Good News in the fight for 15.

[Fair&Balanced]

No, thats not even close to the reason why...

In fact it is the reason. That it isn't what the hate sites told you is irrelevant.

how can any rational human believe that suppressing the middle class is the motive behind raising the minimum wage??

By having a basic grasp of economic principles.

I bet you also make the argument that Obama hates blacks and the poor. You are in imbecile who can't tell the different behind motive and presumptive effects. There is a disagreement on effects, why do you bring motive and intent into the discussion.

No, but I can make the argument that you never made it past high school for your education.

You sure don't seem to have a grasp on the topic of inflation. Do you understand that the year YOU used (1977) had a real dollar minimum wage of $9.82 an hour?

 

[Faun]

Wow man, you are out of touch... Not sure if it's worth my time trying to counter argue with absurdity. You go on believing the entire goal of the left is to destroy the middle class cause we all just can't wait to be controlled by the big bad government... haha, that hamster spinning the wheel in your head must have a cramp.

How much is a dollar worth? In 1977, minimum wage was $2.50 an hour. Why are those making $7.25 not living in luxury? If simply increasing the dollars works, why do people not drive BMW's?

Perhaps it has something to do with what a dollar is worth, and the idea that value is not created by fiat currency?

Leftism is predicated on abject ignorance of economic principle.

And a McDonald's burger cost about a quarter. Today, it's about a dollar. Using your figures, that $7.25 federal minimum wage should really be at about $10.00.

Great point you made there about the federal minimum wage being too low -- even if it was unintentional.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In terms of real dollars (that means adjusted for inflation) the minimum wage in 1977 was $9.62 an hour.

Thanks for playing.

What do you mean "real dollars?"

Are you claiming that they used counterfeit script?

Or was it something different? IF we adjust the dollar, then we acknowledge that a dollar has no intrinsic value.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My party? LOL I'm more conservative than you are idiot.

Well of course you are sparky,

And as such I understand that a higher minimum wage = less welfare to working poor.

You have no grasp of even basic economics. Reciting platitudes from ThinkProgress or DailyKOS is not demonstration of a grasp of economics facts.

1. Have we ever increased minimum wage before?
2. Did that increase result in less welfare?
3. Did that (those) increase result in more employment of lower skilled workers?

You know many things, but what you know is simply not so.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You sure don't seem to have a grasp on the topic of inflation. Do you understand that the year YOU used (1977) had a real dollar minimum wage of $9.82 an hour?

I understand inflation just fine.

You don't grasp the concept of value. "real dollar" is a bullshit term you made up. The fact that dollars must be adjusted to inflation to provide an accurate representation of purchasing power should clue you in to the nature of fiat currency and the relation it has to value, but it doesn't because you lack the foundational knowledge of economics.

An apple is an apple. If an apple costs $1, it is an apple. If an apple costs $5 it is still an apple. Altering the number of dollars paid for an apple does not alter the value of the apple. $5 simply diminishes in purchasing power to what $1 was.

An hour of unskilled labor does not increase in value to an economy because leftists and bureaucrats dictate that more dollars be spent to purchase it. It adds no more value, no more goods and services are produced. Nothing save devaluing the purchasing power of the dollars used will happen. Nothing else can happen, because dollars are not value, they are simply MARKERS of value. Economies seek equilibrium, and will eventually return to the point that the number of dollars paid are a true representation of the value produced. Moronic acts such as arbitrary increases in minimum wage create disequilibrium for a time, but the market seeks to smooth the flow of currency to the value pegged to it.

You of the left believe that you can bully reality, but you can't. You can force $15 to be paid for $7.25 of value, which you are doing. But the market will simply adjust so that $15 has the same purchasing power as $7.25.

Markets will seek equilibrium.

 

[depotoo]

And they bear no responsibility for that?
And by the way, who supported you through your many years of starting 6 companies and you didn't pay yourself? Why so many companies?

Too true , too true.

But , there is a balancing point, a minimum wage that both pays a fair wage for what are mostly menial jobs and doesn't upset the equilibrium of the economy.

Since the minimum wage is currently 78% of what is was through the 60s and 70s we KNOW that we can raise it at least 22% without upsetting the equilibrium. In point of fact, the current minimum wage is worth 64% of what it was worth in 1968, meaning a 36% increase is feasible. So let's just say $10 an hour and then tie it directly to inflation and be done with it. You would NEVER have to listen to this argument again.

Why are people so binary thinking? "$15 an hour is too much, so we won't support ANY raise" ******* morons.

