living paycheck to paycheck

[Corry_El]

A lot of the posts on the ‘anti-market’ side come back to the same thing, same fallacy, as I see it. They knock over a straw man argument which says ‘the labor market perfectly values each person’s labor’. But nobody is saying that, nobody reasonable. Rather, the basic idea is the lack of a completely different system to turn the various subjective opinions expressed (‘artificially high cost of college’, ‘bloating of degree requirements’, ‘burger flippers could be programmers, I could train them’) into a workable system that’s superior to a labor market. That’s what is not, manifestly not, workable.

Whether you like market mechanisms or not, they’ve proven to be the best basic system for pricing and allocating resources.

But that again does not mean you can’t put on top of that a system of taxation and cross subsidy to avoid (subjectively defined) ‘excessively’ unequal outcomes. We already have that in the US on a large scale. People can reasonably argue it should be less so, more so, or done differently.

Making college ‘free’ could be one extension of that system. But it’s not as if producing college educations is really ‘free’ to society. Resources have to be allocated to it and paid for by somebody. And giving out valuable resources for ‘free’ (at the margin) encourages wasting them. That factor has to be weighed in deciding to make college ‘free’, as opposed to say just giving consumption subsidies to people whose labor is less valuable in the market.

And innate ability is also a factor. That’s one big reason for ‘bloated degree requirements’. Many more people now attend college (and even get degrees, though the % finishing without a degree is high). In part that’s raised the skill level of the whole workforce, one reason productivity keeps gradually increasing. But in part it’s just increased the supply of people with certain credentials. There’s a contradiction between in one breath calling for more subsidies for people to get credentials (so they make the decision based on a cost of education/training lower than what it really is), then in the next bemoaning credential inflation for a given job.

It’s a problem that many people doing min wage jobs are not intellectually capable of being programmers. That’s somewhat different than back when a higher % of people digging ditches by hand were also intellectually capable of being assembly line workers or operating basic construction machinery. It’s a problem that won’t go away via silly insistence that the distribution of intellectual ability is the same among low and high wage workers. It’s not, a reality society has to deal with not deny.

[Littleman]

@Corry_El

A lot of the posts on the ‘anti-market’ side come back to the same thing, same fallacy, as I see it. They knock over a straw man argument which says ‘the labor market perfectly values each person’s labor’. But nobody is saying that, nobody reasonable. Rather, the basic idea is the lack of a completely different system to turn the various subjective opinions expressed (‘artificially high cost of college’, ‘bloating of degree requirements’, ‘burger flippers could be programmers, I could train them’) into a workable system that’s superior to a labor market. That’s what is not, manifestly not, workable.

Whether you like market mechanisms or not, they’ve proven to be the best basic system for pricing and allocating resources.

But that again does not mean you can’t put on top of that a system of taxation and cross subsidy to avoid (subjectively defined) ‘excessively’ unequal outcomes. We already have that in the US on a large scale. People can reasonably argue it should be less so, more so, or done differently.

Making college ‘free’ could be one extension of that system. But it’s not as if producing college educations is really ‘free’ to society. Resources have to be allocated to it and paid for by somebody. And giving out valuable resources for ‘free’ (at the margin) encourages wasting them. That factor has to be weighed in deciding to make college ‘free’, as opposed to say just giving consumption subsidies to people whose labor is less valuable in the market.

And innate ability is also a factor. That’s one big reason for ‘bloated degree requirements’. Many more people now attend college (and even get degrees, though the % finishing without a degree is high). In part that’s raised the skill level of the whole workforce, one reason productivity keeps gradually increasing. But in part it’s just increased the supply of people with certain credentials. There’s a contradiction between in one breath calling for more subsidies for people to get credentials (so they make the decision based on a cost of education/training lower than what it really is), then in the next bemoaning credential inflation for a given job.

It’s a problem that many people doing min wage jobs are not intellectually capable of being programmers. That’s somewhat different than back when a higher % of people digging ditches by hand were also intellectually capable of being assembly line workers or operating basic construction machinery. It’s a problem that won’t go away via silly insistence that the distribution of intellectual ability is the same among low and high wage workers. It’s not, a reality society has to deal with not deny.

I have no opinion on what should be done. The market is not now nor has it ever been, nor is it likely to ever be fair and just and all that.
Attempts at systematically making it so have only ever led to situations where your income is measured almost entirely by how corrupt you are willing to be.

