Comment

Comment on McDonald’s CEO is grappling with a ‘two-tier economy’ as he slashes prices on value meals—and signals backing for a minimum wage increase

<- View Parent

gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

No, that’s not how the modern economy works. A CEO can’t just pay higher wages randomly. They have to adhere to some invisible laws guiding them towards paying the minimum wages they can get away with. If they pay more, they get fired and replaced with another CEO who pays less again.

The only way to make a company pay more is if it benefits the company or if it’s forced by law, i.e. legally-mandated minimum wage. That, however, is a bad idea too IMHO because for one some businesses who’re just barely profitable today would simply go out of business and people would lose their jobs, and also it would make human employees more expensive and companies would look towards automating their jobs away, because machinery would be more competitive.

IMHO the best solution is to give people money, but not through the workplace, but through a legally-mandated universal basic income. Otherwise, you’re forcing people to go to work to be able to live and people would have to suck up whatever bad working conditions their workplace features just to be able to survive, i.e. the same we’re seeing with medical insurance today when it’s tied to work requirements.

source

Sort:hotnew top

LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
They actually kinda legally DO have to follow fiduciary duty towards their shareholders. If their shareholders were also all the workers of the company, this wouldn’t be a conflict to lay them more, right? But that’s actually literally socialism and that’s why socialism is a boogeyman

source
- brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Worker coops are not socialism though. It’s technically capitalism, and it’s not something you’d see Fox railing about.
  
  They just don’t arise much in the current system of stuff.
  
  source
  - LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Worker co-ops are indeed socialism, because it’s the workers owning the company.
    
    source
SabinStargem@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
I advocate for what I call “Universal Ranked Income”: Everyone gets $10,000 a year by default, while jobs get a fixed amount, no negotiations with a company. it is decided for a job class to be assigned to a rank by the whole nation, regardless of location. Getting an education or holding a job replaces the basic income - $12k to $20k for a student based on grades, $40k if a waiter, $60k or 80k ranks for higher labors, $100k as a CEO. There are absolute income and wealth caps, the taxes also become increasingly higher for each pay grade. After taxes, a store clerk gets $30k, and a CEO is down to $60k.

In effect, that means “best” occupations are only twice the value of a regular job, instead of the fiscal insanity we see with CEOs have 1,000x+ the income of a normal human. Only 6x the income of someone who isn’t working. Also, having fixed incomes might help prevent inflation, since corporations have to target job ranks for pricing. UBI also gives everyone benefits, such as basic shelter, generic food, healthcare, a boring car, utilities, and so forth. Money is solely for lifestyle upgrades and luxuries, rather than for buying necessities.

By having universal benefits and a modest amount of money, workers would be able to freely unionize, strike, participate in politics, or avoid bad workplaces. Without being held hostage by capitalism, people can help decide the direction of society without having to sacrifice their wellbeing.

source
- sobchak@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Just capping CEO pay as some percentage as the lowest paid employee at the company would solve some of this; which I think Sanders suggested before. I suppose it would have to extend to every “contractor,” and “gig worker” they use too. The “ranked” income suggestion could cause problems because it ignores supply/demand. I find “ranking” kind of dubious too, because some “unskilled” labor is much harder and undesirable for the worker to do than other work that requires degrees; so these workers should be paid more, IMO. I’m also fine with somewhat predictable inflation; prevents people from hoarding wealth.
  
  source
  - SabinStargem@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    That is why an ERK metric would have to be standardized: how many hours are spent on exertion, what environmental conditions that are involved with that career, the odds of dying horribly, how many years of education to be competent, and so forth. That is why I would consider Lumberjacks should have the highest pay grades - their job is not just requires physical effort, intelligent tree management, and so forth - they also tend to have the highest fatality rate among professions. Trees are unpredictable when they fall down, and a hardhat won’t prevent getting brained.
    
    In any case, I think supply/demand being ignored would be a good thing. It is by manipulating that, companies can exploit their workers. We lose some of capitalism’s efficiency, but it feels like much of it is wasted already - just look at the paychecks of the wealthy. What I am proposing is replacing the distortion presented by excessive wealth and power, with another that balances the scales. What we lose in potential profit, we instead replace with certain stability.
    
    I did write a bit on shares and stuff. Might reply later, right now I have chores and things to do.
    
    source
- FragrantGarden@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Why would I be a CEO for twice the pay as the clerk? I’m sandbagging it all day long at those rates.
  
  source
  - Sidhean@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    World needs a lot more store clerks than CEOs, as it turns out
    
    source
    FragrantGarden@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    No doubt there!!
    
    source
  - SabinStargem@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Presumably, because you like the stuff you do. Some people like guiding things, others want to work construction, ect. Pay should just reflect the effort, risk, and knowledge involved with a job. If you don’t want to be a CEO and that isn’t a terrible choice, that is a good thing. It should be out of passion, not money, that people pursue a particular career.
    
    source
    ErmahgherdDavid@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    If pay reflects risk then in your system we need to also actually hold CEOs accountable because in the current system CEOs can do abhorrent shit, get a slap on the wrist, resign with a multi-million-dollar golden parachute and get another exec job a few months later. Let’s have prison sentences for exec misbehaviour. Then I’ll agree that they deserve that danger money.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    FragrantGarden@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    I see your thought process here. I am just being pedantic about the 2x based on the amount of stress differences between levels at my company, but we likely share the overall gripe against capitalism. Passionism sounds like a way better economic philosophy.
    
    source
  - Skullgrid@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    Why would I be a CEO for twice the pay as the clerk?
    
    because you went to business school and like the challenge of heading a company?
    
    source
BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
This is WISDOM! Because Wages are SO LOW right now there’s NO DANGER of Jobs being Automated away!

source