Restaurants now charging 30 dollars for a regular size pizza in NY.

[Revoltingest]

Good luck with that. I mean, at least (I'm assuming) it's in writing that you have banned it so that's a start.

It worked.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well, it's sort of a moot point. I don't personally see a big push to raise it coming from anyone, since hardly anyone is paid anywhere close to it anyway.

Things are in disarray right now.

I'm just thankful I'm pretty distant from any issues related to working a manual job or near minimum wage. (It's pretty low in my country.) Too many headaches there.

 

[Kathryn]

I can believe that. I know I couldn't get drunk at lunch and go back to work. And if my boss banned drinking altogether, I am enough of a rule follower to do that as well, though I do admit to the very occasional drink at a late lunch.

 

[Debater Slayer]

They will keep inching prices up until they can't sell enough pizzas to make a bigger profit. Keep in mind their goal is not to sell the most pizzas. Their goal is to sell as few pizzas as they can for as much money as they possibly can. Because making pizzas costs money. It's money going out. And all they want is the most money coming in and the least money going out. So selling fewer pizzas is fine so long as the price they get for them is high enough to keep the profit margins up.

A lot of stupid Americans think that they live in some magical "free market" economy where the sellers lower their price to compete to sell the most product. But no seller in his right mind cares about selling the most product. What they care about is selling the least product for the highest price possible. Because that means the least money going out, and the most money coming in.

They don't want the buyers to see this, however. Because they might get angry and stop buying their products all together (if they are able). So they use world events as an excuse to keep inching those prices up, and up and up. They blame labor costs, and supply costs, and governmental costs, and whatever else they can. But the truth is that they are always seeking to inch those prices up until they find the point where the higher prices begin to cost them money even with the lower production costs. Because that's their maximum profit point. That's where they can get the most for giving the least.

Global events (mainly the pandemic and the Ukraine war) have indeed caused production issues in many industries, though. How are you sure this is a case of greed rather than proportional price increases? Is there evidence that they're disproportionate relative to the surrounding circumstances?

 

[PureX]

Global events (mainly the pandemic and the Ukraine war) have indeed caused production issues in many industries, though. How are you sure this is a case of greed rather than proportional price increases? Is there evidence that they're disproportionate relative to the surrounding circumstances?

Sometimes their excuses are legitimate. Sometimes they aren't. You're missing the point. The prices will keep going up until we can't or won't pay them, anymore. THAT'S the goal, here. And because so many markets are captive markets, meaning the buyers have to buy from someone to survive, the only limiting factor becomes the buyers simply having no more money to buy, with.

That's why we're seeing so much homelessness and abject poverty, these days. The quest for maximum profits on everything that's being sold is driving those at the bottom of the income scale out of the system. We are destroying ourselves with all this systematized greed.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

They are of course, still blaming supply chain issues. Convenient. I don't believe that.

So then what do you think it is.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

There are 2 kinds of workers:
I’ll work better if I get a raise.
I’ll work better so I’ll get a raise.

There are two kinds of employer:
Those that give you a $0.50/hr raise after one year of working your fingers to the bone
Those that don't give you a raise because it's "just not in the budget" yet still expect you to do your job and the job of three others and parts of their job on occasion because they're just not feeling well.

 

[Debater Slayer]

There are two kinds of employer:
Those that give you a $0.50/hr raise after one year of working your fingers to the bone
Those that don't give you a raise because it's "just not in the budget" yet still expect you to do your job and the job of three others and parts of their job on occasion because they're just not feeling well.

I genuinely think the contrast in views in this thread is almost entirely a generational thing. Our generation (Millennials and Gen Z'ers) and previous generations simply have different mentalities on the corporate world and the employer-employee relationship.

Not a single one of my peers who has talked to me about this subject would care about being "loyal" to a company that mistreated or underpaid them. We're not inanimate assets; an employee is a human with a complete life and background. Reducing them to their work hours just doesn't cut it anymore, and it's apparent that companies are starting to feel this shift in mentalities considering how many worker shortages there have been and how many people now prefer remote work even if it might pay less.

 

[Revoltingest]

That’s quite the victim mentality.
It splains much.
Employees should consider that perhaps their languishing in bad jobs at low pay isn’t the employer’s fault. If they neither strive to advance nor seek greener pastures, they’re where they belong.
No one should wait for others to hand them success.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That’s quite the victim mentality.
It splains much.

Specifying where you see the "victim mentality" would be useful. I'm also pretty sure you're aware of the generational differences when it comes to approaching this subject, so it's not like I'm telling you anything new here.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I genuinely think the contrast in views in this thread is squarely a generational thing.

I'd say it plays a very large part, but I feel there's also a factor of employer greed and only thinking about their bottom line. I've worked a lot of jobs, I've seen a lot of different types of employees. Are some of them lazy? Yeah, of course. But these employers who sit on their high thrones all seem to be the same, and some of them have been younger than me. I think it's a power issue, plain and simple, and unless they're profiting, everyone else is lazy.

That’s quite the victim mentality.
It splains much.

And this "woe is me the employer, all these darn kids are too lazy!" mentality isn't?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Employees should consider that perhaps their languishing in bad jobs at low pay isn’t the employer’s fault. If they neither strive to advance nor seek greener pastures, they’re where they belu.

I have a degree in a high-demand field and am considering a master's. Where's the languishing?

 

[Revoltingest]

Specifying where you see the "victim mentality" would be useful. I'm also pretty sure you're aware of the generational differences when it comes to approaching this subject, so it's not like I'm telling you anything new here.

One who blames others for consequences in their own control.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

One who blames others for consequences in their own control.

Ah, so the employers who choose to overwork their employees without fair compensation. Got it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

One who blames others for consequences in their own control.

That depends on the context. Pointing out when a company is responsible for its fair share of problems is necessary.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a degree in a high-demand field and am considering a master's. Where's the languishing?

Loaded question, eh…..are you really one of those in a bad job with poor pay, and not working to advance?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Loaded question, eh…..are you really one of those in a bad job with poor pay, and not working to advance?

I'm not, hence my question. Do you think I must be in such a situation to agree that many companies could improve working conditions or pay?

 

[Revoltingest]

That depends on the context. Pointing out when a company is responsible for its fair share of problems is necessary.

That’s vague.
Are you claiming the employer is the problem?
If ever you become one, it’ll be an eye opener.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

@Revoltingest what, to you, is a metric for advancement?

 

[Debater Slayer]

That’s vague.
Are you claiming the employer is the problem?
If ever you become one, it’ll be an eye opener.

Sometimes the employer is the problem. Sometimes the employee is.

That's why overgeneralizing about either is unproductive and lacks nuance.