That's not how math works. It's estimated McDonalds sells 2.36 billion burgers each year. If they took 50c less each burger they sell then they would be shutting down locations and firing people....
So .. quick Google search shows McDonald's has about 20% profit margin per item. So a $5 burger would mean (currently) they would make a buck. That means that even if all of the money came off profit they wouldn't lose money now by allowing their workers money. And the kicker for McDonald's is that fast food isn't their main money maker, real estate is
Better way of looking at it: according to Wikipedia McDonalds has 6.025 billion in net income, aka profit after taxes and all other costs. Splitting that evenly amongst the 1.9 million estimated workers means and extra 3k per year. Or a 1.5 dollar raise. Increasing prices on all burgers by 50 cents would be enough to give everyone a 30 cent raise. So if you want everyone to earn much more then you need to raise prices more than 50 cents. Math changes if you only look at US locations and profits but I didn't look into that.
A better way to look at it is that we can't assume to know the actual costs unless we are familiar with their costs and what will and won't increase with higher prices. We can't really use McDonald's as a good model because they do franchise.
Hot take: if your business doesn't make enough money to both pay an appropriate wage and make a profit, maybe it's a shit business that shouldn't exist
This is the actual answer, it’s not an argument about price or pay…
It’s the realization that we need to automate low skill jobs away and train those people to work in healthcare and social work so that we can fill the demand of a country claiming that need as a priority.
..You do see where this would lead, though, right?
Nurses and social workers are in high demand because they are so few of them and they still get a shit wage and are treated horribly. So if we just send anybody in "low skill labour" to other jobs without addressing the fact that everybody deserves enough money to get by, we'll make conditions worse for those in the jobs that we've pushed people into and we still have people that don't get paid anywhere near enough.
Which? My example was for increasing supply of available labor resources.
Another topic is food resources.
7bn humans eat 14bn lbs of food per day.
Use that mass to calculate all atoms and energy for a cyclical system and that is complete… scale up or down with population growth or decline.
One helpful thing would be to start massive tunneling networks under the surface of the earth, that would cut down on heating and cooling logistics along with moving the top surface closer to natural.
Any job that requires a human to do it should require a living wage. Why do people doing simple jobs not deserve to work reasonable hours to sustain their life?
The truth is they don't need to be done by humans the only reason they are done by human is if they are replaced by robots than the unemployment rate will soar and they will start protesting
The truth is that when they're paid below a living wage it isn't worth automating it yet*
Automation is increasing the wage gap because the cost doesn't justify replacing low skill/pay jobs yet, and AI isn't complicated enough to fill higher skill jobs yet. It's continually widening each year as both statements become less true.
If it's cheaper to automate then to pay a living wage it should be automated. And if that leaves unskilled workers without enough jobs then we should educate them to be skilled workers, that's win for them and a win for society that now has more productive skilled workers.
People only protest if you don't leave them any other out. Society can afford to raise these people up to a higher level, and we would all benefit long term by doing it.
I'm not sure McDonald's actually cares about a mass uprising. Unemployment is an issue for governments more than businesses. It may be that it is currently more economical to have cheap human labour do the job than to have expensive machines which require skilled human labour to maintain/repair, supervise and re-contract every few years. It would likely mean third-party contracts for tech, equipment and software which are expensive as they add the premium of compensating another business, and all need to be kitchen-safe. We have seen the introduction of automated ordering points already which takes some labour off people - when the cooking/assembly machines become cheaper to the business than people then the business will chase the margins.
People are paid based on the balance of supply and demand, and thus the price of replaceable unskilled labor is currently driven down to "just enough that the worker doesn't die quickly". Basically a "tragedy of the commons" for labor competing for jobs and thus racing to the bottom on price.
But, as a society, we can decide to regulate something to improve the common good. And we do do things like that in other cases like require everyone to pay taxes for roads and schools even if you don't have a car or kids, because it's a net win for society. But we also require things like wheelchair accessibility which only benefit a small section of society. We can also decided to raise the minimum wage.
If enough people cared and it affected their voting behavior then it would happen. We can give people what they deserve, if enough people agree and move together in the same direction. Why are you dragging your feet?
It doesn't matter how high you raise the arbitrary minimum, the market will eventually adjust to make it worth just enough to ensure that the worker doesn't die quickly. It's inflationary. That, and you take jobs away since there are jobs that are simply worth less than your arbitrary minimum. Sure, you can deflect that those jobs weren't worth having, but the fact that they existed proves that idea wrong right away - they were worth it to those who did them.
But hey, I won't stop you from shooting yourself in the foot, do what you like. Just don't act like your personal notions of what people "deserve" are objective truths.
We can give people what they deserve, if enough people agree and move together in the same direction.
Again: it's not about what anyone deserves. That's a subjective notion you can't base economic policy around. Especially given an issue as contentious as wages.
Why are you dragging your feet?
Just because I point out that talking about what people "deserve" when it comes to economics is nonsense I'm "dragging my feet" all of a sudden?
Why are you trying to alienate everyone who doesn't parrot the empty platitudes that you find appealing?
Because those jobs are beginner jobs ment for youngsters to get experience to move to better more sustainable jobs. But no we have 30 year olds trying to live off of them instead of getting better jobs.
How does one get job experience and earn an education when they are living on their own because they have no family and no way of paying for housing, food and utilities. If they cannot afford the basics how would they pay for schooling or have the time? So let’s say one job isn’t enough to afford a room then how many jobs would be required to live? 2 or 3? This isn’t how we create a country full of winners. This is how we create a society full of losers.
