My wife and I were out and about last weekend and needed to eat so we hit a Burger King.
Meals for 2, nothing crazy, was $30... at freaking BURGER KING. We don't even have a sales tax here.
$21 was the bill for 4 people to eat fast food for lunch in my part of the USA today.
Y'all are paying too much for fast food, it's not worth that.
Where y’at?
Bumfuck Ohio
Workers wanted an increase in pay, so shareholders needed to offset that by even more. Workers can't get a raise without shareholders getting a raise.
Inflation is majority driven by profit, not wages. Dems barely attack that angle. Republicans actively work against it.
Shareholders don’t need to offset shit. They’re just greedy rent seeking bastards.
Sorry, didn't mean to word it as support. Just wording it as the reality of what they think.
Shareholders provide economic value (it's literally in the name) and are not rent-seeking by definition
Pray tell. How?
Shareholders are key investors and are the principal drivers of M&A and infrastructure investment.
Disagreeing with the idea that companies exist to drive shareholder returns does not change the actual purpose of shareholders, nor suddenly cause them to be rent-seekers.
How did they get that capital to invest I wonder? The simple answer is that they obtained it through a chain of underpayment of workers for the true value they produce, thus creating a profit. Investors are simply people with wealth who put some of that wealth at risk in the hopes of increasing that wealth by exploiting workers.
The only inherent value an investor has is taking risks, but the risks they take are rarely material risks. Most of these investors have diverse portfolios and are unlikely to see their quality of life affected in any meaningful way if they are in any way financially responsible.
Yeah sorry man I have first hand experience in senior leadership, and your weird commie take isn't gonna hold water with me.
This only reinforces my view that the vast majority of people are empathetic and consider themselves moral individuals who do the right thing. Of course senior leadership wouldn't engage with or think much about a valid perspective that threatens their view of themselves as moral people. Even if they were forced to read Capital, it would most likely cause most of them to double down on their beliefs. They don't hold those beliefs for ethical reasons. They aren't willing to seriously question their beliefs.
When it comes to my opinion being some, "weird commie take," you clearly show your hand. It doesn't matter how sound my argument is or how many holes you have in your own worldview. You lived inside and experience what life is actually like for executives, therefore you clearly have a better understanding than some nobody like me. The problem is that it's exactly my position as someone who has never been an executive that makes my view clearer. I don't have my moral self view tied up in that world being justifiable. Your experience makes you more likely blind spots that miss the inherent horror of capitalism.
You don't have to be a communist to read Marx. Many economists read Marx, even in schools that promote neoliberalism. Sociologists and political scientists study Mein Kampf, biologists are well acquainted with creationism, and physicists learn about outdated theories of gravity. Considering it to be a moral failing to think critically about Marx's ideas is some Matt Gaetz level shit.
I've read Marx. It's a big part of why I'm not a commie.
Considering it to be a moral failing to think critically about Marx’s ideas is some Matt Gaetz level shit.
I think it's a moral failing that you haven't thought critically about Marx. I don't disagree with you because you know more than me, I disagree with you because you believe what you want to believe instead of what is real, despite evidence to the contrary.
I guess you could say that I wanted to believe in Marx's view that capitalism is inherently exploitative, but not for its own sake. I don't find the personal identity of being a communist appealing. Hell, I don't even enjoy calling myself a democratic socialist even though the term is probably the best fit for my beliefs. The main reason I wanted Marx to be correct is that it explains how such terrible injustice can occur in a world where most people try to do the right thing.
Even if a capitalist tries to make every decision ethically, they eventually run into the evil of the mechanics of capitalism. They are forced to underpay their workers for the value they generate. They are forced to make decisions that harm the common good. If they don't, then they'll get out competed in most circumstances. There's often little malice in most of capitalism's evil. The system fundamentally rewards terrible behavior.
I recognized that the current system not only doesn't serve most people, but it also actively harms even the people at the top. It doesn't matter how rich Bezos is, he's still eating food filled with microplastics like the rest of us. It doesn't matter how smart his team is, some property he owns will be ruined by climate change. Eventually the externalities inherent to capitalism will hurt everybody.
More relevant to the conversation, people will eventually fight back against exploitation in what ways they can. When legal remedies don't work, it causes faith in the system to be eroded. When support for the system wanes enough, then violence and instability occurs. Violence and instability aren't good for business by themselves, even if the violence isn't directed at the rich and powerful. These sort of situations are huge gambles for large players as they stand to win big, or lose hard. Outside players often win the most in the end, but eventually they'll probably have the same shit happen in their society.
