteen might get a raise to sixteen. But those making twenty are probably going see their wages fall. And mid-level managers better be dusting off their resumes.

So then, wages will seek equilibrium based on purchasing power driving inflation so that the value created by the MW worker is equal to the purchasing power of the compensation provided.

Other than the massive disruption to the market as the upheaval occurs, the entire affair is then fruitless, with the determent of destroying savings, annuities, and those on a fixed income....

I agree to disagree. We should see some gains in productivity and an increase in demand once higher paid labor starts spending that money.

I would argue, that a wage increase for labor is better than a capital gains preference, for full employment purposes.

Be honest. By "full employment" you don't mean everyone is working. You mean everyone gets paid whether they work or stay in Mom's basement smoking pot.

 

[danielpalos]

Your anecdotal observations are just that.

• That's one form of socialism. Despite what you may think, there is not just one form of socialism. The reason for that is that the economic, social and political aspects of socialism are separable, though they need not be separated in any given implementation of socialism.

That is indicative of nothing. It may be the consequence of state controlled/stipulated pho prices, but that the all the street vendors charge the same price does not in any way show that the state is controlling the prices. Showing a piece of legislation or a regulation that does stipulate such pricing would show your claim to be so.

For example:

• If you look here, every seller in the U.S. charges the exact same price for the items you'll see at the link. That being the case has nothing to do with state controls on prices.
• When one is in downtown D.C., one will find hotdog vendors all over the place. They all charge the same prices, and the state has nothing to do with it.
  
  
  

• Looking at the photo above, you'll see a taxicab. The prices the taxis charge are controlled by the taxicab commission. There are other goods/services in the U.S. that are stipulated by various governments: water, electricity, and home heating oil and gas.
• Go to Macy's, Bloomingdales, and Saks, and you'll find the price of a Ralph Lauren button down shirt is the same at all of them. The same is so for nearly perfume and cosmetic one might aim to buy. The government is not making that be so.

One need not consider the matter solely in terms of differentiated goods. Purchase any commodity on the commodities exchange and you'll find that at any given point in time, every sellers sells at the same price unless and until (1) a buyer offers a higher price or (2) a seller agrees to accept a lower price. That happens because commodity sellers are price takers.

As for Vietnam, I'm aware of their Law on Price, but I don't know that pho is included in its scope. A variety of food items appear to be outside its scope judging by the variability noted for certain items shown here. Now it may still be that the price of pho is controlled, but you've not shown that to be so, and I don't know it to be so. In light of that, I'd say that pho sellers offer a commoditized good -- pho -- and are thus price takers. Now, if you care to put forth something that shows Vietnam has indeed by governmental fiat set pho prices, I'll accept that as so.

....
There is still an unwritten rule that no one should be making more money than anyone else.
The concept is so ingrained now that no one would ever even question it.
So yes there are no longer any 'Government Officials' walking through the markets looking for 'Capitalists' because there is no need to. Everyone is on the same boat. And everyone likes it that way.
Any food vendor who would offer to sell their Pho for less than their neighbor would be considered 'unpatriotic' and be shunned by the community.
Self regulated economy based on Communist doctrine.
No one gets ahead of the others and no one falls behind unless they don't know how to make a great Pho. LOL

Um.... Let the merchants collude and use peer pressure to keep the prices consistent. That's all well and good, but:

• "Shunned by one's peers" does not socialism make.
• Unwritten rules do not make for socialism.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!
Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

Your claim is very clear in the quote just above, and what you've said now and what you said before -- "THATS [sic] SOCIALISM" -- are not the the same things.

It's worth noting that in economically socialist systems, what makes it socialist is that the government tends to nationalize essential monopolistic enterprises -- huge industries like banking, natural resource production, and other infrastructural concerns -- while leaving non-essential industries and businesses (like, but not limited to, sidewalk pho sellers, large and small scale discretionary retailing, etc.) to remain privately held.

Lastly, your remarks have focused on the prices end consumers pay. Socialism isn't about fixing the prices consumers see; it's about managing production. For example, the state would own the aquifer and sell water to various bottlers. What the bottlers charge the consumer is up to them. The thing is that the state will freely disclose its selling price to bottlers, so bottlers can only get away with charging so much. That is the result of there being more perfect information (less information asymmetry) about the prices of the item in question, not the result of the state saying, "Thou shalt only charge 40 shekels for a bottle of water."

