It's always interesting to hear this from employees of McDonald's in the US. Here in Australia, it's widely regarded as a great first employer that pays well and provides fantastic experience to young people.
It's a little dramatic for my taste, Occam's Razor probably applies, but there might just be a grain of truth to it... at least in the darwinian sense where incompetent time management just so happens to somehow beat workers into submission better than competent time management happens to retain them. The incompetent managers win out over time and a dominant pattern emerges.
> Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
With the corollary
> but don't rule out malice.
Another is using immigrants or poor people trying to establish themselves as managers in name, but in reality they are there to fill in for the lower paid shift workers who are constantly quitting or unreliable because they are paying the lowest wages.
The “managers” put up with this to earn a steady salary paycheck, but per hour worked, it frequently comes out to less than minimum wage.
Obama admin increasing minimum salaries to $48k from $33k had the small business owners I know frothing at the mouth.
During parts of the worst sections of the labor shortage, I was seeing CFA owners on my Facebook feed saying that they couldn’t hire anyone offering $19-23 / hr so they couldn’t imagine what everybody else must be going through.
edit: Wait the TREASURY prints money, not the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve just... greases the wheels of banks, I guess?
(The other problem is the building materials shortage because you can't inflate yourself out of the shortage of available housing, you need to actually build new construction, but we are getting sidetracked.)
What can outweigh intelligent people not improving life in home country but building career in 1st world?
The Philippines is one that springs to mind.
They have a massive industry over there training up nurses with the explicit intention of sending them overseas. The net result of this is a top class health care system.
Cash remittances make up 10% of their GDP. This is in addition to a culture of overseas workers sending massive gift boxes back home once a year (often containing expensive things like smartphones and laptops for the younger generations' education).
Plus you have the soft power and less tangible benefits (cultural exchange, etc.)
The Government actually actively encourages people to emigrate, in fact, as it's a great way for the country to get ahead culturally and economically. They simply don't have the industry locally to support the high number of skilled and educated workers they produce.
>What can outweigh intelligent people not improving life in home country but building career in 1st world?
This statement carries with it a couple of assumptions:
- People in a corrupt society will work hard to get an education when it doesn't give them an opportunity to make a better life overseas.
- Educated people who remain in their corrupt, third-world countries of birth will have the opportunities to use their skills to improve their home country.
- People in poor, but non-corrupt and growing economies that have the opportunity to stay and improve things will instead leave.
I'm sure you can find multiple examples to shatter every one of those assumptions (Nigeria really sticks out for the second one).
Don't forget that many developing countries have a wide array of policies in place to ensure that they can't make proper use of their human capital.
My father-in-law, for example, is an environmental scientist who simply couldn't find work in his field (public sector) back in South Africa in the early 00s as there were racial quotas and affirmative action policies that didn't work in his favour.
He was offered a job in NZ, after a solid year of being unemployed, and jumped ship immediately. His talent wasn't stolen by the developed world so much as it wasted by his underdeveloped home.
We are saying the same thing.
You're ignoring the WhatsApp factor. Immigrants experience first hand how well Western democracy works and then share that with everybody back home.
It's also quite common, at least in my experience, for people to follow politics back home. Invariably, they advocate quite vocally for more democracy, less corruption and less discrimination.
You see a similar thing with gas stations, where the "nicer" ones (Buckees, Sheetz, Wawa) are corporate owned, whereas BP, Shell, etc are franchised.
Not that there aren't GOOD franchised locations, but it's much more variable.
They take that stuff very seriously.
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-it-costs-to-open-a-chic...
Fedex has come up in conversation over the past year as the worst logistics company, even from people who know nothing about logistics. All they see is that if it is coming via FedEx, then it very well might not come when it says it will.
Why would you want to tarnish your entire brand image like that? Would you not want FedEx Express to be a different name than FedEx Ground so that people still think to go to your more valuable product than just thinking screw it, I am going with UPS or USPS?
They still make us go through a yearly training on how to prevent unionization though...
And I would agree, they aren’t intended to provide a wage to support a family. That doesn’t stop people who are doing just that to work those jobs.
And there are also plenty of adults who don’t need to work who do those jobs. I know a few older guys who work part time at Home Depot making peanuts but they don’t need to the money, they need some routine and interactions.
Still wondering why or who intends this?
Do you have any numbers on that? Your comment sounds like what an out of touch rich person would say, since only rich people can do without money.
> That doesn’t stop people who are doing just that to work those jobs.
And why is that do you think?
That is not the kind of jobs we’re talking about though. People who don’t need to work are not who’s being discussed.
Since we’re using anecdotes instead of data I’ll add some. More than one retiree in my family left the workforce because of Covid because they were afraid of contracting it. I don’t know if they’ll go back to work, but they’re not in the labor pool regardless.
That's exactly the topic of the person I replied to.
And sure, some people works those jobs since they can’t find anything else. Not sure what you’re getting at. Would you prefer those jobs just didn’t exist?
They don't exist in my country and people don't seem sadder for it.
Do the mentally challenged universally care about pride in their work and purpose? Isn’t a pointless job still pitiful?
Some people are excluded from being paid the minimum wage and in some cases are exploited. That’s likely not in many or most cases, but my point is that I doubt the jobs were created with the mentally challenged in mind.
I personally know some. I've seen some profiled in the newspaper. I know of programs that match them with jobs.
> Do the mentally challenged universally care about pride in their work and purpose?
Universally? There are always exceptions. But plenty do, just like with everybody else.
> I doubt the jobs were created with the mentally challenged in mind.
I've seen them, for example, working as ticket takers in movie theaters. Nothing wrong with that, and it's a job that still needs doing.
I call BS.
What are these jobs good for then? How is society benefiting from having people doing this for so little, as opposed to them getting a proper job (that is supposed to support a family)?
If a 16 year old needs a job are you saying the jobs should support a family?
I’m not sure I understand the handwringing. If some guy opens a used computer shop and asks $1,000 for an old 486 chip I don’t worry about “who is going to buy it?”.
The employer of last resort. There's no welfare system in the US.
I don't intend any disrespect, but you're repeating revisionist history.