OT : New York Igglephans and Slizz

[Riccardo]

I think it's a pretty safe bet

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?

That by the time robots are making and selling hamburgers (in the year 2525) other industries that we haven't even imagined will emerge.

[TerpEagle]

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?

Actors are paid for their specific value and negotiate contracts. What don't you get?

I'm not arguing that the head scientist at a pharm company shouldn't get paid significantly more than a lab assistant. There is a value difference in what they perform and earn for the company but their pay is going to be based on their value comparatively speaking and it most cases it will still be far below the overall earnings of the CEO and executives.

Same goes for actors and athletes compared to their peers based on what they'll earn for their employer - and they still benefit from collective bargaining which many service workers do not.

And you're still focusing on very specific and relatively small industries that are unique. I'm sure you want to focus on them because they allow you to make your point but their relevance to the majority of low-income, minimum wage earners is severely limited.

It's like saying the government should be run like a middle-income home in terms of budgeting and spending. It's an overly-simplistic comparison that is pretty much useless.

[TerpEagle]

That by the time robots are making and selling hamburgers (in the year 2525) other industries that we haven't even imagined will emerge.

Seriously? Aren't you a scientist? Does automation of simple tasks like making food and collecting money seem that far-fetched that it's 500 years away?

I wonder when they'll make that Dick Tracy watch a reality or be able to send information without a physical conductor.

And I agree that new industries will emerge, but most new industries require less human involvement. Automation is everywhere.

[Riccardo]

No it was a joke

And yes I am in the technology industry. What I can tell you is the kind of jobs I'm in will not be replaced by "technology" unless there comes a point when robots advance to the point where they can think just like us. And considering most futurists thought we'd have robots serving our every need by now it doesn't look like anything that's goiing to happen in the next century or two.

Your error is looking at only the negative aspect of technology advancement (automation eliminating low-skill manual labor) and ignoring the positive job growth aspects of advancing technology (new industries i.e. computers).

[TerpEagle]

And yes I am in the technology industry. What I can tell you is the kind of jobs I'm in will not be replaced by "technology" unless there comes a point when robots advance to the point where they can think just like us. And considering most futurists thought we'd have robots serving our every need by now it doesn't look like anything that's goiing to happen in the next century or two.

Your error is looking at only the negative aspect of technology advancement (automation eliminating low-skill manual labor) and ignoring the positive job growth aspects of advancing technology (new industries i.e. computers).

I fully support tech advancement. I think its positives far outweigh its negatives and as a society we'll benefit from it.

And while I agree technology opens up new jobs, I think it still reduces the need for humans. One person on a computer can replace X number of jobs previously performed by humans. X is only going to increase with time. However, the number of humans is likely to increase as well (or at least maintain) in the near future. The question is how many new jobs will really exist as computers take over.

Aside from the concern that we'll end up like the society in Wall-E, my concern is that the benefits of technology and reduction in labor won't be outpaced by new jobs. Technology is going to help take care of those as well.

The concern right now is that while technology is streamlining things and increasing profits, the people at the bottom who have lost value are getting hosed - only the people at the top are really benefiting. That's a problem.

[royal]

If their rate doubles, these places will have to charge 10 bucks for a burger. Which means going out of business. Then no jobs.

No.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/07/30/how-much-would-a-big-mac-cost-if-mcdonalds-workers-were-paid-15-per-hour/

[tjl88]

No.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoco...d-15-per-hour/

Credible source.

"Arnobio Morelix, a student at the University of Kansas School of Business, found himself asking the same question, so he did some financial modeling based on McDonald’s annual reports and data sets submitted to investors."

[dev_32]

That mentality is the exact problem with this country

Let some poor person do the work for pennies, then bitch about them being poor.

The CEO to Employee wages scale has gone from 100 to 1 to 1000 to 1

Does that make sense?

Anybody can flip a burger...few can be a CEO

[IronEagle]

Anybody can flip a burger...few can be a CEO

I believe the pool of people who would be great CEOs is much larger than the number of actual CEOs. One would think that competition would tend to drive down salaries in that area as well but for some reason it doesn't seem to be happening.

[T.D-Bag]

You Must be Fucking kidding....

Anybody can flip a burger...few can be a CEO

FULD took $400 Million while running Lehman Bros and our Economy into the shitter....
While former Lehman CEO Richard Fuld was testifying before the House Oversight Committee Oct. 6, CNBC reported he had been punched in the face at the Lehman Brothers gym after it was announced the firm was going bankrupt. CNBC and Vanity Fair contributor Vicki Ward said Fuld was attacked at the gym on a Sunday following the bankruptcy.. "From two very senior sources – one incredibly senior source – that he went to the gym after … Lehman was announced as going under. He was on a treadmill with a heart monitor on. Someone was in the corner, pumping iron and he walked over and he knocked him out cold. And frankly after having watched this, I'd have done the same too."

[stjoebirdsfan]

So Dick Fuld was a bad CEO, thereby his point is incorrect?

[IronEagle]

So Dick Fuld was a bad CEO, thereby his point is incorrect?

There are more people capable of being CEOs in this world than there are CEOs.

I have to wonder why competition doesn't drive their compensation down. Dick Fuld is a perfect example of how the cream does not exactly rise to the top. Perhaps the sociopaths/connected/family members rise to the top faster than the qualified.

[T.D-Bag]

Yes, by putting assholes with pedigrees on pedestals. those who stuff their pockets with millions while adding nothing to their Corporations... a la Chainsaw Al Dunlap who decimated Philadelphia's Scott Paper and took $100 Million to basically fire 11,000 people. They could have hired a monkey to hand out pinkslips. 95% of CEO's are Dbags

[stjoebirdsfan]

There are more people capable of being CEOs in this world than there are CEOs.

I have to wonder why competition doesn't drive their compensation down.

Down to what? What is the number you're looking for?

[IronEagle]

Down to what? What is the number you're looking for?

What is the number you are looking for? One gazillion dollars? EVERYTHING?