People will always capitalize when given the chance so we might as well embrace it. This way we can install working controls. This is basically the system we’ve arrived at now.

If you want off the bottom, opportunities abound, but your gonna have to use what you e been given to do so. Born wealth, parents college fund and support, intelligence, drive, miserly ways, cunning, circumstance, whatever it might be.

Some paths are more difficult than others.

While I admire those who band together and seek change, I personally dedicate my energy to doing what I can in the system that exists.

[k9bfriender]

@Corry_El

A lot of the posts on the ‘anti-market’ side come back to the same thing, same fallacy, as I see it. They knock over a straw man argument which says ‘the labor market perfectly values each person’s labor’. But nobody is saying that, nobody reasonable. Rather, the basic idea is the lack of a completely different system to turn the various subjective opinions expressed (‘artificially high cost of college’, ‘bloating of degree requirements’, ‘burger flippers could be programmers, I could train them’) into a workable system that’s superior to a labor market. That’s what is not, manifestly not, workable.

Except that it is a strawman to say taht I made that claim.

Whether you like market mechanisms or not, they’ve proven to be the best basic system for pricing and allocating resources.

Not really. The free market leaves many people homeless and hungry. That has been the nature of humanity for most of its history, and it is only recent innovations like the new deal and other governmental supports that have lessened that.

But that again does not mean you can’t put on top of that a system of taxation and cross subsidy to avoid (subjectively defined) ‘excessively’ unequal outcomes. We already have that in the US on a large scale. People can reasonably argue it should be less so, more so, or done differently.

I have no desire to avoid unequal outcomes, I only desire to put a floor as to the minimum outcome.

I also desire to encourage more opprotunities, as we are no where near equal opprotunities.

Making college ‘free’ could be one extension of that system. But it’s not as if producing college educations is really ‘free’ to society. Resources have to be allocated to it and paid for by somebody. And giving out valuable resources for ‘free’ (at the margin) encourages wasting them. That factor has to be weighed in deciding to make college ‘free’, as opposed to say just giving consumption subsidies to people whose labor is less valuable in the market.

There are also many ways to severely decrease the cost of that education. Having two people watch a pre-recorded calculus lecture on their computer costs how much more than one?

Computer learning can make the “consumption” of a college education have very little cost.

And innate ability is also a factor. That’s one big reason for ‘bloated degree requirements’. Many more people now attend college (and even get degrees, though the % finishing without a degree is high). In part that’s raised the skill level of the whole workforce, one reason productivity keeps gradually increasing. But in part it’s just increased the supply of people with certain credentials. There’s a contradiction between in one breath calling for more subsidies for people to get credentials (so they make the decision based on a cost of education/training lower than what it really is), then in the next bemoaning credential inflation for a given job.

There is no contradiction. There is currently a need for these credentials, you have to have them in order to get a hiring manager to even look at your resume. So long as that is a requirement, then lowering the cost of getting those credential is good for them and the economy.

And, in the same breathe, I can also say that not all of those credentials, like a Theater class, are all necessary.

No contradiction.

It’s a problem that many people doing min wage jobs are not intellectually capable of being programmers.

Probably some of them. But not most or even many. The vast majority just never were given the opportunity to go down that path.

That’s somewhat different than back when a higher % of people digging ditches by hand were also intellectually capable of being assembly line workers or operating basic construction machinery. It’s a problem that won’t go away via silly insistence that the distribution of intellectual ability is the same among low and high wage workers. It’s not, a reality society has to deal with not deny.

There is no instance in that regard, and a claim that there is is yet another strawman in your argument. Most people however, are within a standard deviation of “average”, and your person within a standard deviation from “average” can learn to code, or to maintain a robot in a factory, or any of the many other trades taht do currently take a 4 year degree to get in the door, even though they will not be using a fraction of the skills you had to get to get that piece of paper.

[D_Anconia]

@k9bfriender

The vast majority just never were given the opportunity to go down that path.

Given? Given by whom?

[nearwildheaven]

@msmith537

Years ago, I was working on a consulting assignment, flying back and forth to Seattle to write SQL queries. My client came up to me to see what I was doing. He said something like “That doesn’t look all that hard. I don’t see why we pay you so much money.”
I replied “It’s not that hard. If you like, I can go back to New York and let you guys take over.”
"…but we don’t know how to do what you are doing.
“That’s why you pay me so much.”