The number of workers at minimum is at historic lows, which indicates that market mechanisms already address the pay question. (Plenty of graphs have been posted in this thread showing this.) Minimum wage is not meant to be a "living wage" to raise a family on. It is the wage paid to the lowest skilled workers in the pool.

Charts have also been posted showing how many people are being paid the minimum wage and many are trying to support themselves or their families on it. So the tax payers pick up the slack. Many states have been responsible and upped their minimum to a more realistic standard. I still think this should be the case, but there shouldn't be this much resistance for the Feds to set a national standard at $10-$12 and letting the states take it from there.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And a McDonald's burger cost about a quarter. Today, it's about a dollar. Using your figures, that $7.25 federal minimum wage should really be at about $10.00.

Great point you made there about the federal minimum wage being too low -- even if it was unintentional.

The purchasing power of that quarter in 1960 is roughly the same as the purchasing power of $1.59 today. The value of the burger did not change.

Increasing the dollars used to purchase the same value can only devalue the currency, it cannot increase the value of goods and services.

To be a leftist is to lack a fundamental grasp of economic reality.

 

[Faun]

And a McDonald's burger cost about a quarter. Today, it's about a dollar. Using your figures, that $7.25 federal minimum wage should really be at about $10.00.

Great point you made there about the federal minimum wage being too low -- even if it was unintentional.

The purchasing power of that quarter in 1960 is roughly the same as the purchasing power of $1.59 today. The value of the burger did not change.

Increasing the dollars used to purchase the same value can only devalue the currency, it cannot increase the value of goods and services.

Slobbers the moron who doesn't understand that with prices roughly 4 times higher today than they were some 40 years ago, folks earning $7.25 today have less purchasing power than they did then when they earned only about 1/3rd of what they earn today.

To be a leftist is to lack a fundamental grasp of economic reality.

If that's true, then there's no bigger leftist here than you.

 

[FA_Q2]

Heaven forbid if the owners and execs of Wendy's have to lose a point out of their profit share.

Again, you live in a fantasy where Scrooge McDuck swims in a pool of gold coins.

You have no grasp of reality.

rices wouldn't go to $12 a burger because they need to remain competitive im their market.

So they will happily lose money. Figuring that losing a couple of bucks per order will even out, they can make it up with volume, right?

Fast food companies like in and out have shown that they can run a successful business model while taking good care of their employees.

Interesting note that even In&Out was stung by the California hike. Though already starting at a relative high way, $9.60, the jump to $10.50 (and eventually to $15) punishes the Seasoned workers the most. Those who have worked hard for raises are now at minimum. Perhaps the biggest problem is that In&Out workers now make no more than those at Taco Bell or McDonalds. The incentive to work in the high productivity, high stress environment of In&Out has been destroyed.

We are the USA,

But you're working hard to turn it into the USSR.

we hold our country and businesses to higher standards which means we don't allow child labor, sweatshops or companies to pay their employees wages that keeps them under poverty level.

I'd think getting more people on a livable wage and off of welfare would be of interest to you.

The problem is that you are abjectly ignorant. You have no grasp at all of the concepts at play. You don't know what marginal contribution is, no doubt you think EBIT is a cockney wrestler....

Well thank you for calling me ignorant and defining for me what I know and don't know in the most arrogant of ways. Reread you post to me and see how much of a dipshit you are please.
I've started 6 companies in my lifetime and am very familiar with company operations at all levels. Don't lecture me with your half cocked theories and don't dictate to me what I know and don't know. I've stated before that I think $15 is too high for a nationwide mandate and think each state should be left to set the minimum that is appropriate for their SOL. $7.25 is a joke and I would support a $10-$12 an hour minimum wage as a national base and let the states that want $15 take it from there.

Your regurgitated talking points are full of flaws. You act like you are trying to protect the workers but what you are really doing is sticking up for the richies at the top.
With smart budgeting and tweaking their business plan they can easily increase the wages they pay their workers. Competition forces companies to do this all the time. This is not much different.

So mr. Know it all I have started six businesses, tell us how a small business with maybe a few employees and a small profit margin is going to meet the expectations of a fifteen dollar an hour wage? Should the owner work for nothing?

Small business is a tough situation. I'd say if wages are below minimum standards, which they mostly are in the start up phase, then workers would receive a profit share, equity, or bonus plan. I never claimed to know it all, but I get tired of dumbshits in this forum calling me ignorant while they spout off mindless talking points. I listen to everybody's ideas objectively.

