Yes and the moral is also not to take something out of context.
Here is my post which was a response to Shoveler.
“I believe the point of the article is that McDonalds or any other corporate entity will strive to keep labor costs a constant regardless of the wage scale in one way or another.
It is quite likely that a place like McDonalds could have already automated easily but chose not to because the cost may not make sense. Give them a nudge and they might.
It is all about net profit. McDonalds is an example that looses the wage scale battle. As NSR pointed out in his argument about the place in Colorado, paying those employees more makes sense because it saves the company money in the long run due to retention and employee training costs. Thus the company becomes more profitable by doing so. This is a valid argument and makes alot of sense.
If McDonalds can improve the bottom line by paying a guy 15 bucks to flip a burger then it will.
Employees are not entitled to anything. They don’t like the pay, they can quit and look for another job.”
At the end there is the infamouse entitled statement.
Now TAKEN IN CONTEXT is there any implication that I am saying the employees should not get payed his salary?
