Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 191
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Most fast food restaurants will give you a cup for water for free.
This is just wishful thinking. Look no further than dockworkers fighting tooth and nail against automation that would increase port throughput because there'd be less demand for their labor.
Dockworkers rightfully fight automation because they know that there are not other jobs for them with high pay as many other jobs lack unions; the “efficiency” goes to just a few at top. This is different from a scenario where unions are the norm across industries — suddenly the benefit of being a dockworker would not so large as to prevent them going through with automation. But even if for some reason dockworkers maintain a disproportionately high salary, we can imagine a system where the union of one industry negotiates (and can be overruled) by a broader “related-industry” or “affected industry” greater union body. There are many ways to incentivize efficient economic decisions which involve unions and cross-union negotiation.
This just evades the point, try again but for soda
No, when there's competition, it'll tend towards the efficiency going entirely to the consumer (insofar as we can treat efficiency as a thing, the units are probably not quite right), in the long run.
In the meantime, sure, it'll make a profit, but that'll trend to zero unless there's a reason for it not to, in an environment of competition.
Your point here was that "that's extremely economically inefficient, because McDonald’s surplus profit goes disproportionately to already-wealthy individuals."
First, we don't know that this would go to surplus profit. One benefit of higher priced sodas is that with that extra money, they are able to afford to lower prices for other things, meaning that it's not obvious that they're making much of a profit. Now, it was elsewhere pointed out that they are making a profit, (presumably due to a mix of people valuing the brand, and that the relevant measure is not nominal profit, but profit compared to the return of the next-best alternative for the investment used to set up the franchises, like the stock market). But profit going to wealthy individuals does not mean that it's economically inefficient! The measure of economic efficiency is not whether it leads to equality, but whether it leads to value production. And this system of allocation does lead to production of value, because there's now a bunch of McDonald's that we wouldn't have otherwise, providing food cheaply, that evidently, people appreciate, since they shop there.
And even if there isn't competition (which is not the case), well, it's still better than there not being any soda available for you to buy.
More options
Context Copy link
He "evades" the point by offering directly contradicting evidence to your assertion? And then you literally move the goalposts by shifting the object from water to the substance that is single most responsible for the American pre-diabetic and diabetes epidemic.
This isn't just poor argumentation, it's a lack of understanding of the nature of consumer demand and vendor supply.
McDonald's continues to exist and generate profit because American (and foreign!) consumers really enjoy, and therefore demand, their product. Every time I hear someone go on about "the corporate overlords" I get a strong suspicion they've never worked in one of these large corporations. They're bureaucratic, slow, with pockets of poor management everywhere. Often, they're coasting on brand recognition and incumbent advantage. Sure, they may still have top line growth, but they're not innovating outside of buying potential challengers (see: McDonalds and Chipotle). The idea that there are these Gordon Gekko greed machines with incredible ability to manipulate the public is laughable. The lizard people don't exist.
The sad fact of the matter is that McDonald's CEO is a former soap salesman who did the handshakeful path of Harvard Biz School to Big Consulting. This is the kind of dude who looks forward to "networking with the family" for 45 minutes of Christmas Eve before diving back in to the sweet sweet womb of quarterly reports. He is a business nerd.
But you know who aren't business nerds? Construction workers getting their morning coffee, single moms too tired to cook, stoned teenagers, and (years ago) my drunk ass at 2 a.m. And we all like the convenience, predictability, and location density of McDonalds. And so we spend, together, billions of dollars on their product.
An auction. Yes. Like, perhaps, at a market. Like where people would buy and sell assets they own - their "stock" you could say. A kind of "stock market" if you will.
So we solve government interference by creating organizations that are intrinsically tied to the government.
What does this even mean?
Tell some undefined "truth" or you're committing a crime? George Orwell would like to see you in the hall.
This is just outlandish and I'm beginning to think I'm being trolled.
Eh, that's the main point that I have some sympathy to. I certainly expect some industries to be unethical and taking advantage of people, especially if they have poor self control or are less intelligent or senile.
Also, he wasn't the one that brought up high bottled water prices. I'm with you overall, though.
More options
Context Copy link
How is it possible that you don’t understand that it evades the point? That’s shocking, because it’s a very clear case of arguing against the substance — which should never be done because it wastes time (hence my terse reply, and now I have to waste time clarifying something so simple). It’s not just bad argumentation, it’s damaging to the whole discussion because of that.
We are talking about the overcharging of goods with water as an example. The one example is not the substance of the argument.
If someone wants a bottle of water they should be purchasing it at a reasonable price. Tap water has nothing to do with the claim. It’s not always possible to drive with an open cup of water in your car, depending on cupholders and road conditions
If some locations allow free cups of water, what does this have to do with the locations which do not? Even if points 1 and 2 don’t apply, the simple fact that there are locations which do not give free water makes this whole argument a wasteful tangent. See here, here, here
it’s crucial to understand the difference between substance and trivial details
Are you trolling?
I will read the rest of your post if you can confirm that you’ve understood why you are incorrect per the above
I'm far too dumb to do that.
Is this why my pants are wet?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure there are, they can learn to code. Or install air conditioners. Or...
The "efficiency" is reflected in higher prices for all imported goods. Poor people consume more of their income than rich people.
The dockworkers raise prices for every American. They simply do not care about this, contrary to your claim about the employees having the interests of the consumer at heart. It's classic diffuse costs and concentrated benefits.
The goalposts have moved very far indeed from "employees are more likely to identify with the interests of the consumer and stand to gain less as individuals from purposeful economic inefficiency". Now we need a union of unions to put down the unions who unionize too hard.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link