Wall Street Journal is reporting corporate profits are major driver of inflation at this time.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Unionized Maryland Apple Store Workers Request 10% Raise and Option to Accept Customer Tips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe you should pay more... like a tip.
The grocery store I use has 6 check out lanes that have been replaced with self check out. One person and some machines replacing a number cashiers while I do ALL the labor. I want a discount.
Why should a store's cost savings measure give you a discount?
They cut costs to improve profitability, not simply lower prices.
May they win ALL THEIR DEMANDS! Power to these workers! Wonderful to see...
Your discount is the price of your goods buying might not be as high because they don’t have to pay a 6 more 55 year old cashier $35 an hour to scan a barcode and sigh when something doesn’t scan properly.Maybe you should pay more... like a tip.
The grocery store I use has 6 check out lanes that have been replaced with self check out. One person and some machines replacing a number cashiers while I do ALL the labor. I want a discount.
I'm not going to touch most of this but I disagree with "the union said. Tip money would be split among employees based on hours worked." So you have someone who goes above and beyond, who might deserve a tip, and the person who does the bare minimum, that will benefit from others hard work? A tip should be based on individuals merit/service.
That is the nature of unions. Everyone should be treated the same.
Except union bosses of course. Extra perks for them.
And where do profits come from?
People spending money.
Where do people get money? Most get it from wages.
that's not how that math works, like at all. There's a few steps you kinda handwaved away there, like, you know, the entire actual business.
and again, they arent supposed to be. The minimum was *explicitly* created to be, word for word, a living wage. You're trying to use semantics in the name to get around the explicit purpose and ignoring that the law wasnt passed in a void with just a title, it had a description and lots of publicly documented explanation too. It's especially weird in this case since the word you fixated on as the alternative that's "different" was used directly, repeatedly, often, and clearly to describe what minimum wage is supposed to represent.
So do those of you that do the job get paid a living wage while the goof offs get less? If so, congratulations! Most places I’ve worked at pay everyone in the same position a similar wage, promote the good ones to better paying positions, and let the others stagnate in the lower positions or turf them if they are terrible. I haven’t seen a place where the same job position gets much of a different wage for actual quality of work (other than commissions.)
You're wrong. I'm sorry that you aren't able to comprehend this. Again, please explain to me how the government created a blanket, nation wide minimum wage, that was meant to be a "living wage" whether you live in Manhattan, or in the middle of nowhere Iowa? You can't, period. And again, the federal minimum wage is word for word the minimum wage every company in the US has to pay its workers. It guarantees you nothing beyond that. That's it. No more, no less. Regardless, you seem to be the argumentative type, and I'm sure you are the last word type as well so please, fire away. Nothing you are going to say is going to change the fact that the federal minimum wage has never been, and never will be a "living wage".
Last edited:
It’s even funnier if I said who it was, because he was definitely one of the few recognizable ones, even to people who didn’t really follow basketball, like me.
^ This demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the current causes of inflation.
Ignorance is not a valid argument.
When stores eliminate workers who provide a service, and I still pay the same price, that is corporate driven inflation. No different than shrinkflation.
I couldn’t care less. I don’t work for Apple, nor am I planning to. As long as Apple finds enough people that work for them for the offered payment nothing will change.
Sorry, that’s just a PhotoOp.
The truth is, simple economics will tell you that reversion to the mean will dictate that anyone who demands above market wage will be laid off somehow in the long run. Maybe those jobs will simply seize to exist in the US.
An employee must generate at least 125% more net productivity than the cost of keeping that role for the company. Notice that salary is only a part of this cost.
Customers already did get that. It’s factored into the price.
So the military, education and the healthcare are the obvious exemptions from your understanding of the "economics", right? You can't have a country(state) without certain things even if you have to run them at a "loss".
Yes, Roosevelt clearly had statesmanship competencies to understand the importance of the decent wages in order to keep any sort of country together let alone the US.
I don't think anybody here seriously expects the average MacRumors poster to have statesmanship competencies in order to understand the reasoning behind Roosevelt's decision making.
Your examples are not exceptions.
The US government will not keep a oversized military if there is no significant economic benefit for keep one (robbing oil, bullying countries who don't toe the line). No solders will enlist if they are not paid.
No one will go to universities if there is no economic advantage over a high School diploma. No professor will teach a course if he's not paid handsomely.
No hospitals will exist in low income neigherhoods without significant state/taxpayer subsidies (rare in the US). The fact is, many of them are closing down.
You can want many things, but if the economics doesn't make sense, i.e., if the market doesn't clear, nothing will happen.
You can say, every Canadian deserves heat in the winter. Sure, but if they can't afford it, who's gonna pay for it? The state? Hell no. The taxpayers? Well, who's gonna pay the extra tax to keep other people's house in order? Why would they vote to agree to a new tax law like that? What are the incentives? How do you clear the market? That's economics.
Last edited:
Not everything makes sense from a pure private market economics perspective. Yes the state should cover heat, yes the taxpayers should pay for it. Ignoring any moral arguments that letting people suffer or even freeze to death when you can stop it there’s market economics on the government level that are important. As you accurately noted we fund a military to advance aocietal interest, whether defense or projection of power for economic or other reasons.
The government in part exists ti fund the things that are economically important but too big, too long term, or cost too much for a private company to commit to. That includes core infrastructure *and*, crucially, social services. Social service costs are a loss leader for the economy, people can work, generate economic activity, and grow the economy better if, say, they dont freeze to death.
So why should taxpayers fund heat from a purely economic POV? Because if people have basic needs met in the long run they contribute to the economy, and both create and consume goods and services that support those taxpayers in, overall, long term, higher amounts than it costs.
Also worth noting that people who are the edge of freezing to death, starving to death, etc - people who have nothing to lose - are more likely to become violent or radicalized because, hey, they have nothing to lose. Do you like riots? Terrorism? Revolutions? Keep people in abject poverty in huge amounts, create an underclass, and that is what you’ll get. Because when someone is desperate and has nothing to lose…
Last edited:
I have a tip for the employees. I won’t shop there and neither should others. I have a tip for Apple. Close the Store - regardless of cost. Disgusting!
If you refuse to pay for your own army you will end up having to feed the army of your rival power. So there is much more to it than just "bullying other nations and stealing their oil" although US definitely thoroughly enjoyed it while taking full advantage of their unique remote geographic location. They would not be able to do it if they have been part of the mainland surrounded by other countries.
I am still not sure you fully understand the true repercussions of the "many of them are closing down" from the perspective of statesmanship competencies.
No, the prices stayed the same. It's factored in to the profits.