For some reason, I have always loved reading about McDonalds. I am neither a full-blooded cheerleader nor am I an absolute total critic.
On the positive, there is the convenience and relatively low cost. There are also a lot of entry level jobs provided by McDonalds
On the negative, there are rampant workplace abuse allegations and generally low wages, to the point of exploitation of their work force.
Decades ago, there lived an economist named John K Galbraith. A very big name in his time, but now largely forgotten. Galbraith made an interesting point about minimum wage laws. Such laws were valid, he argued, because if the work was truly that essential, then employers should be willing to pay a living wage. He also pointed out that raising the cost of labor provided an incentive for alternative methods of production, provision of services, etc. In his time, a main result being mechanization. As I have argued in the past, robotization is simply a further extension of mechanization. AI displacing jobs is also a step further.
So, let us look at this entire process. Mechanization etc. displaces jobs. Yet, these jobs are most often at the low end of the skill scale. A corporation still retains employees at the higher end of the skill scale, still pays out dividends, and in a growing economy still owns assets that appreciate in value even as they are depreciated for accounting purposes. Such depreciation is rationalized based of the need to repair and replace aging machinery, etc. Also known as "capital." So, new jobs may actually be created for repair and replacement of capital purposes. Meanwhile, other jobs may slowly open up in what was the luxury goods and service industry. Think tourism for example, which has saved many a local economy from utter ruin.
Now, that does not mean that everything comes up rosy. Even upper-class work environments have problems with work site conditions - think sexual harassment for example. From an economics perspective, there is also a matter of big capital crowding out small capital. This results in the development of what Galbraith and other economists refer to as the monopoly sect of the economy. Often not a matter of true monopolies, but rather oligopolies in which a small number of firms crowd out a lot of businesses, and then dominate the market through what is called "price-signaling."
Of course, it gets even more complicated from there. Arguments about "the declining rate of profit" for example that occur even among and between well intentioned sorts. These arguments revolve in part around the issue of sustaining aggregate demand. Economic power also translates to political power. So, there is also the issue of a growing inequality of wealth brought on by an initial imbalance in both the economic and political sphere.
That ends my soap box presentation for the day. Any comments, criticisms, corrections, or "likes"?
Likes are greatly appreciated, especially if one is largely in agreement. I don't do this for pay-check you know.
Let me see, what was the amount of the last paycheck I received from WJ Fox. Oh yes, $0.00. Hence no actual issuance of such a thing
Don't mourn, organize.
-Joe Hill