Nice bunch of 'theoretical' academic bullshit.
Sounds great on paper. Socialism/Communism/Marxism ALWAYS sounds great in the classroom.
The little problem is all these 'isms' never actually work in reality.
It's in mankind's DNA to want to compete with his neighbors. Capitalism is the result of competition.
In 'real life' in every Socialist country past and present the human beings who run the government who are put in charge of the 'aquifer' AKA relatives of the President or whatever the leader is referred to as 'sell' the water bottling operation to their brother-in-law for the usual kick-back percent. The brother-in law sells the bottled water to his uncles and nephews for the usual kick-back. The uncles sell the right to transport the bottled water to their cousins who deliver the water to the street vendors for a profit.
THAT'S REAL LIFE!!!!
I have witnessed it first hand many times in Socialist countries.
But you go ahead and stick your nose in a book about how great Socialism is.
For your bedtime reading:
How Venezuela’s corrupt socialists are looting the country to death | New York Post

You know. I don't care what you think of the "isms." I don't because I have yet to see your own well presented treatise on economic and political philosophy. When it appears on Amazon or in an scholarly journal, let me know. I will read it.

In the meantime, however, I observe that rather than owning your elementary mistaken understanding of socialism and its implementation in Vietnam and then adopting a new tack, one that is germane to the thread topic, you are now trying deflect away from the fact that you ranted on about what is socialism by pronouncing your disregard for what you perceive to be one or several distinctions between the theory and practice of socialism. It's clear you are out of your depth and not only haven't a clue about the following:

1. the theory of socialism in general --> shown by your remarks that cast is as a monolithic "ism" of which there is only one variety when there are several and not every one of them is so similar to the other other the differences be irrelevant;
2. whether the example you presented to illustrate an characteristic of socialism is indeed factually so --> shown by your citation of how prices are managed among a class of Vietnamese pho sellers;

...but also you lack the intellect, self-respect and/or aplomb -- I don't know which of those it be -- to politely exit the specific line of discussion (socialism in Vietnam + pho prices as a signpost of socialist price controls) you commenced.

I'm a grown man who will happily engage in substantive discourse, but only with people who, like me, can own their mistakes and move on. You are clearly unwilling to do that; thus I haven't any more time for you.

Socialism is central economic planning. Only government can centrally plan an economy because only government can use force to compel it's citizens to do things against their own interest.

Full socialism is when government owns the means of production. But fascism (industry technically in private hands but all decisions controlled by government) is in all real terms the same. Democrats and Republicans are both largely fascist as they support government picking market winners and losers. Democrats more so

our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, are command economics.

actually, Government is an externality to capitalism and the private sector. Thus, no basis for individual market participants to gather metrics on a nation-State basis.

 

[danielpalos]

Only lousy capitalists cannot double wages and realize gains through productivity.

Show the numbers.

Henry Ford already did it. Only lousy capitalists, can't.

Unlike the poor who really are, "downtrodden".

Indulge me. Show the numbers.

On January 5, 1914, the company announced it would double worker’s pay and shorten the workday. Instead of $2.34 for nine hours, most workers would make $5.00 for eight hours.

Manufacturers said it was crazy and socialist. It would cost Ford 10 million dollars that year alone! But the very next day, 10,000 people flocked to Highland Park clamoring for jobs, and turnover dropped drastically.

Source: The $5 Day | Henry Ford 150

 

[danielpalos]

Only lousy capitalists cannot double wages and realize gains through productivity.

Show the numbers.

Easy. A McDonalds franchisee runs a labor cost of no more than twenty percent. Probably closer to fifteen. Yet that same McDonalds will send 30 to 35% to corporate in the form of royalties and franchise fees. Flip the percentages and poof, we have doubled the wage of the employees and cut the royalty and franchise fees by half.

But oh no, horrors. Cutting the franchise fees by half would cut McDonalds revenue from them by half. Comes to less than five billion dollars a year. Interestingly enough, they have spent 20 billion dollars in stock buybacks the last two years.