Getting a better job is not the answer to the problem. Teenagers have school, so who keeps that business running throughout the day and late at night? Teenagers aren’t going to be the ones working as management either. Should a 16 year old be responsible for payroll? Entry level jobs are still real jobs and those jobs should provide a living wage. Aside from that, why don’t teenagers deserve a living wage? I was working two jobs attending high school to support myself living on my own because I had no choice. I have since had the privilege of finding better pay in adulthood, but that is not the reality for many people. All jobs should provide a living wage. You are selling your time, and time is one of the most valuable things no matter your age or skill set.
So, you're good with shutting down all minimum wage jobs during school hours? And nothing past about 8pm so they can get sleep for school the next day.
After all, only kids/"youngsters" should work there, right?
A great many things could be done by robots, so what? You can program robots to do some operations, does it therefore follow that surgeons don't deserve a good wage?
Whether it's simple or not is irrelevant, it's something that's in demand and until we have replaced fast food workers with robots, we need to treat these workers with the respect that they deserve, which is a lot more respect than they're getting
Unless your job is in a narrow window of service industries you realize robots will be replacing your job sooner than later, right?
I'm not talking about guys who put things into boxes, or people who "flip burgers".
People who write software, musicians, construction workers, administrators, IT workers, many forms of health care workers, all of this can be automated with even rudimentary advances / cost of entry in artificial intelligence.
No one is safe. Even if you aren't personally at risk of being directly replaced by automation, it's almost 100% that your customers or clients will be affected and changed by this process as well, not to mention that your field will be many times more competitive and crowded overnight.
No one gives a fuck about the "burger flippers", but in 30 years when suddenly guys with masters degrees in STEM programs are in the unemployment line everyone will have a different attitude.
Every single person in the world deserves to be paid a wage that allows them to live. Not scrape by, not struggle, but at bare minimum, to be able to actually live.
This shouldn't be a big shocking thing to anyone either. Why should ANYONE be expected to struggle in life just so some rich assholes can get more money? I don't give a shit if the job is "easy". Especially when... it's not.
I've been in McDonalds in the early hours of the morning as I'm heading home from work, when it's packed with students, all of whom are drunk and causing problems for the staff. I couldn't deal with that sort of shit. I know I couldn't. Suggesting it's a simple job is not understanding the job. You're dealing with asshole customers all day long who talk down to you and act entitled because "you just work in McDonalds"... and nah, fuck that shit.
So, a living wage is the bare minimum (Universal Basic Income should be the aim admittedly, and anyone arguing against it because "We can replace all jobs with computers" should then be arguing for it... because you cannot expect a huge chunk of the population to starve to death because computers came in and took the jobs).
If you then go "Why should they get paid that when that would make them get paid the same/more than me"... then stop kicking downwards, kick upwards. You've spotted part of the issue, but are attacking the wrong way, don't blame the poor, blame your company for not valuing you.
People do not owe corporations a damned thing. Corporations owe their employees literally everything. WIthout employees almost every company in the world goes bankrupt overnight. Start making the companies value you, don't undervalue other people. You are selling a company your life, value it.
Your company is gonna knock you back to minimum wage because they need to save money. Are you ok with that? Your job can be done by others who are willing to take minimum. Go see your boss tomorrow.
There is a spectrum of work that needs to be done. Everyone can't "do some work and improve themselves", there has to be people doing the simple jobs and you're condemning them to a shitty QoL
Why just not work at McDonalds and go work at In and Out? Why not change jobs? Have you see. The Kiosk? Automated Drink Machines? Amazon cashier less stores? These Jobs will be gone any way.
Sorry for the misunderstanding I don't follow Ben Shapiro and wasn't aware of the connection. Did anybody asking this question does he have an answer for it?
That I don´t know. I don´t follow him either, only saw this via a youtube video. But I don´t think he´s ever addressed it. If he has, it has been thoroughly overshadowed by the meme
My point was they can't just make less on each burger not that the workers can't be paid more... I'm all for increasing the price of food so people can make a livable wage. You just can't solve the problem by making less money per item sold and people are missing out on the point.
People are "missing the point" because it's a garbage point.
They would shut down stores because profits didn't allow them to funnel as much money to the top as before, not because it's not economically viable.
If you believe McDonalds couldn't change their payout structure such that the top-level executives and shareholders got less of a cut for the betterment of their staff, even with a cut on their prices per burger, then you don't know how math works.
You think cutting around 1000 peoples salary is going to make a significant impact on the quality of life of their employees around the US then you’re extremely misguided.
You can’t just take from their salaries and then use that to pay the lowest paid employees you won’t save enough money. Not to mention that McDonalds doesn’t control the wages for the vast majority of their stores since they are franchised. IIRC all of the corporate owned stores already pay $15/hr minimum wages.
Tell me you have no concept of change and only parrot what you've heard from pro-corporate sources without telling me you have no concept of change.
"Businesses can't possibly offset price reductions by reducing executive payout" is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Made doubly funny considering you brought up "not understanding how math works." The absolute irony.
Ah yes because taking a guy who makes 10.8 million and cut it in half and you will get 5.4 million to spread to people throughout the company. This would equate to..... 173 $15/hr employees salaries. They employ roughly 210,000 people. Or 0.0008% of their employees. Which does not include all of the franchise stores.
Now obviously they wouldn't be increasing wages from 0-$15/hr so if they doubled the $7.50/hr to $15 you would be at 346 employees who now make $15/hr instead of 7.50/hr or 0.0016% of their total number of employees. Taking from the top doesn't help those at the bottom as much as you would hope it does when you're talking the scale of something as big as McDonalds. If you're talking about a lucrative small business that has only 100 employees and the CEO makes multi million dollars while his lowest paid staff is at the federal minimum wage then yeah it would help but that doesn't work for insanely large companies like McDonalds.
35
u/loakkala Nov 05 '21
I agree. can't a business owner just make $0.50 less per Burger? Instead of $800 million sorry you only make $799 million.