28 Jan 2026 1:32 am
Setting aside ethics, the counterargument (I don't know if Deezer Shoove mentioned this or not) is that labor is just a function of supply and demand for warm bodies.Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2026, 10:00 pm » wrote: ↑ No.
What bolsters their argument is the math which makes this ^ side argument irrelevant.
Which brings us back to the issue. Why should the present generation work for 35-45% of the big macs their parents' and grandparents' generations worked for? How is it that the entire industry is under threat from this? The country is MORE productive, not less productive. Supply chains are MORE streamlined, not less streamlined. What are the ECONOMIC arguments in favor of the narrative that FF will suddenly be unaffordable TODAY, even though it was affordable yesteryear when its workers received a living wage?
"All the guys I know hate those jobs" doesn't answer the math.
If workers are more productive, that means the capital owners will just extract more "value" (snicker) from them. It doesn't mean that that wages will increase - and in fact wages are most likely NOT going to increase as long as there are 100+ qualified and able people applying for every job (which is INDEED the case right now)
We are nearing Great Financial Crisis levels when it comes to ratio of applicants : job openings (legit job openings, not the fake ones they put out to collect data or justify H1B visas).
If you have an oversupply of workers (which we do) and not enough people spending money at places to justify hiring so many people (which is also the case) then the wages are going to be ****.