And again, that doesn't address the vast majority of companies that do not have large profit margins, nor does it address the economic reality that automation WILL become cheaper than human labor. Consider as well that some 62% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. Do you really think that those earning between $15/hr and $20/hr are going to sit by quietly as their wages goes from comfortably above MW to just a few dollars above it? Not so. They're going to demand higher pay as well. Over half the work force suddenly getting or demanding higher pay is not a good thing. Take 20 years to do it, and you may not see immediate negative effects. Do it in less than 5 years and you will.

What negative effects?

The erosion of low skilled, low demand jobs. You know, the ones teenagers use to establish a work history and learn how to work a job.

that is Only a dilemma for the increasingly fantastical, right wing.

it is why some on the left are advocating for equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

And there you have it. You just made my argument.

See, I contend that the minimum wage in no way represents some minimal level of labor value, but instead, is a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated.

For instance, if the employee currently making fifteen is only worth fifteen, won't the employer just pay him fifteen, no matter how much he bitches and moans? And if his value of production is worth more than fifteen, why didn't he ask for a raise a long time ago?

See, neither he nor his employer measure and negotiate his wage from the value of his production. They value it from the floor of the minimum wage.

Now, what we do notice when we see a minimum wage increase in a given area is wage compression. In your example, those making fifteen might get a raise to sixteen. But those making twenty are probably going see their wages fall. And mid-level managers better be dusting off their resumes.

So then, wages will seek equilibrium based on purchasing power driving inflation so that the value created by the MW worker is equal to the purchasing power of the compensation provided.

Other than the massive disruption to the market as the upheaval occurs, the entire affair is then fruitless, with the determent of destroying savings, annuities, and those on a fixed income....

I agree to disagree. We should see some gains in productivity and an increase in demand once higher paid labor starts spending that money.

I would argue, that a wage increase for labor is better than a capital gains preference, for full employment purposes.

Be honest. By "full employment" you don't mean everyone is working. You mean everyone gets paid whether they work or stay in Mom's basement smoking pot.

it means, everyone who wants to work can get a job, more easily rather than less easily. it is a volunteer labor force under Capitalism, but not Socialism.

 

[hadit]

Only lousy capitalists cannot double wages and realize gains through productivity.

Show the numbers.

Henry Ford already did it. Only lousy capitalists, can't.

Unlike the poor who really are, "downtrodden".

Indulge me. Show the numbers.

On January 5, 1914, the company announced it would double worker’s pay and shorten the workday. Instead of $2.34 for nine hours, most workers would make $5.00 for eight hours.

Manufacturers said it was crazy and socialist. It would cost Ford 10 million dollars that year alone! But the very next day, 10,000 people flocked to Highland Park clamoring for jobs, and turnover dropped drastically.

Source: The $5 Day | Henry Ford 150

Yes, as I said, Ford had the money to take that risk. Now show how a company with a 3% profit margin can double its labor costs and still meet payroll. Sure, if a company advertised twice the wages everyone else paid, there would be no shortage of job applicants, but that's not the point, is it?

 

[hadit]

And there you have it. You just made my argument.

See, I contend that the minimum wage in no way represents some minimal level of labor value, but instead, is a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated.

For instance, if the employee currently making fifteen is only worth fifteen, won't the employer just pay him fifteen, no matter how much he bitches and moans? And if his value of production is worth more than fifteen, why didn't he ask for a raise a long time ago?

See, neither he nor his employer measure and negotiate his wage from the value of his production. They value it from the floor of the minimum wage.

Now, what we do notice when we see a minimum wage increase in a given area is wage compression. In your example, those making fifteen might get a raise to sixteen. But those making twenty are probably going see their wages fall. And mid-level managers better be dusting off their resumes.

So then, wages will seek equilibrium based on purchasing power driving inflation so that the value created by the MW worker is equal to the purchasing power of the compensation provided.

Other than the massive disruption to the market as the upheaval occurs, the entire affair is then fruitless, with the determent of destroying savings, annuities, and those on a fixed income....

I agree to disagree. We should see some gains in productivity and an increase in demand once higher paid labor starts spending that money.

I would argue, that a wage increase for labor is better than a capital gains preference, for full employment purposes.