In the end, no one is safe from the consequences of exploitation. Some are lucky and never experience these consequences, lulling the rich and powerful into a false sense of security. It's not karma. There's no cosmic arbiter of justice. It's merely the logical conclusion of the basic economic truth that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Exploiting the environment has a cost, and exploiting people does as well. It just seems like many people that claim to understand economics don't consider how economics ties into the larger world.
I find the idea that I'm mindlessly regurgitating commie ideas ludicrous. That I haven't thought critically about Marx hilarious. I don't view Marx as some prophet or absolute source of knowledge who was right about everything. He was just a philosopher who made some good points, and some bad ones, same as any philosopher.
You brought an economics argument to a rage thread. OP isn't making a technical claim when they say "rent seeking behavior", they're angry and using it as a synonym for "greedy people".
Some jackass buying a bunch of shares that were already issued and then flipping them for a profit isn't doing shit other than enriching themselves. You might as well argue that scalpers are important. Oh wait, I have seen that brain-dead argument with "pRoViDeS LiQuIdItY!!1"
It does, a little bit. Stock offerings or buybacks are dependent on the market price.
Ah yes, the people are angry about things they have every reason to be angry about. Thank goodness someone used a shallow pseudointellectual argument that glosses over basic truths!
People are angry about things they don't understand.
Case in point, the poster above you:
Some jackass buying a bunch of shares that were already issued and then flipping them for a profit
Thats... not a shareholder.
I don't tilt at these windmills for the people arguing nonsense, but for people scrolling by.
Hello, person scrolling by here. Thank you.
I’ve thought about that too. Do you know if it works?
Yeah except the workers never get the increase in pay you tool. Both Dems and Republicans in office actively help this happening, progressive Dems are the ones that give a damn
That burger was probably 2 dollars of ingredients before profit
$2 ingredients, $55 labor, $2 profit most likely
Restaurants have among the lowest profit margins of any industry.
I know by definition "restaurant" can be a fast-food place, but genuine restaurants are what you meant. Fast-food joints do not operate this way.
Even BKs margins of 18% do not account for a $28 markup, as was suggested above.
You are correct that I was misattributing casual dining margins tho. That was a neat rabbit hole I went down.
Dining out is CRAZY now.
My wife and I were out and about last weekend and needed to eat so we hit a Burger King.
Meals for 2, nothing crazy, was $30... at freaking BURGER KING. We don't even have a sales tax here.
$21 was the bill for 4 people to eat fast food for lunch in my part of the USA today.
Y'all are paying too much for fast food, it's not worth that.
Where y’at?
Bumfuck Ohio
Workers wanted an increase in pay, so shareholders needed to offset that by even more. Workers can't get a raise without shareholders getting a raise.
Inflation is majority driven by profit, not wages. Dems barely attack that angle. Republicans actively work against it.
Shareholders don’t need to offset shit. They’re just greedy rent seeking bastards.
Sorry, didn't mean to word it as support. Just wording it as the reality of what they think.
Shareholders provide economic value (it's literally in the name) and are not rent-seeking by definition
Pray tell. How?
Shareholders are key investors and are the principal drivers of M&A and infrastructure investment.
Disagreeing with the idea that companies exist to drive shareholder returns does not change the actual purpose of shareholders, nor suddenly cause them to be rent-seekers.
How did they get that capital to invest I wonder? The simple answer is that they obtained it through a chain of underpayment of workers for the true value they produce, thus creating a profit. Investors are simply people with wealth who put some of that wealth at risk in the hopes of increasing that wealth by exploiting workers.
The only inherent value an investor has is taking risks, but the risks they take are rarely material risks. Most of these investors have diverse portfolios and are unlikely to see their quality of life affected in any meaningful way if they are in any way financially responsible.
Yeah sorry man I have first hand experience in senior leadership, and your weird commie take isn't gonna hold water with me.
This only reinforces my view that the vast majority of people are empathetic and consider themselves moral individuals who do the right thing. Of course senior leadership wouldn't engage with or think much about a valid perspective that threatens their view of themselves as moral people. Even if they were forced to read Capital, it would most likely cause most of them to double down on their beliefs. They don't hold those beliefs for ethical reasons. They aren't willing to seriously question their beliefs.
