New York Times: $15 an Hour is Meant to Drive Fast Food Out of Business

[Andylusion]

The MW played a role. By increasing the cost of human labor, it hastened the advance of automation.

Bull Shit! Thirty years ago people said when planes could fly themselves we'd not need pilots. Guess what, planes can take-off, turn at intersections, find the airport and land by themselves and we still have Pilots.

The truth is we have hit a road block in terms of automation. Until someone can teach a machine to think, we'll be forever stuck.

Wow..... You are absolutely brain dead bonkers.

Why do you think McDonald's spent MILLIONs building that 100% automated store? Let me guess... because they believed labor would remain cheap? Of course it was because they intended to be read when the minimum wage went up.

Why do you think that out of all the fast-food chains in the country, the CEO of McDs was ok with the minimum wage going up? Because they are ready for it.

While other smaller chains are run out of business, McDonalds has the cash to replace workers with automation. They can afford it.

So while other stores are going out of business, McDonalds will make BILLIONS. YOU are going to make the CEO of McDonalds RICH, while the poor end up unemployed.

You people on the left, are the ones who make the rich richer and poor poorer.

 

[Andylusion]

More Americans being poor and unemployed is gonna effect them bigtime.

They actually enjoy other people's poverty. It feeds their superiority complexes.

Their taxes will have to be raised often and significantly, to pay for all those needing Government assistance just to survive.

That will never happen. What will inevitably happen is the same thing that always happens once the divide between the wealthy and the poor becomes too large - the poor will take personal responsibility for their own survival by picking up pitch forks and hanging the wealthy by their necks from trees. Then a "revolution" will ensue and EVERYONE will be left worse off (but the wealthy will lose the most!)

Never met a rich person yet, who enjoyed other people's poverty. In fact, most of the charities in the world, are funded by rich people. If they enjoyed other peoples poverty, why are they the biggest donators to charities? Idiot.

 

[danielpalos]

Why wouldn't a minimum wage as that form of "tax" not be passed on to the consumer?

 

[hadit]

Why wouldn't a minimum wage as that form of "tax" not be passed on to the consumer?

Every cost increase is passed on to the consumer, if it cannot be met with an expense reduction elsewhere.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The MW played a role. By increasing the cost of human labor, it hastened the advance of automation.

Bull Shit! Thirty years ago people said when planes could fly themselves we'd not need pilots. Guess what, planes can take-off, turn at intersections, find the airport and land by themselves and we still have Pilots.

The truth is we have hit a road block in terms of automation. Until someone can teach a machine to think, we'll be forever stuck.

The pilots could jump out of the planes and the planes would land safely. I think the only reason there are still pilots is not because they have to be but because people want them to be.

The plane can land itself safely MOST of the time. We still need pilots because things still break down and unexpected things still happen. Airplane automation is not yet capable of handling everything that can happen during a flight.

I recall that auto-landing for airliners requires a compatible-and functioning-system at the airport.

 

[Freewill]

The MW played a role. By increasing the cost of human labor, it hastened the advance of automation.

Bull Shit! Thirty years ago people said when planes could fly themselves we'd not need pilots. Guess what, planes can take-off, turn at intersections, find the airport and land by themselves and we still have Pilots.

The truth is we have hit a road block in terms of automation. Until someone can teach a machine to think, we'll be forever stuck.

The pilots could jump out of the planes and the planes would land safely. I think the only reason there are still pilots is not because they have to be but because people want them to be.

The plane can land itself safely MOST of the time. We still need pilots because things still break down and unexpected things still happen. Airplane automation is not yet capable of handling everything that can happen during a flight.

I recall that auto-landing for airliners requires a compatible-and functioning-system at the airport.

Of course the computers do, as do pilots.

 

[Freewill]

The MW played a role. By increasing the cost of human labor, it hastened the advance of automation.

Bull Shit! Thirty years ago people said when planes could fly themselves we'd not need pilots. Guess what, planes can take-off, turn at intersections, find the airport and land by themselves and we still have Pilots.

The truth is we have hit a road block in terms of automation. Until someone can teach a machine to think, we'll be forever stuck.

The pilots could jump out of the planes and the planes would land safely. I think the only reason there are still pilots is not because they have to be but because people want them to be.

The plane can land itself safely MOST of the time. We still need pilots because things still break down and unexpected things still happen. Airplane automation is not yet capable of handling everything that can happen during a flight.

Your logical come back is the Miracle on the Hudson. But that is rare feat that not very many pilots would be skilled enough or lucky enough to pull off. I would be pretty confident that a computer might have a hard time of it. That said, I will be there are more pilot caused crashes then there would be computer caused crashes. Absolutely no risk of rushing the cockpit or a pissed off pilot flying the plane into the ground. The only way a pilot can be ready for every contingency is through experience and that doesn't happen oftern. And if it can be simulated then the response is already programmed. Don't get me wrong i don't want computers replacing people it is just the wave of the future.

 

[Andylusion]

The MW played a role. By increasing the cost of human labor, it hastened the advance of automation.