Be honest. By "full employment" you don't mean everyone is working. You mean everyone gets paid whether they work or stay in Mom's basement smoking pot.

it means, everyone who wants to work can get a job, more easily rather than less easily. it is a volunteer labor force under Capitalism, but not Socialism.

It's not a work force under socialism. It's just a bunch of people all getting paid and not working.

 

[danielpalos]

Only lousy capitalists cannot double wages and realize gains through productivity.

Show the numbers.

Henry Ford already did it. Only lousy capitalists, can't.

Unlike the poor who really are, "downtrodden".

Indulge me. Show the numbers.

On January 5, 1914, the company announced it would double worker’s pay and shorten the workday. Instead of $2.34 for nine hours, most workers would make $5.00 for eight hours.

Manufacturers said it was crazy and socialist. It would cost Ford 10 million dollars that year alone! But the very next day, 10,000 people flocked to Highland Park clamoring for jobs, and turnover dropped drastically.

Source: The $5 Day | Henry Ford 150

Yes, as I said, Ford had the money to take that risk. Now show how a company with a 3% profit margin can double its labor costs and still meet payroll. Sure, if a company advertised twice the wages everyone else paid, there would be no shortage of job applicants, but that's not the point, is it?

Why don't all capitalists accumulate capital to do what Henry Ford did?

 

[danielpalos]

And there you have it. You just made my argument.

See, I contend that the minimum wage in no way represents some minimal level of labor value, but instead, is a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated.

For instance, if the employee currently making fifteen is only worth fifteen, won't the employer just pay him fifteen, no matter how much he bitches and moans? And if his value of production is worth more than fifteen, why didn't he ask for a raise a long time ago?

See, neither he nor his employer measure and negotiate his wage from the value of his production. They value it from the floor of the minimum wage.

Now, what we do notice when we see a minimum wage increase in a given area is wage compression. In your example, those making fifteen might get a raise to sixteen. But those making twenty are probably going see their wages fall. And mid-level managers better be dusting off their resumes.

So then, wages will seek equilibrium based on purchasing power driving inflation so that the value created by the MW worker is equal to the purchasing power of the compensation provided.

Other than the massive disruption to the market as the upheaval occurs, the entire affair is then fruitless, with the determent of destroying savings, annuities, and those on a fixed income....

I agree to disagree. We should see some gains in productivity and an increase in demand once higher paid labor starts spending that money.

I would argue, that a wage increase for labor is better than a capital gains preference, for full employment purposes.

Be honest. By "full employment" you don't mean everyone is working. You mean everyone gets paid whether they work or stay in Mom's basement smoking pot.

it means, everyone who wants to work can get a job, more easily rather than less easily. it is a volunteer labor force under Capitalism, but not Socialism.

It's not a work force under socialism. It's just a bunch of people all getting paid and not working.

requiring a work ethic is Socialism, not Capitalism.

 

[hadit]

Show the numbers.

Henry Ford already did it. Only lousy capitalists, can't.

Unlike the poor who really are, "downtrodden".

Indulge me. Show the numbers.

On January 5, 1914, the company announced it would double worker’s pay and shorten the workday. Instead of $2.34 for nine hours, most workers would make $5.00 for eight hours.

Manufacturers said it was crazy and socialist. It would cost Ford 10 million dollars that year alone! But the very next day, 10,000 people flocked to Highland Park clamoring for jobs, and turnover dropped drastically.

Source: The $5 Day | Henry Ford 150

Yes, as I said, Ford had the money to take that risk. Now show how a company with a 3% profit margin can double its labor costs and still meet payroll. Sure, if a company advertised twice the wages everyone else paid, there would be no shortage of job applicants, but that's not the point, is it?

Why don't all capitalists accumulate capital to do what Henry Ford did?

Because not all capitalists run a fantastically successful company producing a brand new product with incredible demand that is transforming daily lives. I know I've pointed this out to you before, but the same phenomenon happened in the dot com boom. Many companies sprang up and were wildly successful, turning their founders into overnight millionaires. Those are anomalies, however, and most companies are not in that situation. He was in the right place at the right time with the right product. You might as well ask why all the 60's rock bands aren't as successful as the Rolling Stones. Do you really live your life expecting everyone and everything to be as successful as the absolute best at everything? You must be very disappointed.

