He paid his workers sufficiently well that they could afford one of the products they manufactured.
Two problems with this.
Henry Ford's employees were skilled workers. Fast food workers are not.
Fast food workers are paid enough to afford the food they make. But, like in the auto industry, it is becoming cheaper to use robots rather than workers. Robots are used extensively in making automobiles and there are still auto workers, just not as many as there would have been before and automobiles cost less than they would otherwise. Likewise, robots will eventually be used extensively in fast food and there will still be fast food workers, just not as many and the jobs will require more skill and probably be a bit better paid. Meanwhile, the cost of fast food will not increase as fast and effective become cheaper.
Fast food employees make up a minuscule amount of fast food customers. Your argument fails on that.
This is not trickle down. Trickle down is an economic theory that making things easier on the rich means the rich spend more money and thus everyone benefits. It has been shown to not work in the real world due to human greed. This is basic business economics: use the least expensive method of production that does not lower quality to an unacceptable level. The thing is, this will probably improve quality while lowering expenses.
You are acting like the government controls the companies. Apparently, you were raised to believe you live in a communist society, but you don't. You live in a democratic capitalist society.
we're not suggesting automating the kitchens, right? That's just a food-safety nightmare waiting to happen and how do they clean themselves?
Actually, that is exactly what eventually happen.
No, it is not a food safety nightmare waiting to happen. Robots already prepare food at much larger scale in factories.
They don't have to clean themselves. Instead of having four to eight employees and a manager each shift, there will be a manager and maybe one or two employees who will keep the robots stocked with ingredients and keep them clean and maintained.
1. We know that fast food workers are under paid, forced to work in unfair working conditions, and that fast food workers are commonly exploited.
No, they are not underpaid. Workers are paid according to the value of their work. Fast food work is simply, unskilled labor and as such is paid a minimum wage because, at that level, workers are basically commodities and one is just as good as another.
No, they are not forces to work in unfair working conditions. No one is forcing them to work in the conditions, unless you include themselves by being unskilled or unable to get a better position due to being a drug addict or convict. I worked in fast food as a kid and it wasn't that bad.
No, fast food workers aren't commonly exploited. They are paid a fair wage for the kind of work they do.
You seem to have bought into the idea that someone should be paid by their need and not by the work they do. While that may be how communism works, we are in a capitalistic society and people are paid by the worth of the work they do. Importantly, one of the reasons the "Fight for 15" was doomed to fail was that they want the national minimum wage to be $15,00 per hour because some workers in high cost of living areas need that. However, that is more than the average wage in the small town where my family lives. A high school sophomore living in a small rural town and working at a fast food restaurant neither needs nor deserves $15.00 per hour.
The smart business decision is to go with the lower cost option. When robots cost less than humans, the work will go to robots. This is why the "Fight for 15" will blow up in their faces. They will lose their jobs to robots who don't complain, don't call in sick, rarely fail to show up for their shift, and won't get caught spitting in food, pissing on food, or insulting customers.
When you are caught swapping tags, that is not an accident. It is deliberate, which is theft, and you know they are filming the transactions and keeping track of shrinkage.
The only reason fast food places use employees is that paying humans minimum wage is cheaper than the total cost of ownership of robots that can do the job. Raise the minimum wage and it will make more sense to buy the robots and replace most of the staff with kiosks and robots. It is the return of the automat with robotic food preparation. In fact, it would be cheaper and easier to offer standard fare in an automat style, then computers could monitor sales and stock the automat accordingly as well as monitor for popular variants to add to the automat. Drive through could be done the same way. It would reduce shrinkage too.
"Listen and believe" was in reference to women reporting sexual harassment and rape
For your post, that is true but this isn't about sexual harassment or rape. You are engaging in a red herring because you have no real argument. You have no real argument so you tried to change the subject, which is called using a red herring.
Summary of your position: if men make more, it's obvious that it's deserved, and no evidence is needed to support it. But if women insist on equity, it has to be carefully justified.
Which very obviously seems to be saying "listen and believe without evidence". There was a response:
Whoever makes the claim should make the case. All of this "listen and believe" crap we get is why fewer and fewer take the accusations at face value.
In this case, the poster is boiling down the post to which he replied to it's basic message: "listen and believe without evidence" and using it in the response.