Bull Shit! Thirty years ago people said when planes could fly themselves we'd not need pilots. Guess what, planes can take-off, turn at intersections, find the airport and land by themselves and we still have Pilots.

The truth is we have hit a road block in terms of automation. Until someone can teach a machine to think, we'll be forever stuck.

The pilots could jump out of the planes and the planes would land safely. I think the only reason there are still pilots is not because they have to be but because people want them to be.

The plane can land itself safely MOST of the time. We still need pilots because things still break down and unexpected things still happen. Airplane automation is not yet capable of handling everything that can happen during a flight.

I recall that auto-landing for airliners requires a compatible-and functioning-system at the airport.

Of course the computers do, as do pilots.

This is red herring anyway.

The primary reason automation is happening in air planes, is because the cost of a crash is so enormous. It's not to replace the pilot. That isn't the goal.

In low-wage unskilled labor, automation is replacing people, because the cost of the labor, is greater than the value of the labor done. Thus companies have to either replace people with kiosks, or go out of business. Obviously, kiosks is the way to go.

 

[OnePercenter]

The MW played a role. By increasing the cost of human labor, it hastened the advance of automation.

Bull Shit! Thirty years ago people said when planes could fly themselves we'd not need pilots. Guess what, planes can take-off, turn at intersections, find the airport and land by themselves and we still have Pilots.

Of course, and pilots won't be eliminated in the foreseeable future because there are just too many things that can go wrong in the air. Notice, however, the advent of driverless cars. It won't be terribly long before cab and bus driver will be more jobs eliminated by automation.

The truth is we have hit a road block in terms of automation. Until someone can teach a machine to think, we'll be forever stuck.

You will always need a human to take control if a machine fails in life critical situations, but a single human controlling a machine can replace many humans doing the work the machine does.

There will not be driver-less vehicles driving on the nations roadway anytime in the next 100 years. Period.

You mean WHEN a machine fails. ALL machines WILL fail.

AGAIN! Machines help workers do their job. Machines are better in hazardous environments. Machines are better in some repetitive work. Machines are better in most point critical applications.

 

[OnePercenter]

The MW played a role. By increasing the cost of human labor, it hastened the advance of automation.

Bull Shit! Thirty years ago people said when planes could fly themselves we'd not need pilots. Guess what, planes can take-off, turn at intersections, find the airport and land by themselves and we still have Pilots.

The truth is we have hit a road block in terms of automation. Until someone can teach a machine to think, we'll be forever stuck.

The pilots could jump out of the planes and the planes would land safely. I think the only reason there are still pilots is not because they have to be but because people want them to be.

NO, it's because machines fail.

 

[bripat9643]

The MW played a role. By increasing the cost of human labor, it hastened the advance of automation.

Bull Shit! Thirty years ago people said when planes could fly themselves we'd not need pilots. Guess what, planes can take-off, turn at intersections, find the airport and land by themselves and we still have Pilots.

Of course, and pilots won't be eliminated in the foreseeable future because there are just too many things that can go wrong in the air. Notice, however, the advent of driverless cars. It won't be terribly long before cab and bus driver will be more jobs eliminated by automation.

The truth is we have hit a road block in terms of automation. Until someone can teach a machine to think, we'll be forever stuck.

You will always need a human to take control if a machine fails in life critical situations, but a single human controlling a machine can replace many humans doing the work the machine does.

There will not be driver-less vehicles driving on the nations roadway anytime in the next 100 years. Period.

You mean WHEN a machine fails. ALL machines WILL fail.

AGAIN! Machines help workers do their job. Machines are better in hazardous environments. Machines are better in some repetitive work. Machines are better in most point critical applications.

I just read a book that says they will be on the highways within a decade. Google already has driverless cars that have logged over 100,000 accident free miles. A driverless truck can be on the road 24 hours a day, and they can drive all night when congestion is nonexistent. There are just too many advantages for trucking firms to ignore it.

In 40 years they will have computers that are 100 times smarter than any human, so why would anyone believe they aren't capable of driving a truck better than a human?

 

[OnePercenter]

The plane can land itself safely MOST of the time. We still need pilots because things still break down and unexpected things still happen. Airplane automation is not yet capable of handling everything that can happen during a flight.

I'm a part owner of a Global 6000, I can tell you with certainty that EVERY flight situation has been covered in modern aircraft except one.......computer failure, which they will.

 

[OnePercenter]

The MW played a role. By increasing the cost of human labor, it hastened the advance of automation.

Bull Shit! Thirty years ago people said when planes could fly themselves we'd not need pilots. Guess what, planes can take-off, turn at intersections, find the airport and land by themselves and we still have Pilots.

The truth is we have hit a road block in terms of automation. Until someone can teach a machine to think, we'll be forever stuck.

Wow..... You are absolutely brain dead bonkers.

Why do you think McDonald's spent MILLIONs building that 100% automated store? Let me guess... because they believed labor would remain cheap? Of course it was because they intended to be read when the minimum wage went up.

Why do you think that out of all the fast-food chains in the country, the CEO of McDs was ok with the minimum wage going up? Because they are ready for it.

While other smaller chains are run out of business, McDonalds has the cash to replace workers with automation. They can afford it.

