Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Hermit]

Nobody forces anyone to work at McDonalds. Employees are there by choice. Simple.

Thank you, Seth.

McDonald's offers terms in return for labour. It is the right of anyone to accept or reject those terms. If someone decides to accept them, then they must be more attractive than any (or no) alternative.

So much for choice, Seth.

What alternative are you suggesting?

Employee demands whatever wage he deems appropriate which the employer has not choice but to accept? Government sets wages via a wage board, which neither party has a choice about?

I was objecting to the sentence: "Employees are there by choice." Libertarians are very big on the legendary decision-making capacity of freely acting, autonomous individuals. It is the biggest impediment to social progress in democratic countries.

[Coito ergo sum]

I was objecting to the sentence: "Employees are there by choice." Libertarians are very big on the legendary decision-making capacity of freely acting, autonomous individuals. It is the biggest impediment to social progress in democratic countries.

So, what alternative are you suggesting? That question still remains.

Acknowledging that people may and do have economic and other pressures that compel them to agree to things that they otherwise wouldn't if all such pressures were removed isn't telling anyone anything they don't already know. It's not like any libertarian I've ever talked to (I'm not one) has thought that a guy with a wife and two kids to support has no incentive to accept a less attractive position than someone laying on a pile of cash who can take or leave a job. Everyone knows that. It is not a basic assumption of libertarianism that each individual has as many practical options or as much bargaining power as every other individual. In fact, it's a basic assumption of libertarianism that the exact opposite is true.

Given that reality, the question is, what would you do about it?

[Hermit]

I was objecting to the sentence: "Employees are there by choice." Libertarians are very big on the legendary decision-making capacity of freely acting, autonomous individuals. It is the biggest impediment to social progress in democratic countries.

So, what alternative are you suggesting? That question still remains.

In the first place, I was not discussing alternatives at all in this thread, just objecting to the notion brought up by Devogue that "Employees are there by choice. Simple." So I don't feel obliged to address your question in a thread titled "Ban Ronald McDonald?" In the second place, if we had a thread discussing alternatives, your questions regarding an alternative ("Employee demands whatever wage he deems appropriate which the employer has not choice but to accept? Government sets wages via a wage board, which neither party has a choice about?") is expressed in typically libertarian and monochrome fashion, as if there were no middle ground between extremes. Try again. Elsewhere.

[Coito ergo sum]

I was objecting to the sentence: "Employees are there by choice." Libertarians are very big on the legendary decision-making capacity of freely acting, autonomous individuals. It is the biggest impediment to social progress in democratic countries.

So, what alternative are you suggesting? That question still remains.

In the first place, I was not discussing alternatives at all in this thread, just objecting to the notion brought up by Devogue that "Employees are there by choice. Simple."

They are there by choice. Just because economic realities are incentives for people to settle for less attractive deals doesn't mean there still isn't a choice. Its called different levels of bargaining power.

So I don't feel obliged to address your question in a thread titled "Ban Ronald McDonald?" In the second place, if we had a thread discussing alternatives, your questions regarding an alternative ("Employee demands whatever wage he deems appropriate which the employer has not choice but to accept? Government sets wages via a wage board, which neither party has a choice about?") is expressed in typically libertarian and monochrome fashion, as if there were no middle ground between extremes. Try again. Elsewhere.

Well, I don't want to play a guessing game. If you had a different alternative, then it would have taken you fewer keystrokes to just type it than to discuss the issue of whether a brief digression needs a whole new thread. But, whatever. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 38&t=25344

[maiforpeace]

Nobody forces anyone to work at McDonalds. Employees are there by choice. Simple.

Thank you, Seth.

McDonald's offers terms in return for labour. It is the right of anyone to accept or reject those terms. If someone decides to accept them, then they must be more attractive than any (or no) alternative.

yeah, starving is always a choice, especially in the current economic situation... I'm pretty sure that in victorian times, kids deliberately chose to work as chimney sweeps or to thieve for fagins too.

Indeed.

Most everyone has gone on record that the tasks performed aren't what makes the job a "shit" job. So, the only thing left is compensation. Paying $7.50 per hour to $10 per hour is, apparently, "shit." So, how much would be the minimum payable so as not to be shit?

According to the report, a single worker needs an income of $30,012 a year — or just above $14 an hour — to cover basic expenses and save for retirement and emergencies. That is close to three times the 2010 national poverty level of $10,830 for a single person, and nearly twice the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

Something closer to $14 an hour?

[Coito ergo sum]

You want the minimum waged raised to $14 an hour? Are there any negative unintended consequences that might flow from such a dramatic increase?

[maiforpeace]

You want the minimum waged raised to $14 an hour? Are there any negative unintended consequences that might flow from such a dramatic increase?

No, I just want McDonald's to pay a higher wage.