When it comes to my opinion being some, "weird commie take," you clearly show your hand. It doesn't matter how sound my argument is or how many holes you have in your own worldview. You lived inside and experience what life is actually like for executives, therefore you clearly have a better understanding than some nobody like me. The problem is that it's exactly my position as someone who has never been an executive that makes my view clearer. I don't have my moral self view tied up in that world being justifiable. Your experience makes you more likely blind spots that miss the inherent horror of capitalism.
You don't have to be a communist to read Marx. Many economists read Marx, even in schools that promote neoliberalism. Sociologists and political scientists study Mein Kampf, biologists are well acquainted with creationism, and physicists learn about outdated theories of gravity. Considering it to be a moral failing to think critically about Marx's ideas is some Matt Gaetz level shit.
I've read Marx. It's a big part of why I'm not a commie.
I think it's a moral failing that you haven't thought critically about Marx. I don't disagree with you because you know more than me, I disagree with you because you believe what you want to believe instead of what is real, despite evidence to the contrary.
I guess you could say that I wanted to believe in Marx's view that capitalism is inherently exploitative, but not for its own sake. I don't find the personal identity of being a communist appealing. Hell, I don't even enjoy calling myself a democratic socialist even though the term is probably the best fit for my beliefs. The main reason I wanted Marx to be correct is that it explains how such terrible injustice can occur in a world where most people try to do the right thing.
Even if a capitalist tries to make every decision ethically, they eventually run into the evil of the mechanics of capitalism. They are forced to underpay their workers for the value they generate. They are forced to make decisions that harm the common good. If they don't, then they'll get out competed in most circumstances. There's often little malice in most of capitalism's evil. The system fundamentally rewards terrible behavior.
I recognized that the current system not only doesn't serve most people, but it also actively harms even the people at the top. It doesn't matter how rich Bezos is, he's still eating food filled with microplastics like the rest of us. It doesn't matter how smart his team is, some property he owns will be ruined by climate change. Eventually the externalities inherent to capitalism will hurt everybody.
More relevant to the conversation, people will eventually fight back against exploitation in what ways they can. When legal remedies don't work, it causes faith in the system to be eroded. When support for the system wanes enough, then violence and instability occurs. Violence and instability aren't good for business by themselves, even if the violence isn't directed at the rich and powerful. These sort of situations are huge gambles for large players as they stand to win big, or lose hard. Outside players often win the most in the end, but eventually they'll probably have the same shit happen in their society.
In the end, no one is safe from the consequences of exploitation. Some are lucky and never experience these consequences, lulling the rich and powerful into a false sense of security. It's not karma. There's no cosmic arbiter of justice. It's merely the logical conclusion of the basic economic truth that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Exploiting the environment has a cost, and exploiting people does as well. It just seems like many people that claim to understand economics don't consider how economics ties into the larger world.
I find the idea that I'm mindlessly regurgitating commie ideas ludicrous. That I haven't thought critically about Marx hilarious. I don't view Marx as some prophet or absolute source of knowledge who was right about everything. He was just a philosopher who made some good points, and some bad ones, same as any philosopher.
You brought an economics argument to a rage thread. OP isn't making a technical claim when they say "rent seeking behavior", they're angry and using it as a synonym for "greedy people".
Some jackass buying a bunch of shares that were already issued and then flipping them for a profit isn't doing shit other than enriching themselves. You might as well argue that scalpers are important. Oh wait, I have seen that brain-dead argument with "pRoViDeS LiQuIdItY!!1"
It does, a little bit. Stock offerings or buybacks are dependent on the market price.
Ah yes, the people are angry about things they have every reason to be angry about. Thank goodness someone used a shallow pseudointellectual argument that glosses over basic truths!
People are angry about things they don't understand.
Case in point, the poster above you:
Thats... not a shareholder.
I don't tilt at these windmills for the people arguing nonsense, but for people scrolling by.
Hello, person scrolling by here. Thank you.
I’ve thought about that too. Do you know if it works?
Well we also disagree. 😊👍
Commies aren't people
Yeah except the workers never get the increase in pay you tool. Both Dems and Republicans in office actively help this happening, progressive Dems are the ones that give a damn
That burger was probably 2 dollars of ingredients before profit
$2 ingredients, $55 labor, $2 profit most likely
Restaurants have among the lowest profit margins of any industry.
I know by definition "restaurant" can be a fast-food place, but genuine restaurants are what you meant. Fast-food joints do not operate this way.
Even BKs margins of 18% do not account for a $28 markup, as was suggested above.
You are correct that I was misattributing casual dining margins tho. That was a neat rabbit hole I went down.