So while other stores are going out of business, McDonalds will make BILLIONS. YOU are going to make the CEO of McDonalds RICH, while the poor end up unemployed.

You people on the left, are the ones who make the rich richer and poor poorer.

If McDonalds has all of these machines that will replace humans, where are they?

 

[bripat9643]

The plane can land itself safely MOST of the time. We still need pilots because things still break down and unexpected things still happen. Airplane automation is not yet capable of handling everything that can happen during a flight.

I'm a part owner of a Global 6000, I can tell you with certainty that EVERY flight situation has been covered in modern aircraft except one.......computer failure, which they will.

The other one they haven't covered is pilot error. All the accidents that have occurred in the last decade are due to pilot error

 

[OnePercenter]

More Americans being poor and unemployed is gonna effect them bigtime.

They actually enjoy other people's poverty. It feeds their superiority complexes.

Their taxes will have to be raised often and significantly, to pay for all those needing Government assistance just to survive.

That will never happen. What will inevitably happen is the same thing that always happens once the divide between the wealthy and the poor becomes too large - the poor will take personal responsibility for their own survival by picking up pitch forks and hanging the wealthy by their necks from trees. Then a "revolution" will ensue and EVERYONE will be left worse off (but the wealthy will lose the most!)

Never met a rich person yet, who enjoyed other people's poverty. In fact, most of the charities in the world, are funded by rich people. If they enjoyed other peoples poverty, why are they the biggest donators to charities? Idiot.

Leona Helmsley comes to mind. From attending events in that crowd, I can tell you there are many Leona's in this world.

The wealthy donate to charities for one reason.....tax avoidance.

Same thing with not leaving your fortune to your kids. Donating your entire fortune to a charity and placing your kids as board members/directors eliminates inheritance taxes and gives them a (sometimes non-taxable) paycheck.

 

[OnePercenter]

Why wouldn't a minimum wage as that form of "tax" not be passed on to the consumer?

Every cost increase is passed on to the consumer, if it cannot be met with an expense reduction elsewhere.

With additional profit attached.

 

[OnePercenter]

I recall that auto-landing for airliners requires a compatible-and functioning-system at the airport.

Any airport capable of IFR landings already has a system.

 

[Andylusion]

The MW played a role. By increasing the cost of human labor, it hastened the advance of automation.

Bull Shit! Thirty years ago people said when planes could fly themselves we'd not need pilots. Guess what, planes can take-off, turn at intersections, find the airport and land by themselves and we still have Pilots.

Of course, and pilots won't be eliminated in the foreseeable future because there are just too many things that can go wrong in the air. Notice, however, the advent of driverless cars. It won't be terribly long before cab and bus driver will be more jobs eliminated by automation.

The truth is we have hit a road block in terms of automation. Until someone can teach a machine to think, we'll be forever stuck.

You will always need a human to take control if a machine fails in life critical situations, but a single human controlling a machine can replace many humans doing the work the machine does.

There will not be driver-less vehicles driving on the nations roadway anytime in the next 100 years. Period.

You mean WHEN a machine fails. ALL machines WILL fail.

AGAIN! Machines help workers do their job. Machines are better in hazardous environments. Machines are better in some repetitive work. Machines are better in most point critical applications.

Um.... there are already driver-less cars on the roadways right now as we speak.

Given that, how do you claim there will not be in the future?

 

[Clementine]

Wow..... You are absolutely brain dead bonkers.

Why do you think McDonald's spent MILLIONs building that 100% automated store? Let me guess... because they believed labor would remain cheap? Of course it was because they intended to be read when the minimum wage went up.

Why do you think that out of all the fast-food chains in the country, the CEO of McDs was ok with the minimum wage going up? Because they are ready for it.

While other smaller chains are run out of business, McDonalds has the cash to replace workers with automation. They can afford it.

So while other stores are going out of business, McDonalds will make BILLIONS. YOU are going to make the CEO of McDonalds RICH, while the poor end up unemployed.

You people on the left, are the ones who make the rich richer and poor poorer.

It's a huge boost to the wealthiest people. As always, it's the middle class small businesses that take the hit. The left will pat themselves on the back and pretend that they helped lift people out of poverty. They will ignore the jobs lost and businesses that closed.

Meanwhile, the unions that supported a raise in minimum wage now want to be exempt. They don't want union companies to be forced to comply with the new law because they want job security, which means keeping the businesses in business. Hypocrites.

 

[OnePercenter]

Your logical come back is the Miracle on the Hudson. But that is rare feat that not very many pilots would be skilled enough or lucky enough to pull off. I would be pretty confident that a computer might have a hard time of it. That said, I will be there are more pilot caused crashes then there would be computer caused crashes. Absolutely no risk of rushing the cockpit or a pissed off pilot flying the plane into the ground. The only way a pilot can be ready for every contingency is through experience and that doesn't happen oftern. And if it can be simulated then the response is already programmed. Don't get me wrong i don't want computers replacing people it is just the wave of the future.

Computers replacing people IS NOT the wave of the future. IF, and a BIG, IF, somebody can teach a computer to think, it MAY be possible.