You're ignorant about what sets wages. 'The workforce' doesn't determine it.
Would you put down a CEO for trying to double his current pay?
Taking risks to improve your fortune is quintessentially American, really.
Now I agree that it's unlikely that McDonald's will agree to double their current salary, but I'm not sure that it is as easy to find THOUSANDS of people willing to work minimum wage in NYC as some people in this thread claim. Not to mention the loss of productivity while they train up the new workers, and the bad press. McDonald's may well choose to negotiate a salary increase for these workers that is somewhere between what they're currently paid and what they're asking. Which would mean that this was a pretty successful strategy, no?
Many of the attitudes in this thread seem to imply that people making minimum wage don't deserve to negotiate for a better salary, or that they are somehow wronging McDonald's by refusing to work. These aren't cops or air traffic controllers providing vital civil services and they aren't contractually obligated not to strike.
Actually it does, you ignorant scumbag. As long as people are willing to work for an amount of money, that's what that job was worth. If nobody was willing to do a job at a given rate, the employer would have to raise the rate until they could find people willing to do that work at the higher rate.
You truly don't understand how trade works, do you? No wonder you believe such stupid shit. You don't by any chance flip burgers at McDonald's, do you?
Apples to oranges.
Ford mostly paid his workers more to remove them from the competitions hands. He wasn't looking for the best of the best really...just keeping them from his rivals.
If it were up to Ford he'd have probably wanted all workers paid a pittance. He was very pro-Big business and anti-middle/lower class.
To be fair, this Econ 101 view of the labor market is a massive oversimplification. Over a long timeframe, it is more or less true, but certain positions can be massively over or underpaid for long periods of time due to complacency, short-sightedness, and bad math on both sides of the worker-employer relationship.
For example, when Henry Ford voluntarily started paying over double the prevailing wage for assembly line workers, his gains in lower employee turnover and attracting the best of the best more than made up for the higher cost, and he ended up with an edge over his competitors for several months to years. If the labor market was truly efficient, all actors were perfectly rational, and the cost of information was free, wages would have ALREADY been around that level and no net gains could have been realized from increasing pay.
The earlier example of In-N-Out paying $10.50 an hour indicates that similar inefficiencies are probably at play in the fast food labor market.
Of course it's an oversimplification. But I think McDonald's revenue, margins and market share compared to In n Out pretty much means McDonald's is the winner when it comes to providing the consumer with what they want.
Of course it's an oversimplification. But I think McDonald's revenue, margins and market share compared to In n Out pretty much means McDonald's is the winner when it comes to providing the consumer with what they want. And ultimately, it's the consumer that drives the market. If the consumer wanted In n Out quality, then fast food workers would all make $10.50/hr. But they don't.
But there's another question to consider. If you only judge success by revenue, no other fast food chain approaches McDonalds. But if you consider worker satisfaction important, In N Out wipes the floor with McDonalds. And In N Out also ranks higher than McDonalds in customer satisfaction (according to this anyway). It's not just about quality and satisfaction, it's about price and availability, and In N Out will never touch McDonalds on those factors. But I bet you the workers at In N Out don't really care that much; they're just happy not to be at Mickey Ds.
Pay McD's people $15/hr and watch as the same people that were all for it cry about the value menu starting at $5.
That's not true as it's mostly derived from location and the sheer amount of McD's. Those didn't spring up overnight, but it's taken decades.
To be more factual and relevant to the discussion you'd have to assert that McD's has, over a period of decades, been more successful than other chain fastfood stores; which is 100% correct, but doesn't address the $$$ and sales in a particular area against a specific competitor, and especially not one that's sprung up recently.
Founded in 1948 by Harry Snyder and his wife Esther, establishing the first In-N-Out burger in Baldwin Park, California, and headquartered in Irvine, In-N-Out Burger has slowly expanded outside Southern California into the rest of the state as well as into Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Texas. The current owner is Lynsi Torres, the only grandchild of the Snyders. As of February 2013, In-N-Out employed 18,000 staff and had 281 locations,
Headquartered in the United States, the company began in 1940 as a barbecue restaurant operated by Richard and Maurice McDonald; in 1948 they reorganized their business as a hamburger stand using production line principles. Businessman Ray Kroc joined the company as a franchise agent in 1955. He subsequently purchased the chain from the McDonald brothers and oversaw its worldwide growth.[6]
A McDonald's restaurant is operated by either a franchisee, an affiliate, or the corporation itself. The corporation's revenues come from the rent, royalties and fees paid by the franchisees, as well as sales in company-operated restaurants. McDonald's revenues grew 27 percent over the three years ending in 2007 to $22.8 billion, and 9 percent growth in operating income to $3.9 billion.[7]
Number of locations 34,000+ worldwide[1]
But there's another question to consider. If you only judge success by revenue, no other fast food chain approaches McDonalds. But if you consider worker satisfaction important, In N Out wipes the floor with McDonalds. And In N Out also ranks higher than McDonalds in customer satisfaction (according to this anyway). It's not just about quality and satisfaction, it's about price and availability, and In N Out will never touch McDonalds on those factors. But I bet you the workers at In N Out don't really care that much; they're just happy not to be at Mickey Ds.
^^ Yep. A successful business, and a successful business model, isn't dependent on how many stores you've opened up. That's just how CEOs compare penis sizes at drug-fueled nazi-themed Parisian orgies.
I didn't realize companies were in business for the purpose of worker satisfaction. If that was the case, companies would pay people $100/hr to sit around and do nothing. Think about how happy their workers would be then!
That's just how CEOs compare penis sizes at drug-fueled nazi-themed Parisian orgies.
^^ Yep. A successful business, and a successful business model, isn't dependent on how many stores you've opened up. That's just how CEOs compare penis sizes at drug-fueled nazi-themed Parisian orgies.
and hell I moved several hundred miles and it cost me $110. $20 for the van and the rest gas. NOt everyone has to pay tolls.
This is 125% bullshit. Show me a link to where you can rent a moving van for $20. Also, that van needs to have a fuel efficiency of 20mpg.
And everyone has to pay tolls if they're moving to or from New York City, which was the topic of discussion.
Nope, companies are in the business of making money. In N Out is making quite a lot of money, AND managing to keep their workers happy. McDonalds is making more money, but their workers aren't as happy. Which company is more successful?
..
And honestly, what the fuck? If you're going to go full retard, at least make it funny.
Oh, I didn't realize you thought you were funny. Maybe you can get a job as a minimum wage stand-up comedian.
Then In n Out should easily be able to scale up and put McDonalds out of business, no?
I can't help but feel those supporting the Mc employees are just playing devil's advocate for the sake of stirring the pot...either that, or a handful of you are completely delusional.