And yes, as a biz owner I've worked many years for no pay

If you have worked as a business owner for "many years" for no pay you are a seriously one of the stupidest people ever to be born.

You clearly do not understand what it takes to run a small business.

This is the chief problem - that is what it takes to build a real and true asset. Sometimes you have to work for next to nothing for a long time to build it. Then, AFTER it is an asset, people demand that they deserve a piece of it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Slobbers the moron who doesn't understand that with prices roughly 4 times higher today than they were some 40 years ago, folks earning $7.25 today have less purchasing power than they did then when they earned only about 1/3rd of what they earn today.

Is your claim that a person earning minimum wage today has 1/3rd the purchasing power that they did in 1976?

If that's true, then there's no bigger leftist here than you.

I realize that what substitutes as thought for you comes from the leftist hate sites, but let's play a little game.

In 1976 the minimum wage was $2.30 an hour.

How many hours did a person making minimum wage have to work to buy the lowest priced new car in 1976? What about today? How about a car with air conditioning, power windows, AM/FM, power steering, etc?

How many hours did a person making minimum wage have to work to buy 19" color TV in 1976? What about today?

How many hours did a person making minimum wage have to work to buy a stereo system in 1976? What about today?

How many hours did a person making minimum wage have to work to buy a 1,000 sq ft. house in Los Angeles in 1976? What about today?

How many hours did a person making minimum wage have to work to fly from San Francisco to New York in 1976? What about today?

How many hours did a person making minimum wage have to work to make a telephone call for 30 minutes from Los Angeles to New York in 1976? What about today?

 

[FA_Q2]

This may backfire on Wendys. Many Americans aren't gonna appreciate it eliminating American jobs. Many will stop eating there. And also, never estimate how fat, greedy, and lazy most Americans are. They feel entitled, they want the service.

Now they'll be doing the work themselves. Moving towards self-serve service is gonna be a bitter pill to swallow for most fat lazy Americans. So calm down greedy white Republican dude, don't go celebrating this too much just yet.

Who's celebrating it?

The point here to the chagrin of the minimum wage pushers is that there is a price to pay when you attack industry. Everybody on the left thinks that when you increase costs to a manufacturer or service outlet, they simply dig deeper in their pockets.

There is no truth to that because automation has been happening in manufacturing for decades, it's just that few knew about it.

As for fat lazy Americans, those fat lazy Americans will do anything for a cheaper price. I remember when this started with self-serve gasoline pumps. The idea was for the garages to keep their mechanics working on cars instead of pumping gas for customers. They all started off with perhaps one pump. As that pump became increasingly popular, they added another self-serve pump, then another one.

It didn't take long before all gas stations were self-serve. Now they are doing the same in grocery stores and places like Sam's Club.

Same thing will happen to trucking industry you know. Auto drive trucks and all.

This is going to be a far bigger impact than fast food. Transportation is the largest employment sector in the nation and auto vehicles will all but eliminate one of the massive expenditures there - liability.

The major problem with automated trucks/cars are the painted lines on the highways.
The entire 'automated' vehicles industry has come to a grinding halt. Seems the cameras in the vehicles can't 100% pick up the painted lines. This because millions of miles of roads have painted lines barely visible even to human operators. In europe there have been hundreds of cases were the driverless vehicle suddenly stops in the middle of the road because the computer can't figure out where the line is or isn't.
The automated vehicle driving itself down a road full of potholes that remove the painted lines can't go very far.
Causing some very serious accidents.
First all the lines need repainting. If even one line is missed causing an accident someone is going to get their ass sued off.
So fix all the potholes and repaint all the lines then these vehicles will become viable. The next US President will need to come up with a few trillion bucks to repair the highway system. Don't anyone hold their breath.

Bullshit. Google has been running their automated cars on ALL types of roads for YEARS and covered OVER a MILLION miles. Roads of all types and terrain. They have managed it all and through the entire process have encountered ONE accident that was not the other drivers fault. Far better metrics than any human driver could ever achieve and one that is fixed with a simple software update.

 

[FA_Q2]

Do you really think 7.25 is a fair wage?

For what? Quantum research? No. Flipping burgers? Yes.

What leftists cannot grasp is that currency has no intrinsic value. Pay burger flipper a million dollars an hour and in short order a million dollars will have the purchasing power of $7.25. This is because the value of the work the that the burger flipper does did not increase based on arbitrary mandates of government.

