OT : New York Igglephans and Slizz

[J_Cuz31]

No, its not.

This thread is about fast food workers unionizing.

Just because you post a convoluted reply that has nothing to do with the rest of the thread doesn't mean the whole concept of the thread changes.

You're just not that important, sorry.

[Eagle In Ohio]

for the record

Any job that has been streamlined by a corporation should allow for the worker's to collectively bargain. The fact that fast food joints all over the country have fought the rights of those workers for years tells you all you need to know about the sustainability of the business models of those companies.

i have no problem with them unionizing, i'm just not sure they should get paid $15.00 an hour to push a picture of a cheeseburger. Hell, it's not my money, if they can get it, more power to them i guess

[TerpEagle]

Just think it's a silly attribute to get worked up about. What is the solution, pass laws on how much people can be paid? If so, shouldn't it also apply to sports professionals, actors, and others that make ridiculous amounts of money?

The two groups you listed are both unionized and are paid based on negotiated contracts. Did you choose those industries to make your point on purpose?

[TerpEagle]

Technology has to be developed, maintained, improved by people. UNless you think the world will go the way of the terminator movies. In that case, doesn't matter what economic system we have

Technology has consistently reduced the need for humans to perform jobs. Will it eliminate it entirely? Probably not, but it will continue to reduce the need. Unless an entirely new industry develops that requires humans to perform labor that can't be done (or greatly assisted) by machines then human labor will become more useless as time passes.

The issue is that, as technology has streamlined industry, the money has gone to the top because the workers aren't "working any harder."

[BigSlizz]

Atlas Shrugged, baybee! Government regulation as to how much human workforce a corporation must employ.

[Riccardo]

The point is

The two groups you listed are both unionized and are paid based on negotiated contracts. Did you choose those industries to make your point on purpose?

Why is so terrible that CEOs of public/private corporations make so much more than their average employee yet when actors and pro athletes make just as much more as the average workers in their industry it's no big deal?

[TerpEagle]

Why is so terrible that CEOs of public/private corporations make so much more than their average employee yet when actors and pro athletes make just as much more as the average workers in their industry it's no big deal?

The pro athletes and actors are not employers or CEOs. They're not running businesses (at least not in their roles as actors and pro-athletes). They're employed based on a negotiated rate - often with the benefit of collective bargaining.

Does society allow them to be paid more than what I or you personally think they deserve? Perhaps, but they're being paid based on the market and profit they provide due to their collective bargaining. That's a seperate point about valuation of their industry to society, not valuation within their industry.

[Riccardo]

Manufacturing jobs, yes

Service industry, no. The biggest leaps in manufacturing automation technology has already occurred over the last 3-4 decades and there are still more than 12 million jobs out there from a level of 17 million in the 70s.

[TerpEagle]

Atlas Shrugged, baybee! Government regulation as to how much human workforce a corporation must employ.

Unless we become Luddites, tech is going to constantly improve the quality of life and reduce the need for human labor - the question is how do the money and resources shift to the former laborers that have "lost value".

[Riccardo]

The basic premise is inequity in pay

Whether they are CEOs or management is besides the point.

[slag]

I don't know the numbers, but I just saw someone talking about how there are a shit ton of skilled manufacturing jobs that require basic math that can't be filled.

Primarily because there are too many graduates out there with poly sci and performing arts degrees living at home and not enough people going for that type of training.

[TerpEagle]

Service industry, no. The biggest leaps in manufacturing automation technology has already occurred over the last 3-4 decades and there are still more than 12 million jobs out there from a level of 17 million in the 70s.

Service jobs are where the economy is growing. But there its low valuation of those jobs even though profits are high - hence the growth. And service jobs have/will fall to the wayside by technology and/or outsourcing.

It's not unfathomable to think that you don't need a human to make your cheeseburger and accept your money. When those jobs become automated, what happens to the workforce?

[TerpEagle]

Whether they are CEOs or management is besides the point.

So why do you bring up athletes and actors? They're neither CEOs or management.

That they get paid a lot more than the average retail/food service worker is about the only comparison and it's a relatively pointless one. They're not the employers exploiting/earning 100x the wager earners. That's the issue

[TerpEagle]

I don't know the numbers, but I just saw someone talking about how there are a shit ton of skilled manufacturing jobs that require basic math that can't be filled.

Primarily because there are too many graduates out there with poly sci and performing arts degrees living at home and not enough people going for that type of training.

I agree. Skilled workers are needed . I think the emphasis on education hasn't been messaged very well - too many people equate it with a college degree and not applicable/useful training.

As the ecomony is improving though, fewer people are applying to colleges and universities and giving them money. We'll see how the education industry handles that bubble burst if it occurs.

[Riccardo]

Good lord

The claim is that it is "unfair" that CEOs make 300 x their average worker. Why is it not "unfair" that actors get paid 300 x the average worker in their industry?