 

[hadit]

So then, wages will seek equilibrium based on purchasing power driving inflation so that the value created by the MW worker is equal to the purchasing power of the compensation provided.

Other than the massive disruption to the market as the upheaval occurs, the entire affair is then fruitless, with the determent of destroying savings, annuities, and those on a fixed income....

I agree to disagree. We should see some gains in productivity and an increase in demand once higher paid labor starts spending that money.

I would argue, that a wage increase for labor is better than a capital gains preference, for full employment purposes.

Be honest. By "full employment" you don't mean everyone is working. You mean everyone gets paid whether they work or stay in Mom's basement smoking pot.

it means, everyone who wants to work can get a job, more easily rather than less easily. it is a volunteer labor force under Capitalism, but not Socialism.

It's not a work force under socialism. It's just a bunch of people all getting paid and not working.

requiring a work ethic is Socialism, not Capitalism.

Only if you redefine work as getting paid whether you work or not.

 

[danielpalos]

Henry Ford already did it. Only lousy capitalists, can't.

Unlike the poor who really are, "downtrodden".

Indulge me. Show the numbers.

On January 5, 1914, the company announced it would double worker’s pay and shorten the workday. Instead of $2.34 for nine hours, most workers would make $5.00 for eight hours.

Manufacturers said it was crazy and socialist. It would cost Ford 10 million dollars that year alone! But the very next day, 10,000 people flocked to Highland Park clamoring for jobs, and turnover dropped drastically.

Source: The $5 Day | Henry Ford 150

Yes, as I said, Ford had the money to take that risk. Now show how a company with a 3% profit margin can double its labor costs and still meet payroll. Sure, if a company advertised twice the wages everyone else paid, there would be no shortage of job applicants, but that's not the point, is it?

Why don't all capitalists accumulate capital to do what Henry Ford did?

Because not all capitalists run a fantastically successful company producing a brand new product with incredible demand that is transforming daily lives. I know I've pointed this out to you before, but the same phenomenon happened in the dot com boom. Many companies sprang up and were wildly successful, turning their founders into overnight millionaires. Those are anomalies, however, and most companies are not in that situation. He was in the right place at the right time with the right product. You might as well ask why all the 60's rock bands aren't as successful as the Rolling Stones. Do you really live your life expecting everyone and everything to be as successful as the absolute best at everything? You must be very disappointed.

No; they are probably just lazy and should be drug tested, and denied steak and lobster until they get capital results.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree to disagree. We should see some gains in productivity and an increase in demand once higher paid labor starts spending that money.

I would argue, that a wage increase for labor is better than a capital gains preference, for full employment purposes.

Be honest. By "full employment" you don't mean everyone is working. You mean everyone gets paid whether they work or stay in Mom's basement smoking pot.

it means, everyone who wants to work can get a job, more easily rather than less easily. it is a volunteer labor force under Capitalism, but not Socialism.

It's not a work force under socialism. It's just a bunch of people all getting paid and not working.

requiring a work ethic is Socialism, not Capitalism.

Only if you redefine work as getting paid whether you work or not.

Not at all; you can collect insurance without working.

 

[initforme]

McDonalds is a terrible place to work. Nobody should apply. But dummies will. The food is verified as artificial. I cannot include those that buy that slop as american citizens.

 

[hadit]

Indulge me. Show the numbers.

On January 5, 1914, the company announced it would double worker’s pay and shorten the workday. Instead of $2.34 for nine hours, most workers would make $5.00 for eight hours.

Manufacturers said it was crazy and socialist. It would cost Ford 10 million dollars that year alone! But the very next day, 10,000 people flocked to Highland Park clamoring for jobs, and turnover dropped drastically.

Source: The $5 Day | Henry Ford 150

Yes, as I said, Ford had the money to take that risk. Now show how a company with a 3% profit margin can double its labor costs and still meet payroll. Sure, if a company advertised twice the wages everyone else paid, there would be no shortage of job applicants, but that's not the point, is it?

Why don't all capitalists accumulate capital to do what Henry Ford did?

