• Maalus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    The line isn’t blurry, it’s disingenuous. Those companies hire thousands of people. They serve millions of people. Otherwise advocating against billionaires using this argument means you automatically argue against any modern solution to a problem. No stores, no supply chain, no agricultute, no medicine. Hell, you can’t even go for earlier periods - Genghis Khan was a billionaire and deserves flak for the gazillion horses his army used which contributed to climate change.

    • godlessworm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      you’re just typing a paragraph to employ the “job creators” myth as an argument lol

      so being a middle man who does nothing but extract and capitalize on needs that people have makes you a job creator? pretty sure mcdonalds didn’t create hungry people and people would have needed to buy a burger regardless of whether or not mcdonald’s was a multibillion dollar corporation.

      i will admit, mcdonalds does create some hungry people tho-- their own workers, who they underpay by massive amounts.

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        What’s your point? There is no difference in 50 McDonalds locations and 50 independent burger joints when it comes to carbon footprint. If there is a difference, then it is in McDonalds favour - economy of scale, established logistics etc. Probably three different places need to pop up to offset one McDonalds beimg magically removed, each with its own AC, freezers, grills.

        • theneverfox
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Of course it’s different, and economies of scale are generally more efficient. 50 Independent Burger joints would likely be healthier and higher quality, they would do more to keep money flowing around the community rather than funneled away to corporate, and their ice cream machines wouldn’t break

          But you wouldn’t have 50 - you’d have more like a dozen. Most local restaurants find the best place they can, because they want the store to succeed

          Franchises want coverage - they want as many locations as possible. They want a new McDonalds next to the Wendy’s, even if there’s three other fast food restaurants all within sight already. They’ll dictate every detail of it, because they win even if the store barely breaks even

          Such as the famous McDonald’s always broken ice cream machines. Billionaire shareholders in both companies mandate these machines, which must be repaired frequently by licensed technicians. They even shut down a couple that built a $40 device that was able to fix the glitch that causes the problem

          And that’s how it works from top to bottom. At every stage, the billionaires must get their hidden taxes. Like the ice cream machines, it generally costs more in every way to society - we would not be using decades old ice cream machines known for breaking down all the time, we wouldn’t oversaturate towns with competing fast food franchises, we probably wouldn’t be subsiding the food itself