As you are asking a rhetorical question instead of making a claim or argument and have zero information on the subject, I will say none and wait for you to prove me wrong.
If that were true, they wouldn't have any wiggle room for a gender gap.
Depends on how the levels are defined. A salary level that has a pay band would allow for some employees of a particular class to be always be paid at the bottom and those of another class to be paid at the top.
And, that doesn't even address things like the fact that one gender may be more likely to work in an industry where the job pays less. It is a fact that women are take jobs at warm and fuzzy companies, like non-profits, that generally pay their workers more. Women are also more likely to base the decision to take a job on factors other than pay, i.e. good child care, the ability to work at home more, it isn't an "evil" corporation. That alone will lead to pay imbalance over the industry and can lead to pay imbalance in a single company because a woman who has spent her career working in such positions will come in expecting a lower salary and that is what she will get because unless she does research on pay, she won't know she is getting the bottom of the pay band.
Unless the government is going to define the job titles and the pay and duties of each job title, I see no way to fix this.
Funny thing about the term "snowflake". It was coined by that book/movie Fight Club
No, it wasn't coined, just popularized by the novel/movie. It was coined much earlier than that and it's meaning has changed over the years. In it's current usage as "someone who thinks everyone, but most especially themselves, is special and unique like a snowflake, and just as fragile", it actually started from the people who promoted the "everyone is special and deserves a trophy" mindset via "Every child is special and unique like snowflakes".
They usually have standard salary levels for a particular job type
Each company will have their own levels or pay bands for a particular job type. But, those pay bands can be quite wide, I've seen $15,000.00 per year wide bands.
The size of the range allows for, you guessed it, hiring better workers for lower skilled jobs and off schedule pay raises . The company will want to pay as little as possible and the employee will want to be paid as much as possible. If an employee know he is on the lower end of that band and is doing a really good job, he can ask for an off schedule raise. Conversely, if an employee does a really good job over the year, he may get a much better raise than his peers without needed a job title increase*.
Then end result is that if an employee is more money driven and more aggressive about negotiating initial pay, requesting raises, justifying higher raises at review time, and willing to jump jobs for better pay, that employee is more likely to be paid significantly more than his coworkers.
*: Where I work we have systems administrators, senior systems administrators, and systems engineers. SA get paid less than SSA who get paid less than SE. Their pay bands overlap by a very small amount. If one is at the very top of one job title's pay band but not eligible for the higher title, one may get a very small or no raise.
Unless all his co-workers were conservative white male, his belief that he was superior (or more ideal or more suitable) engineer than his colleagues was disruptive. How would a colleague of different gender or race work with him?
So, my co-worker, who is a black Jamaican guy, belief he is a superior engineer than the rest of us is disruptive because we are not black? If no, then you have a double standard. If yes, then he too should be fired. If the question sounds stupid to you I suggest you realize that all I did was change the race of the engineer in question.
He went to training and they asked for his opinion. He gave it on a website for exactly that purpose and someone decided to call it a manifesto and "leak"
I have always found it interesting that Women's Rights Activist automatically equals good while Men's Rights Activists automatically equal bad when both are doing the exact same things for their respective groups.
You don't seem to understand the term intrinsic value. What you described is not intrinsic value. It is value provided solely by and external thing. It is only of value in conjunction with something else. It can do only one thing and that is act as an "unit of account" for the bitcoin blockchain public ledger and it is only valuable if said blockchain exists. No blockchain, no value.
Gold is used for coins, jewelry, electronics, etc. Gold even has value as just something to look at because it is visually appealing.
Will they tackle that as well? This is a serious question. I work with two other guys. I am paid less than one and more than the other. We all have different backgrounds doing the same work in the same position in the same location, in the same company. If we get a woman, who's pay should her's be compared to and why?
And, they must go even further and release data about employees pursuing raises and promotions, actual histories of changing jobs for better pay or positions, being willing and actually doing less desirable jobs for better pay (night shifts, rotating shifts, etc) . And, then correlate this information across entire employee careers to quantify the exact effect each of these things have on compensation.