As always, the middle who has wealth in currency will see their wealth eroded while the elite who have wealth in real property will be unaffected.

The goal of the left is to crush the life out of the middle class. Mass increases in minimum wage are one of the most effective ways of stripping real wealth away from the middle. Make the purchasing power of the middle sharply decline through arbitrary increases in the wages of unskilled labor.

The wages of the unskilled with double, while the wages of the middle will remain static. Prices will rise to create equilibrium and the purchasing power of the middle will once again decline.

\

Too true , too true.

But , there is a balancing point, a minimum wage that both pays a fair wage for what are mostly menial jobs and doesn't upset the equilibrium of the economy.

Since the minimum wage is currently 78% of what is was through the 60s and 70s we KNOW that we can raise it at least 22% without upsetting the equilibrium. In point of fact, the current minimum wage is worth 64% of what it was worth in 1968, meaning a 36% increase is feasible. So let's just say $10 an hour and then tie it directly to inflation and be done with it. You would NEVER have to listen to this argument again.

Why are people so binary thinking? "$15 an hour is too much, so we won't support ANY raise" ******* morons.

The current minimum wage may be worth 60% of what it was 40 years ago but there is also the reality that the work that pays minimum wage is ALSO worth less because the rise of automation and technology.

 

[Faun]

Slobbers the moron who doesn't understand that with prices roughly 4 times higher today than they were some 40 years ago, folks earning $7.25 today have less purchasing power than they did then when they earned only about 1/3rd of what they earn today.

Is your claim that a person earning minimum wage today has 1/3rd the purchasing power that they did in 1976?

If that's true, then there's no bigger leftist here than you.

I realize that what substitutes as thought for you comes from the leftist hate sites, but let's play a little game.

In 1976 the minimum wage was $2.30 an hour.

How many hours did a person making minimum wage have to work to buy the lowest priced new car in 1976? What about today? How about a car with air conditioning, power windows, AM/FM, power steering, etc?

How many hours did a person making minimum wage have to work to buy 19" color TV in 1976? What about today?

How many hours did a person making minimum wage have to work to buy a stereo system in 1976? What about today?

How many hours did a person making minimum wage have to work to buy a 1,000 sq ft. house in Los Angeles in 1976? What about today?

How many hours did a person making minimum wage have to work to fly from San Francisco to New York in 1976? What about today?

How many hours did a person making minimum wage have to work to make a telephone call for 30 minutes from Los Angeles to New York in 1976? What about today?

You're apparently too much of an idiot to understand the futility of comparing different car makes & models between now and 40 years ago. There are simply far too many variances to provide a valid comparison. That's just one reason items such as milk, burgers, etc., offer much greater consistency when comparing value over time.

At about 0.25¢ a McDonald's burger, a person earning minimum wage in 1977 could buy 9 burgers for an hour's worth of labor. Today, a person earning minimum wage could purchase only 7.

Savvy?

 

[Slade3200]

You sure don't seem to have a grasp on the topic of inflation. Do you understand that the year YOU used (1977) had a real dollar minimum wage of $9.82 an hour?

I understand inflation just fine.

You don't grasp the concept of value. "real dollar" is a bullshit term you made up. The fact that dollars must be adjusted to inflation to provide an accurate representation of purchasing power should clue you in to the nature of fiat currency and the relation it has to value, but it doesn't because you lack the foundational knowledge of economics.

An apple is an apple. If an apple costs $1, it is an apple. If an apple costs $5 it is still an apple. Altering the number of dollars paid for an apple does not alter the value of the apple. $5 simply diminishes in purchasing power to what $1 was.

An hour of unskilled labor does not increase in value to an economy because leftists and bureaucrats dictate that more dollars be spent to purchase it. It adds no more value, no more goods and services are produced. Nothing save devaluing the purchasing power of the dollars used will happen. Nothing else can happen, because dollars are not value, they are simply MARKERS of value. Economies seek equilibrium, and will eventually return to the point that the number of dollars paid are a true representation of the value produced. Moronic acts such as arbitrary increases in minimum wage create disequilibrium for a time, but the market seeks to smooth the flow of currency to the value pegged to it.

You of the left believe that you can bully reality, but you can't. You can force $15 to be paid for $7.25 of value, which you are doing. But the market will simply adjust so that $15 has the same purchasing power as $7.25.

Markets will seek equilibrium.

The fact you got a winner and thank you tag on this post is funny... You are using the concept of value in an economic system to try and sound smart but you are using it out of context making you sound stupid.