That reminds me of something I saw a while back, about a conversation someone had with his orthopedic surgeon:

“Why did you charge $5,000 to put a screw in my hip?”

“$1 for the screw, and $4,999 for knowing how to put it in correctly.”

More than once, I had technicians say that they understood why we pharmacists were paid so much: “You have to know what all of those drugs do!” Yep, that’s also why we go to school for so long.

[Shodan]

@enipla

My previous place of work was a GIS conversion company. Take paper maps and convert to GIS. I ended up doing all the training for my shift. Wrote a training document. Was promoted to do all hiring. My boss said that if they have sat in front of a computer before, hire them.

That worked out well. :rolleyes: I left, they are now out of business.

Like I said, I have been in the business for a while. And one of the things I have come to recognize is the gleam in the eye of some manager who should know better.

“We’ll hire a bunch of inexperienced people, and assign all the experienced ones to mentor them. We’ll get it done in half the time, because the senior folks won’t waste their time on the easy stuff!” I heard that two or three times back in the days of Y2K.

Sometimes it works - but it is never, ever faster, or easier, or cheaper.

Regards,
Shodan

[Littleman]

@k9bfriender

Probably some of them. But not most or even many. The vast majority just never were given the opportunity to go down that path.

I would put it more like the opportunity was never easy enough for most of them.

My own mother managed to do it with three sons, broke parents and extended family, zero support from Dad.

Most people can’t even imagine the difficulties involved in acheiving such a feat. Sometimes very small things that could make the difference.

Clinicals left her with exactly enough time to make the commute to pick us up.
So if there was any delay, it was $5 a minute.
Already on a budget of $400 a month.
With a $400 car.
With nobody to pick us up as an alternative, a break down would have us turned over to DCF.
Not to mention ensuring her failing her classes.
She could easily end up in a situation of not being able to afford to make a comeback or being forced to choose between her kids and school when one more late pickup could have her kids in foster care.

That’s the tip of the iceberg.

Technically she had the opportunity, but I believe it was far too difficult for most people to achieve in her situation. The grocery store clerk job can look pretty good as a career if the alternative is gambling your children.

She wouldn’t have had the kids if she hadn’t been married and expecting them to be taken care of at the time.

Its usually people whos biggest challenge was having a job during school to afford pizza and beer who believe that everyone has the same opportunity.

Some of this is why being successful or unsuccessful can run in a family. The ability to be able to borrow $50 from family can sometimes make all the difference in a person’s life.

[Littleman]

Now , one of the only things that made it possible for her was a very old retired ex farmer turned orthodontist turned healthcare system (several hospitals/nursing homes/ doctors centers) owner from our church who gave us a place to live while Mom was on a waiting list for section 8 housing “in exchange for” us kids doing farm chores. I quote in exchange for because some 5-7 year old kids feeding chickens wasn’t really doing him a service so much as teaching us to work.

[nearwildheaven]

Just within the past few days, someone on another board said she had been poor, but she had never lived in poverty.

What was the difference?

Being poor is not having enough resources to meet your needs, but you do have options about what to do with what you have. Poverty is having no choices about what you have, or what you do with it.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Corry_El

A lot of the posts on the ‘anti-market’ side come back to the same thing, same fallacy, as I see it. They knock over a straw man argument which says ‘the labor market perfectly values each person’s labor’. But nobody is saying that, nobody reasonable.

I never made that strawman, though. The argument I was making is that the labor market is really quite terrible at valuing each person’s labor, particularly when it comes to the lower end, and that that’s a problem - particularly when it comes to assigning “value” via a market - that we should fix. The idea that we, as a society, can see a job as “worth doing” (and let’s be clear here - anyone claiming that we do not see the minimum wage jobs at McDonalds, as supermarket cashiers, as farm workers as “worth doing” doesn’t have a leg to stand on; these are massive industries we value immensely) but at the same time laugh at those who do those jobs demanding a livable wage is fucked - particularly when the corporation could easily pay them those livable wages with no consequence other than their profits shrinking from “massive” to “slightly less massive”.

Whether you like market mechanisms or not, they’ve proven to be the best basic system for pricing and allocating resources.