"Kids are addicted to using third party services/websites on their phones. Apple should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to watching reality shows on TV. Samsung should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to watching sports on TV. Samsung should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to watching movies on HBO. Comcast should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to watching porn on the internet. Dell should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to looking at people waving signs on the street while driving. GM should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to eating junk food. Cattle farmers should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to playing video games on Play Station. Sony should do something about that"
Slashdot Mirror
He paid his workers sufficiently well that they could afford one of the products they manufactured.
Two problems with this.
This is not trickle down. Trickle down is an economic theory that making things easier on the rich means the rich spend more money and thus everyone benefits. It has been shown to not work in the real world due to human greed. This is basic business economics: use the least expensive method of production that does not lower quality to an unacceptable level. The thing is, this will probably improve quality while lowering expenses.
You are acting like the government controls the companies. Apparently, you were raised to believe you live in a communist society, but you don't. You live in a democratic capitalist society.
we're not suggesting automating the kitchens, right? That's just a food-safety nightmare waiting to happen and how do they clean themselves?
Actually, that is exactly what eventually happen.
No, it is not a food safety nightmare waiting to happen. Robots already prepare food at much larger scale in factories.
They don't have to clean themselves. Instead of having four to eight employees and a manager each shift, there will be a manager and maybe one or two employees who will keep the robots stocked with ingredients and keep them clean and maintained.
1. We know that fast food workers are under paid, forced to work in unfair working conditions, and that fast food workers are commonly exploited.
No, they are not underpaid. Workers are paid according to the value of their work. Fast food work is simply, unskilled labor and as such is paid a minimum wage because, at that level, workers are basically commodities and one is just as good as another.
No, they are not forces to work in unfair working conditions. No one is forcing them to work in the conditions, unless you include themselves by being unskilled or unable to get a better position due to being a drug addict or convict. I worked in fast food as a kid and it wasn't that bad.
No, fast food workers aren't commonly exploited. They are paid a fair wage for the kind of work they do.
You seem to have bought into the idea that someone should be paid by their need and not by the work they do. While that may be how communism works, we are in a capitalistic society and people are paid by the worth of the work they do. Importantly, one of the reasons the "Fight for 15" was doomed to fail was that they want the national minimum wage to be $15,00 per hour because some workers in high cost of living areas need that. However, that is more than the average wage in the small town where my family lives. A high school sophomore living in a small rural town and working at a fast food restaurant neither needs nor deserves $15.00 per hour.
The smart business decision is to go with the lower cost option. When robots cost less than humans, the work will go to robots. This is why the "Fight for 15" will blow up in their faces. They will lose their jobs to robots who don't complain, don't call in sick, rarely fail to show up for their shift, and won't get caught spitting in food, pissing on food, or insulting customers.
When you are caught swapping tags, that is not an accident. It is deliberate, which is theft, and you know they are filming the transactions and keeping track of shrinkage.
Irrelevant. Most of fast food customers are not fast food workers and therein lies your fallacy.
Create one and I will make it happen. But, it needs to be able to think creatively to recognize a good idea. I will wait while you do this.
The only reason fast food places use employees is that paying humans minimum wage is cheaper than the total cost of ownership of robots that can do the job. Raise the minimum wage and it will make more sense to buy the robots and replace most of the staff with kiosks and robots. It is the return of the automat with robotic food preparation. In fact, it would be cheaper and easier to offer standard fare in an automat style, then computers could monitor sales and stock the automat accordingly as well as monitor for popular variants to add to the automat. Drive through could be done the same way. It would reduce shrinkage too.
"Listen and believe" was in reference to women reporting sexual harassment and rape
For your post, that is true but this isn't about sexual harassment or rape. You are engaging in a red herring because you have no real argument. You have no real argument so you tried to change the subject, which is called using a red herring.
An AC made a comment:
Summary of your position: if men make more, it's obvious that it's deserved, and no evidence is needed to support it. But if women insist on equity, it has to be carefully justified.
Which very obviously seems to be saying "listen and believe without evidence". There was a response:
Whoever makes the claim should make the case. All of this "listen and believe" crap we get is why fewer and fewer take the accusations at face value.
In this case, the poster is boiling down the post to which he replied to it's basic message: "listen and believe without evidence" and using it in the response.
As you are asking a rhetorical question instead of making a claim or argument and have zero information on the subject, I will say none and wait for you to prove me wrong.
If that were true, they wouldn't have any wiggle room for a gender gap.
