[gptgpp]

Counterpoint:

America is so rich and powerful precisely BECAUSE it maximizes efficiency and capital. Gutting all of those jobs and making it so that they only have 30 seconds to inspect each car (which is pretty much impossible to do due diligence) makes it so that they can rake in a ton of cash.

Sure, accidents will go up. Small little towns will find themselves doused in carcinogens or burned to the ground (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...). Politicians will use it for photo ops. Yet a small group of key individuals will amass a ton of capital and, therefore, power. They can then use that to create more businesses and ventures that will be just as ruthless and driven to succeed at all costs.

I don't think it's "gutting" America. On the contrary, I think it's the heart of America, and what makes it so powerful and hegemonic. You don't make a scientific and cultural powerhouse omelette without breaking a few eggs.

I bet you also think that cutting executive salaries would somehow make major corporations like McDonalds be able to pay all of their workers a living wage. I would encourage you to do the math on that -- it literally never works out.

[snowron6]

>I bet you also think that cutting executive salaries would somehow make major corporations like McDonalds be able to pay all of their workers a living wage. I would encourage you to do the math on that -- it literally never works out.

Hmmm, in Denmark McDonald's manages to pay their workers ~$22 an hour[1], with 6 weeks of vacation, and paid sick leave without substantially increasing prices[2], and remaining profitable.

1: https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-de...

2: https://www.economist.com/big-mac-index

[lamontcg]

> You don't make a scientific and cultural powerhouse omelette without breaking a few eggs.

"Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make"

[gptgpp]

Yes, in a more practical sense, to quote Liu Cixin, "If I destroy you, what business of it of yours?"

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7216658-if-i-destroy-you-wh...

In a similar sense, can you reasonably object to being eaten by a man-eating tiger?

We create corporations who's utmost responsibility is feduciary in nature, we make capital the lifeblood of our society, and then act shocked and horrified when capital trumps human life, and corporate interests hold similar priorities?

Seriously. How did anyone think gutting the workforce and the ability to do safety inspections in a reasonable manner would turn out in any other way? How did the regulatory agencies think this was acceptable? The quote by Cixin is the only explanation.

That disaster I cited in Quebec was many years ago, yet a scathing report was released that effectively nothing has been done to meaningfully/substantially regulate the railways. An entire town was wiped from the map. What business is it of theirs if they are ground to dust by industry? Ultimately we are all meat for the machine :)

[orwin]

That's why the left should push for legalizing long range rifles and AP rounds instead of fighting against semi-automatics.

I mean, Abe was the only corrupt politician/business leader who suffered the true "cost of doing business", hopefully he start a trend.

[cced]

> American is so rich and powerful precisely BECAUSE it maximizes efficiency and capital.

> I bet you also think that cutting executive salaries would somehow make major corporations like McDonalds be able to pay all of their workers a living wage. I would encourage you to do the math on that -- it literally never works out.

So what you're saying is that capital's big brain move is exploitation of the worker a.k.a maximizing efficiency? Why's the reasoning that the mom and pop store shouldn't be opened if it can't "afford" to pay it's workers a living wage but when corporations like McDonald's do it it's hailed as maximizing efficiency and capital.

You said it yourself: "paying workers a living wage literally never works out".

Not only is that not true (as pointed out by another comment regarding McDonald's in Denmark) you're admitting that part (at least some of) the "efficiency" is really just theft from the worker.

I find it hard to believe that that's what you're stating, trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, so what am I missing here?

[vineyardmike]

> I bet you also think that cutting executive salaries would somehow make major corporations like McDonalds be able to pay all of their workers a living wage. I would encourage you to do the math on that -- it literally never works out.

Ignoring the "franchising" model which explicitly breaks the local/corporate link of profits and costs...

- McD had a 12B in profits in 2022. - McD had ~2M in employees at franchises - McD employees make ~$12 an hour. Thats 24k a year at full-time. - I couldn't find just the executive salaries.

If you took those profits and distributed them to employees, thats a 25% increase.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MCD/mcdonalds/gros...

[gptgpp]

You're citing gross profits, when what you actually want to look at is net income, no? For 2022 that was about 6 billion.

So now we're talking about a 12.5% increase in wages, in exchange for the entirety of the net profits.'

The best part is that it is common practice not to give people full-time hours so that they don't qualify for benefits. So I imagine of those 2M employees, a huge amount aren't exactly getting a living wage even after that 12.5% increase.

[vineyardmike]

> The best part is that it is common practice not to give people full-time hours so that they don't qualify for benefits

Gross profits are fine. We’ll leave the 25%. If people aren’t working full time (which was assumed in the calculation) then that means it’s >25% increase in salary. Seems pretty life changing to those employees tbh. Imagine a 25%-50% raise? Life changing to someone who is intentionally denied work so they can be denied benefits.

[lamontcg]

> You're citing gross profits, when what you actually want to look at is net income, no?

No, for one thing net income is after taxes, if that had been paid out in wages the taxes wouldn't have been assessed.

[sudosysgen]

Sure, but then add on the franchisees profits and the land appreciation, and you're pretty damn near to a living wage from surplus alone.

[seadan83]

Interesting point. Though, the average and certainly median american is not rich (somewhat poor even), and has worse quality of life and life expectancy than lots of the rest of world. US is behind Cuba, Guam, Chile: https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/

> Yet a small group of key individuals will amass a ton of capital and, therefore, power. They can then use that to create more businesses and ventures that will be just as ruthless and driven to succeed at all costs.

I'm really not sure if that is a good thing. What are those costs? Are we talking Amazon workers wearing diapers because the walk to the bathroom is too much inefficiency? People getting layed off when they have cancer and also losing their health insurance at the same time? Further, those new businesses, would they perhaps also mostly benefit that same small group of people?