> ...you did it by accounting all worldwide profit as for US franchises that is not a "correction". [sic] The corporation is not debating raising wages worldwi

> ...you did it by accounting all worldwide profit as for US franchises that is not a "correction". [sic] The corporation is not debating raising wages worldwide, only in the US. Their total corporate revenue (including international revenue) can be included in the calculation of whether it is "affordable". But only the workers in the US should be included in the calculation. > Profit is not guaranteed! The focal point of the discussion is that the current distribution of earnings marginalizes the hourly workforce. It does not have to be this way. The napkin math supports the idea that changing the proportions in the distribution could be reasonably accomplished. Furthermore, the napkin math ignores price increases, which would likely be part of any more sophisticated projections. > That's a complete nonsequitor. And moreover it's a frankly stupid accusation of me you're trying to implicitly make. People are not "efficient" in the economic sense. They do not make perfect decisions for themselves, even given perfect information. They will compete with each other irrationally, and even against their own best interests. The efficiency of capitalism exploits those traits. We ought to use reasonable policies and regulations to address that. > The rich may be rich, but divide their riches up somehow perfectly efficiently amongst everybody, and we all get a lot less than our generally-innumerate intuitions are telling us we would. I'm not arguing for carving up the wealth of the rich and redistributing it. But hourly workers should share in the gains wrought by their labor. As it stands, the top 1% takes an amazingly disproportionate share. [1] [1] http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/22/joe-scarborough/scarborough-top-1-took-95-gains-under-obama/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/22/...