Depends on how the levels are defined. A salary level that has a pay band would allow for some employees of a particular class to be always be paid at the bottom and those of another class to be paid at the top.
And, that doesn't even address things like the fact that one gender may be more likely to work in an industry where the job pays less. It is a fact that women are take jobs at warm and fuzzy companies, like non-profits, that generally pay their workers more. Women are also more likely to base the decision to take a job on factors other than pay, i.e. good child care, the ability to work at home more, it isn't an "evil" corporation. That alone will lead to pay imbalance over the industry and can lead to pay imbalance in a single company because a woman who has spent her career working in such positions will come in expecting a lower salary and that is what she will get because unless she does research on pay, she won't know she is getting the bottom of the pay band.
Unless the government is going to define the job titles and the pay and duties of each job title, I see no way to fix this.
Nice red herring. This has nothing to do with Weinstein and your attempt to inject that into this discussion means you can't support your arguments.
Funny thing about the term "snowflake". It was coined by that book/movie Fight Club
No, it wasn't coined, just popularized by the novel/movie. It was coined much earlier than that and it's meaning has changed over the years. In it's current usage as "someone who thinks everyone, but most especially themselves, is special and unique like a snowflake, and just as fragile", it actually started from the people who promoted the "everyone is special and deserves a trophy" mindset via "Every child is special and unique like snowflakes".
Unless you have reason to think that Google knows
Google knows everything
Now they can more easily track and correlate your purchases to be able to charge more for the information they sell about you.
They usually have standard salary levels for a particular job type
Each company will have their own levels or pay bands for a particular job type. But, those pay bands can be quite wide, I've seen $15,000.00 per year wide bands.
The size of the range allows for, you guessed it, hiring better workers for lower skilled jobs and off schedule pay raises . The company will want to pay as little as possible and the employee will want to be paid as much as possible. If an employee know he is on the lower end of that band and is doing a really good job, he can ask for an off schedule raise. Conversely, if an employee does a really good job over the year, he may get a much better raise than his peers without needed a job title increase*.
Then end result is that if an employee is more money driven and more aggressive about negotiating initial pay, requesting raises, justifying higher raises at review time, and willing to jump jobs for better pay, that employee is more likely to be paid significantly more than his coworkers.
*: Where I work we have systems administrators, senior systems administrators, and systems engineers. SA get paid less than SSA who get paid less than SE. Their pay bands overlap by a very small amount. If one is at the very top of one job title's pay band but not eligible for the higher title, one may get a very small or no raise.
Unless all his co-workers were conservative white male, his belief that he was superior (or more ideal or more suitable) engineer than his colleagues was disruptive. How would a colleague of different gender or race work with him?
So, my co-worker, who is a black Jamaican guy, belief he is a superior engineer than the rest of us is disruptive because we are not black? If no, then you have a double standard. If yes, then he too should be fired. If the question sounds stupid to you I suggest you realize that all I did was change the race of the engineer in question.
He went to training and they asked for his opinion. He gave it on a website for exactly that purpose and someone decided to call it a manifesto and "leak"
I have always found it interesting that Women's Rights Activist automatically equals good while Men's Rights Activists automatically equal bad when both are doing the exact same things for their respective groups.
Gold is used for coins, jewelry, electronics, etc. Gold even has value as just something to look at because it is visually appealing.
See what I said concerning price vs value.
Will they tackle that as well? This is a serious question. I work with two other guys. I am paid less than one and more than the other. We all have different backgrounds doing the same work in the same position in the same location, in the same company. If we get a woman, who's pay should her's be compared to and why?
And, they must go even further and release data about employees pursuing raises and promotions, actual histories of changing jobs for better pay or positions, being willing and actually doing less desirable jobs for better pay (night shifts, rotating shifts, etc) . And, then correlate this information across entire employee careers to quantify the exact effect each of these things have on compensation.
"Kids are addicted to using third party services/websites on their phones. Apple should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to watching reality shows on TV. Samsung should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to watching sports on TV. Samsung should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to watching movies on HBO. Comcast should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to watching porn on the internet. Dell should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to looking at people waving signs on the street while driving. GM should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to eating junk food. Cattle farmers should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to playing video games on Play Station. Sony should do something about that"