The best basic system we’ve had so far? Well, it’s currently consistently failing in a number of predictable, systemic ways. There are more empty homes than there are homeless people in the US and UK - that’s fucked. Jeff Bezos is the richest man on earth while workers at Amazon barely make a living wage and suffer sweatshop-like conditions - that’s fucked. The system we currently have is enabling the wholesale destruction of our natural ecosystem in ways we know full well is going to be unspeakably expensive in both dollars and lives and any attempt to deal with these externalities is blocked by lobbying by the very people who are profiting from that destruction - that’s double fucked with a side of shit chips. It’s not good enough. We need to do better. And step one is recognizing that.

[msmith537]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

The argument I was making is that the labor market is really quite terrible at valuing each person’s labor, particularly when it comes to the lower end, and that that’s a problem - particularly when it comes to assigning “value” via a market - that we should fix. The idea that we, as a society, can see a job as “worth doing” (and let’s be clear here - anyone claiming that we do not see the minimum wage jobs at McDonalds, as supermarket cashiers, as farm workers as “worth doing” doesn’t have a leg to stand on; these are massive industries we value immensely) but at the same time laugh at those who do those jobs demanding a livable wage is fucked - particularly when the corporation could easily pay them those livable wages with no consequence other than their profits shrinking from “massive” to “slightly less massive”.

“Worth doing” only means someone is willing to pay for it. It doesn’t mean they are willing to pay any price to have someone do it. At a higher price, the market may decide those jobs aren’t worth doing after all and the money might be better spent elsewhere.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

The best basic system we’ve had so far? Well, it’s currently consistently failing in a number of predictable, systemic ways. There are more empty homes than there are homeless people in the US and UK - that’s fucked. Jeff Bezos is the richest man on earth while workers at Amazon barely make a living wage and suffer sweatshop-like conditions

What about all the overpaid tech workers at Amazon (who also suffer sweatshop-like conditions)? One of the biggest complaints about companies like Amazon is that the influx of thousands of highly paid workers into cities like San Francisco or Seattle drive up real estate costs, crowding out regular working and middle-class people? I think that has a far more detrimental effect than paying relatively low wages to workers in some remote distribution center where the cost of living is much lower (plus, most of them are going to be replaced by robots anyway).

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@msmith537

“Worth doing” only means someone is willing to pay for it. It doesn’t mean they are willing to pay any price to have someone do it. At a higher price, the market may decide those jobs aren’t worth doing after all and the money might be better spent elsewhere.

(Disregarding automation for the moment - that is a factor, but it will be a factor regardless of whether we’re paying people 7 bucks an hour or 15 bucks an hour, and “no longer needing people to do menial jobs” is probably a good thing in the long run.)

Do you honestly think that if people collectively refused to work grocery checkouts at less than $15/hour, that we’d just stop having checkouts at groceries? Do you honestly think we’d cease to have McDonalds if people there demanding a $15/hour wage? I seriously doubt it - McDonalds in Denmark pays its workers $20/hour plus benefits. These are jobs that serve as the cornerstone of multibillion dollar global enterprises - they absolutely could pay their workers more, but instead that money gets funneled into profits and quite frankly obscene CEO salaries.

What about all the overpaid tech workers at Amazon (who also suffer sweatshop-like conditions)? One of the biggest complaints about companies like Amazon is that the influx of thousands of highly paid workers into cities like San Francisco or Seattle drive up real estate costs, crowding out regular working and middle-class people? I think that has a far more detrimental effect than paying relatively low wages to workers in some remote distribution center where the cost of living is much lower (plus, most of them are going to be replaced by robots anyway).

What about it? This is also absolutely a problem that needs looking at. Not sure why you frame this as a whataboutism, to be honest.

[Littleman]

@nearwildheaven

Just within the past few days, someone on another board said she had been poor, but she had never lived in poverty.

What was the difference?

Being poor is not having enough resources to meet your needs, but you do have options about what to do with what you have. Poverty is having no choices about what you have, or what you do with it.

I don’t think I’d define the difference as whether you’ve literally been a slave.

Poor is little to nothing beyond basic needs.
Poverty I less than enough to meet even basic needs.

Unless you’re the US government , then poverty is defined as just a little under the minimum wage. So that they, and some of the posters here can say look, look;

People in poverty don’t work.

We make sure here in America that if you work your basic needs are met.

Look how low our numbers of poverty are.

And we can all feel comforted by self confirming numbers that have nothing to do with the reality of what poverty is.

[bump]

@k9bfriender

If you lost your job, and had to go work at a different company that uses a different system, and so uses a new language that you have never heard of, how long would it take you to get up to speed?

Not long, and here’s why.