One of the main reasons why McDonalds is adding all these jobs is because they will be opening their stores for 24 hours. Instead of pocketing the big savings they will be enjoying in overhead and labor, not having close down and open up their stores, why not give it to their labor force.

[Hermit]

You want the minimum waged raised to $14 an hour? Are there any negative unintended consequences that might flow from such a dramatic increase?

Certainly. The whinging of employers that the economy will collapse, and with it civilisation as we know it, is as predictable and inevitable as it is unbearable. Increases for the common wage earner are always opposed on the grounds that "it is bad for the economy", while increases for executives are always defended on the grounds that "we must obey market forces lest we lose talent to the opposition."

[Coito ergo sum]

You want the minimum waged raised to $14 an hour? Are there any negative unintended consequences that might flow from such a dramatic increase?

Certainly. The whinging of employers that the economy will collapse, and with it civilisation as we know it, is as predictable and inevitable as it is unbearable. Increases for the common wage earner are always opposed on the grounds that "it is bad for the economy", while increases for executives are always defended on the grounds that "we must obey market forces lest we lose talent to the opposition."

I don't think that's an "unintended" consequence. Certainly that would be a consequence, though.

Do you take the position that it would have no negative effects beyond whining?

And I don't think that people say that pay increases for executives are always o.k. I think people say that a board of directors is perfectly capable of determining how much they are willing to pay to hire a CEO for the company they direct. Or, is it your position that the employee in that instance has too much bargaining power and the Board of Directors are impotent to resist?

[Hermit]

You want the minimum waged raised to $14 an hour? Are there any negative unintended consequences that might flow from such a dramatic increase?

Certainly. The whinging of employers that the economy will collapse, and with it civilisation as we know it, is as predictable and inevitable as it is unbearable. Increases for the common wage earner are always opposed on the grounds that "it is bad for the economy", while increases for executives are always defended on the grounds that "we must obey market forces lest we lose talent to the opposition."

I don't think that's an "unintended" consequence. Certainly that would be a consequence, though.

Do you take the position that it would have no negative effects beyond whining?

And I don't think that people say that pay increases for executives are always o.k. I think people say that a board of directors is perfectly capable of determining how much they are willing to pay to hire a CEO for the company they direct. Or, is it your position that the employee in that instance has too much bargaining power and the Board of Directors are impotent to resist?

[devogue]

Just for the record - I like Ronald McDonald. He reminds of me the sunny glamour of America when I was a child in grey, drab, war torn Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s.

[Coito ergo sum]

You want the minimum waged raised to $14 an hour? Are there any negative unintended consequences that might flow from such a dramatic increase?

No, I just want McDonald's to pay a higher wage.

One of the main reasons why McDonalds is adding all these jobs is because they will be opening their stores for 24 hours. Instead of pocketing the big savings they will be enjoying in overhead and labor, not having close down and open up their stores, why not give it to their labor force.

Because maybe they figure they can make more money staying open 24 hours a day, and you and I don't run their business (nor do we have the experience to do so effectively).

There isn't an "it" to give away - it's not as if there is a pile of money that showed up and now McDonalds is going to figure out where to put it. They have cash flow and revenues, and their business plan is designed to maximize those, and reduce costs.

[Coito ergo sum]

And I don't think that people say that pay increases for executives are always o.k. I think people say that a board of directors is perfectly capable of determining how much they are willing to pay to hire a CEO for the company they direct. Or, is it your position that the employee in that instance has too much bargaining power and the Board of Directors are impotent to resist?

Who says pay increases for executives are always o.k.? I think that most people on the free market side simply conclude that it's their private concern - like how much money a studio pays an actor - $20 million for a movie? Sounds ridiculous to me - I don't think that's "always o.k." but then again, it ain't my studio, so if they think it's worth it, so be it.

Roll your eyes all you want.

[maiforpeace]

You want the minimum waged raised to $14 an hour? Are there any negative unintended consequences that might flow from such a dramatic increase?

No, I just want McDonald's to pay a higher wage.

One of the main reasons why McDonalds is adding all these jobs is because they will be opening their stores for 24 hours. Instead of pocketing the big savings they will be enjoying in overhead and labor, not having close down and open up their stores, why not give it to their labor force.

Because maybe they figure they can make more money staying open 24 hours a day, and you and I don't run their business (nor do we have the experience to do so effectively).

There isn't an "it" to give away - it's not as if there is a pile of money that showed up and now McDonalds is going to figure out where to put it. They have cash flow and revenues, and their business plan is designed to maximize those, and reduce costs.

You're right CES, they aren't making enough, they definitely need more profits. And, since they've exploited workers this long, why change now and be humane?

Gotta Love McDonald's Profits

[Santa_Claus]

I didn't even know he was a Member.

But FWIW, if he keeps to the rules then I don't think he should be banned.