McDonald's Says its Wage Hikes Are Improving Service

a reply to: TerryDon79

No it's not the service they provide is based on customer satisfaction.

a reply to: onequestion

I'm not conflating anything.

You are conflating the value of a product with the value as a human being to the value of that product.

You guys seem to not understand that I am fundamentally disagreeing with your idea of value and that somehow constantly repeating he same thing over and over is going to change that

You do not seem to understand that saying a job is of low value is not the same as saying a person who performs it is subhuman.

a reply to: Phage

By paying someone less than what they need to survive on you are dehumanizing them. You are saying they don't deserve to be alive.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: TerryDon79

No it's not the service they provide is based on customer satisfaction.

In that case, someone who is better at customer satisfaction should earn more than someone who is extremely poor at it?

a reply to: TerryDon79

That's right.

If you do your job right and the customer gets what they want then you've done a good job and helped me make money and helped me become satisfied with the product I desired and deserve to be treat fairly for it.

a reply to: onequestion

By paying someone less than what they need to survive on you are dehumanizing them. You are saying they don't deserve to be alive.

No. You are saying that they are helping to produce a product of not high value.

On the other hand if you are saying that everyone should earn what they need to survive, no matter what they do, you are spouting Marx.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: TerryDon79

That's right.

If you do your job right and the customer gets what they want then you've done a good job and helped me make money and helped me become satisfied with the product I desired and deserve to be treat fairly for it.

That's called "performance based pay" or "commission".

Guess how many companies have gone under and how many employees have left because of that precise thing?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: James1982

Don't be a communist.

No I'm just kidding very well said.

They are living in a false paradigm.

One word comes to mind.

Zealotry.

I don't think it's Zealotry, I think it's perspective. I'm sure both Phage and Bedlam have invested significant amounts of time and effort into whatever their professions are, and I bet they produce something or provide some service which is of great enough value to provide them with comfortable lives. The system evidently worked out well enough for them to defend it. And the concept of being compensated well for hard work and value is one I'm sure we can all get behind. Based on their postings around ATS I'm assuming they are both involved in science/engineering/physics which is definitely a field that creates value.

I think the disconnect lies with assuming that there is a consistent association between generating wealth and generating value. The idea is that if someone has gained wealth, they must have provided significant value to others. And on the other hand, if they haven't gained wealth, they have not provided any significant value to to others. This is how things should be, I think we could all agree, but it's not how things are. With the complexity and size of our economy it's very easy to create vast amounts of wealth by doing nothing but manipulating, leeching, and middle-manning. It's also very common to create plenty of value and to be compensated poorly for it.

So the people doing well say that the poor are poor because they are stupid and lazy, and that's an easy association to make because stupid lazy people are usually poor. The poor people who actually do work hard see those with vast wealth and little value and get angry at anyone with money.

Basically what I mean is that if you do create value, and are compensated well for it, it's a lot easier to have faith in the system. When you are compensated poorly for your value, or your value is not recognized, you are less likely to have faith in the system. Ultimately the system is not built upon any natural laws. One man cannot naturally produce 100,000 times more value than another man. If I can get 1 deer in a day, no man out there can get 100,000. If I can weave 10 baskets in a day, no man can weave 1,000,000. These disparities in the value of individuals are only possible because of our modern economic system and technology. Personally I can't support a system that says some CEO is worth a thousand doctors, or a hundred thousand burger flippers, etc.

a reply to: James1982

Thing is, no one is saying a human life is worth more or less. It's purely about the monetary value of the job that we're talking about.

a reply to: James1982

Personally I can't support a system that says some CEO is worth a thousand doctors, or a hundred thousand burger flippers, etc.

So, what are you using to communicate that thought, right now? Are you not supporting the system that produced the technology to do so?

But the "system" doesn't actually say that. What the system says is that by investing in something that people want (or need), one can benefit people and oneself. Can it be abused? Of course it can. Does that mean the "system" is the problem? Nope.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: James1982

Thing is, no one is saying a human life is worth more or less. It's purely about the monetary value of the job that we're talking about.

How do you possibly disconnect the two when the monetary value is directly related to the ability to sustain that life?

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: James1982

Thing is, no one is saying a human life is worth more or less. It's purely about the monetary value of the job that we're talking about.

How do you possibly disconnect the two when the monetary value is directly related to the ability to sustain that life?

Because that person has a choice to do better. Can be by better education, moving to a different town/country/whatever.

I've been on both ends of the scale. Low paying jobs and unemployed AND high paying jobs. Both have correlations with what I wanted and what I did about it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: James1982

Personally I can't support a system that says some CEO is worth a thousand doctors, or a hundred thousand burger flippers, etc.

So, what are you using to communicate that thought, right now? Are you not supporting the system that produced the technology to do so?

But the "system" doesn't actually say that. What the system says is that by investing in something that people want (or need), one can benefit people and oneself. Can it be abused? Of course it can. Does that mean the "system" is the problem? Nope.

People produced the technology I'm using. You are making the false assumption that this technology could only be produced within a system where a CEO has value orders of magnitude greater than a doctor or teacher. I think the system is the problem because it doesn't have built in protections against abuse. That's a poorly designed system.

And honestly Page, I think it's a bit beneath you to argue semantics about the definition of the word "support"

a reply to: James1982

That's a poorly designed system.

The system was not designed. Any more than human beings, and human nature, were.

The system is an outcome of human nature.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: James1982

Thing is, no one is saying a human life is worth more or less. It's purely about the monetary value of the job that we're talking about.

How do you possibly disconnect the two when the monetary value is directly related to the ability to sustain that life?

Because that person has a choice to do better. Can be by better education, moving to a different town/country/whatever.

I've been on both ends of the scale. Low paying jobs and unemployed AND high paying jobs. Both have correlations with what I wanted and what I did about it.

So you're suggesting if we just transplanted your brain into the head of every poor person in America then we could end poverty within a few decades?

There is a big difference between opportunity and options. Having options gives you choice. Opportunity only gives you hope for future options.

a reply to: James1982

What I'm saying is you can create more options yourself without having to rely on an opportunity appearing.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: James1982

That's a poorly designed system.

The system was not designed. Any more than human beings, and human nature, were.

The system is an outcome of human nature.

Now that's just silly. This system is specific to us in time and geography, and was most certainly designed. Other countries, other time periods, different systems.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: James1982

What I'm saying is you can create more options yourself without having to rely on an opportunity appearing.

300 something million people in the US, that's an awful lot of unique life situations to assume every one of them can just create more options for themselves to overcome whatever issue they are dealing with.

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: James1982

What I'm saying is you can create more options yourself without having to rely on an opportunity appearing.

300 something million people in the US, that's an awful lot of unique life situations to assume every one of them can just create more options for themselves to overcome whatever issue they are dealing with.

And how many skilled jobs are there that can't be done due to people not having the relevant skills?

I didn't earn 100k a year because I'm a nice person. It was due to me putting in the time and effort to get the degree to get that job all while cleaning floors.

a reply to: James1982

This system is specific to us in time and geography, and was most certainly designed.

That sounds more like evolution than design.