Learning how to be a programmer is NOT the same thing as learning some basic programming concepts and the syntax of a language. It’s learning how to think in a way that lets you decompose problems and then structure an efficient and quick and/or small solution to those problems. The language is a tool of sorts.

It’s why computer science degrees teach things like analysis of algorithms and data structures, and the math behind database queries. Those things aren’t usually taught in those basic “learn Java in a semester” type courses, but they’re invaluable in learning how to be a programmer in the fullest sense. You learn why and when you want to do certain things (why to use a B-tree versus an AVL tree, for example).

It’s like the difference between being a mechanic vs. a mechanical engineer in a lot of ways.

[Littleman]

@bump

Not long, and here’s why.

Learning how to be a programmer is NOT the same thing as learning some basic programming concepts and the syntax of a language. It’s learning how to think in a way that lets you decompose problems and then structure an efficient and quick and/or small solution to those problems. The language is a tool of sorts.

It’s why computer science degrees teach things like analysis of algorithms and data structures, and the math behind database queries. Those things aren’t usually taught in those basic “learn Java in a semester” type courses, but they’re invaluable in learning how to be a programmer in the fullest sense. You learn why and when you want to do certain things (why to use a B-tree versus an AVL tree, for example).

It’s like the difference between being a mechanic vs. a mechanical engineer in a lot of ways.

Probably more like the difference between a tire and lube tech or parts changer and a master mechanic.

Mechanical engineer would probably be more akin to actually designing a language and working with the actual interaction to Machine code.

[DesertDog]

@k9bfriender

And how long does it take to learn where to thump it? Did it require a 4 year college degree? Does he claim that it would take decades of experience to replicate the feat?

One, it’s a joke and two, had it taken decades of experience, or even a BS, I’m sure the charge would have been a lot more than twenty bucks, even back then.

I’ve thumped quite a number of CRTs, and even some old school picture tube style TV’s in my day. Not that hard. Takes maybe a dozen thumps over a lifetime or a CRT to get a pretty good idea of where and how to thump it to get the picture and colors to realign.

Okay, if you don’t want to buy the joke’s premise, apparently the owner couldn’t be arsed to do all that and called the repairman instead.

Were I the client, I would have asked what to charge to fix it so it didn’t need to be thumped anymore, as that’s not a fix.

“I’m just a repair guy. Next time, don’t buy a Muntz.”

[Omar_Little]

What a hijack…

[Littleman]

I have to add, a lot of that “redistribution” serves corporate bottom lines anyhow. The 33hr work week is a product of that.

Instead of having their employees work full time they work just under full time. The company then forgoes benefits. The worker makes about $200 less per month. So they then qualify for food stamps and other government benefits. They lose 7 hours a week and gain $250 a month by getting food stamps.
So Walmart pays out less in the first place and relies on it’s employees getting government benefits to make up the difference. The employees don’t refuse it because it’s all the same to them, they may even come out ahead if they then qualify for housing as well.
Walmart was in fact caught encouraging this setup. " You’ll work less but think of it as a raise"
Back when I was working lower end hourly jobs it only made sense to make less than $9hr or more than $16. 10-12-14 only cost me.
I would get food stamps and qualify for utilities assistance at less than $9. If I made more it had to be $16 just to break even.

[msmith537]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Do you honestly think that if people collectively refused to work grocery checkouts at less than $15/hour, that we’d just stop having checkouts at groceries? Do you honestly think we’d cease to have McDonalds if people there demanding a $15/hour wage? I seriously doubt it - McDonalds in Denmark pays its workers $20/hour plus benefits. These are jobs that serve as the cornerstone of multibillion dollar global enterprises - they absolutely could pay their workers more, but instead that money gets funneled into profits and quite frankly obscene CEO salaries.

Interestingly, if you divided McDonald’s CEO Steve Easterbrook $22 million compensation equally among McDonald’s 2 million workers, that’s only $11 each.

If you divided up McDonald’s $5 billion net income, that’s only $2,500 or an extra $1.25 an hour for each employee (assuming 2000 hour work year).

Whether Mr. Easterbrook deserves $22 million for running a $22 billion a year business that employs 2 million people is another matter.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

What about it? This is also absolutely a problem that needs looking at. Not sure why you frame this as a whataboutism, to be honest.