Because not all capitalists run a fantastically successful company producing a brand new product with incredible demand that is transforming daily lives. I know I've pointed this out to you before, but the same phenomenon happened in the dot com boom. Many companies sprang up and were wildly successful, turning their founders into overnight millionaires. Those are anomalies, however, and most companies are not in that situation. He was in the right place at the right time with the right product. You might as well ask why all the 60's rock bands aren't as successful as the Rolling Stones. Do you really live your life expecting everyone and everything to be as successful as the absolute best at everything? You must be very disappointed.

No; they are probably just lazy and should be drug tested, and denied steak and lobster until they get capital results.

You should hold your supplier to the same standard and refuse to buy anything but the absolute best in the world, every single time.

 

[hadit]

Be honest. By "full employment" you don't mean everyone is working. You mean everyone gets paid whether they work or stay in Mom's basement smoking pot.

it means, everyone who wants to work can get a job, more easily rather than less easily. it is a volunteer labor force under Capitalism, but not Socialism.

It's not a work force under socialism. It's just a bunch of people all getting paid and not working.

requiring a work ethic is Socialism, not Capitalism.

Only if you redefine work as getting paid whether you work or not.

Not at all; you can collect insurance without working.

Only if you were let go from a job for specific reasons. If you quit or are fired for cause, not so much.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, as I said, Ford had the money to take that risk. Now show how a company with a 3% profit margin can double its labor costs and still meet payroll. Sure, if a company advertised twice the wages everyone else paid, there would be no shortage of job applicants, but that's not the point, is it?

Why don't all capitalists accumulate capital to do what Henry Ford did?

Because not all capitalists run a fantastically successful company producing a brand new product with incredible demand that is transforming daily lives. I know I've pointed this out to you before, but the same phenomenon happened in the dot com boom. Many companies sprang up and were wildly successful, turning their founders into overnight millionaires. Those are anomalies, however, and most companies are not in that situation. He was in the right place at the right time with the right product. You might as well ask why all the 60's rock bands aren't as successful as the Rolling Stones. Do you really live your life expecting everyone and everything to be as successful as the absolute best at everything? You must be very disappointed.

No; they are probably just lazy and should be drug tested, and denied steak and lobster until they get capital results.

You should hold your supplier to the same standard and refuse to buy anything but the absolute best in the world, every single time.

Only the finest should do in our fine and capital, Republic.

 

[danielpalos]

it means, everyone who wants to work can get a job, more easily rather than less easily. it is a volunteer labor force under Capitalism, but not Socialism.

It's not a work force under socialism. It's just a bunch of people all getting paid and not working.

requiring a work ethic is Socialism, not Capitalism.

Only if you redefine work as getting paid whether you work or not.

Not at all; you can collect insurance without working.

Only if you were let go from a job for specific reasons. If you quit or are fired for cause, not so much.

EDD should have to discover for-cause employment and that for-cause employment conditions were in breach, to deny unemployment benefits.

California is an at-will employment State.

 

[hadit]

Yes, as I said, Ford had the money to take that risk. Now show how a company with a 3% profit margin can double its labor costs and still meet payroll. Sure, if a company advertised twice the wages everyone else paid, there would be no shortage of job applicants, but that's not the point, is it?

Why don't all capitalists accumulate capital to do what Henry Ford did?

Because not all capitalists run a fantastically successful company producing a brand new product with incredible demand that is transforming daily lives. I know I've pointed this out to you before, but the same phenomenon happened in the dot com boom. Many companies sprang up and were wildly successful, turning their founders into overnight millionaires. Those are anomalies, however, and most companies are not in that situation. He was in the right place at the right time with the right product. You might as well ask why all the 60's rock bands aren't as successful as the Rolling Stones. Do you really live your life expecting everyone and everything to be as successful as the absolute best at everything? You must be very disappointed.

No; they are probably just lazy and should be drug tested, and denied steak and lobster until they get capital results.

You should hold your supplier to the same standard and refuse to buy anything but the absolute best in the world, every single time.

Only the finest should do in our fine and capital, Republic.

You do understand, though, that by definition, most are average, no matter how good that average is? Again, Ford and the dot coms were anomalies. Most companies are, again by definition, average, and thus cannot do what they were able to do.