It’s not meant to be a whataboutism. Just pointing out an example of what I call the “get rich quick/winner take all” mentality of our economy. What I mean is that there seems to be this concept of highly competitive “magic ticket” schools and companies and even industries. Graduating from those schools or working for those companies affords you professional and financial benefits that far exceed those who don’t.

[k9bfriender]

@bump

Not long, and here’s why.

Learning how to be a programmer is NOT the same thing as learning some basic programming concepts and the syntax of a language. It’s learning how to think in a way that lets you decompose problems and then structure an efficient and quick and/or small solution to those problems. The language is a tool of sorts.

It’s why computer science degrees teach things like analysis of algorithms and data structures, and the math behind database queries. Those things aren’t usually taught in those basic “learn Java in a semester” type courses, but they’re invaluable in learning how to be a programmer in the fullest sense. You learn why and when you want to do certain things (why to use a B-tree versus an AVL tree, for example).

It’s like the difference between being a mechanic vs. a mechanical engineer in a lot of ways.

And that’s my point. In order to get a job as a programmer, you have to get a 4 year degree. If you don’t have a 4 year, no company will even talk to you. I’m not talking about “learn Java in a semester”, I’m talking about reducing the unnecessary course load, and giving support to students, so that they are able to spend more time and intensity on the subjects that actually do matter.

I already addressed algorithm and pseudocode in an earlier post in this thread. Those are the first things you learn in a computer course, besides maybe learning how to code “Hello World”. At Ohio State, they didn’t even teach you a real language, but a corrupted propriety form of C++ called “Resolve” that would never be used by any actual company. They had a version of Pascal as well, but I can’t remember the name of it off hand. But yeah, being able to determine what sort of data structure is most efficient for your implementation is definitely useful, but is not something that requires a 4 year degree. Hell, I had pretty much all that under my belt from my 1.5 years of High School programming classes.

Could everybody do it in a year? Probably not, but many could, and most that take 4 years could very easily do 2. One of the guys in my class just never managed to master the concept of recursion. He really wanted to do loops, and would get angry when he tried to wrap his head around the very concept of it. Maybe he was never cut out to be a programmer.

That doesn’t get you all the experience of being in the job, there are certainly some benefits to that as well, but that is to get your foot in the door. What we are talking about there is not replacing Shodan with a burger flipper with a crash course, what we are talking about is lowering the barriers of entry to enter the industry at all.

A programmer doesn’t make more money than a burger flipper because there are more people that want to be burger flippers than programmers. A programmer doesn’t make more because there are not enough people with the capabilities to learn to be a programmer.

A programmer makes more than a burger flipper because he had access to an artificially limited supply of “education” which was required in order to get a foot in the door. Given universal access to higher education, the programmer starts becoming less valuable than the burger flipper.

For instance, if you are a programmer, or whatever it is that your job is, what would I have to pay you to flip burgers? Would you accept the job for your current pay, or would you demand a raise?

@DesertDog

One, it’s a joke and two, had it taken decades of experience, or even a BS, I’m sure the charge would have been a lot more than twenty bucks, even back then.Okay, if you don’t want to buy the joke’s premise, apparently the owner couldn’t be arsed to do all that and called the repairman instead.“I’m just a repair guy. Next time, don’t buy a Muntz.”

Yeah, it was a joke, but you told it because you felt it was relevant.

@msmith537

Interestingly, if you divided McDonald’s CEO Steve Easterbrook $22 million compensation equally among McDonald’s 2 million workers, that’s only $11 each.

And, Most mcDonalds do somewhere in the 2-3 million a year range of revenue, which means that he also makes as much as the entirety of 10 stores revenue. Once you figure in actual store profit, we are talking he is taking up the profit of at least 200 stores.

And that is just one guy. He may be the highest compensated, but there are a bunch of other 7 and 8 figure salary earners at the top.

If you divided up McDonald’s $5 billion net income, that’s only $2,500 or an extra $1.25 an hour for each employee (assuming 2000 hour work year).

Sounds like they could afford to give each and every employee a $1 an hour raise and still have a profit.

Whether Mr. Easterbrook deserves $22 million for running a $22 billion a year business that employs 2 million people is another matter.

He feels that he is, and he has far more leverage about what goes on his paycheck than your average sandwich grunt.

I can look at a burger flipper, and calculate exactly how much that person is earning me. Bit harder to tell how much profit is added to the company by employing Mr. Easterbrook. Even harder to tell how that profit would be different if he were only making $11 million a year, nor how much it would improve were he to make $44 million.