I have a question per your arguments... What makes minimum wage work worth $7.25 of value in your example?

 

[Slade3200]

And they bear no responsibility for that?
And by the way, who supported you through your many years of starting 6 companies and you didn't pay yourself? Why so many companies?

Too true , too true.

But , there is a balancing point, a minimum wage that both pays a fair wage for what are mostly menial jobs and doesn't upset the equilibrium of the economy.

Since the minimum wage is currently 78% of what is was through the 60s and 70s we KNOW that we can raise it at least 22% without upsetting the equilibrium. In point of fact, the current minimum wage is worth 64% of what it was worth in 1968, meaning a 36% increase is feasible. So let's just say $10 an hour and then tie it directly to inflation and be done with it. You would NEVER have to listen to this argument again.

Why are people so binary thinking? "$15 an hour is too much, so we won't support ANY raise" ******* morons.

The number of workers at minimum is at historic lows, which indicates that market mechanisms already address the pay question. (Plenty of graphs have been posted in this thread showing this.) Minimum wage is not meant to be a "living wage" to raise a family on. It is the wage paid to the lowest skilled workers in the pool.

Charts have also been posted showing how many people are being paid the minimum wage and many are trying to support themselves or their families on it. So the tax payers pick up the slack. Many states have been responsible and upped their minimum to a more realistic standard. I still think this should be the case, but there shouldn't be this much resistance for the Feds to set a national standard at $10-$12 and letting the states take it from there.

For my first company I worked a restaurant job and built the business in my spare time, my second business has always provided steady pay and flexible time so I could work on other ventures. I do a lot of networking and work with other entrepreneurs, I haven't met one that's started a company without differing pay

 

[Yarddog]

This may backfire on Wendys. Many Americans aren't gonna appreciate it eliminating American jobs. Many will stop eating there. And also, never estimate how fat, greedy, and lazy most Americans are. They feel entitled, they want the service.

Now they'll be doing the work themselves. Moving towards self-serve service is gonna be a bitter pill to swallow for most fat lazy Americans. So calm down greedy white Republican dude, don't go celebrating this too much just yet.

Who's celebrating it?

The point here to the chagrin of the minimum wage pushers is that there is a price to pay when you attack industry. Everybody on the left thinks that when you increase costs to a manufacturer or service outlet, they simply dig deeper in their pockets.

There is no truth to that because automation has been happening in manufacturing for decades, it's just that few knew about it.

As for fat lazy Americans, those fat lazy Americans will do anything for a cheaper price. I remember when this started with self-serve gasoline pumps. The idea was for the garages to keep their mechanics working on cars instead of pumping gas for customers. They all started off with perhaps one pump. As that pump became increasingly popular, they added another self-serve pump, then another one.

It didn't take long before all gas stations were self-serve. Now they are doing the same in grocery stores and places like Sam's Club.

Same thing will happen to trucking industry you know. Auto drive trucks and all.

This is going to be a far bigger impact than fast food. Transportation is the largest employment sector in the nation and auto vehicles will all but eliminate one of the massive expenditures there - liability.

The major problem with automated trucks/cars are the painted lines on the highways.
The entire 'automated' vehicles industry has come to a grinding halt. Seems the cameras in the vehicles can't 100% pick up the painted lines. This because millions of miles of roads have painted lines barely visible even to human operators. In europe there have been hundreds of cases were the driverless vehicle suddenly stops in the middle of the road because the computer can't figure out where the line is or isn't.
The automated vehicle driving itself down a road full of potholes that remove the painted lines can't go very far.
Causing some very serious accidents.
First all the lines need repainting. If even one line is missed causing an accident someone is going to get their ass sued off.
So fix all the potholes and repaint all the lines then these vehicles will become viable. The next US President will need to come up with a few trillion bucks to repair the highway system. Don't anyone hold their breath.

For all its faults, there's still no better computer than the human brain, at least in the way we process information around us and react without conciously thinking, computerized vehicles will never be able to run through the options we can while driving

 

[FA_Q2]

This may backfire on Wendys. Many Americans aren't gonna appreciate it eliminating American jobs. Many will stop eating there. And also, never estimate how fat, greedy, and lazy most Americans are. They feel entitled, they want the service.

Now they'll be doing the work themselves. Moving towards self-serve service is gonna be a bitter pill to swallow for most fat lazy Americans. So calm down greedy white Republican dude, don't go celebrating this too much just yet.

Who's celebrating it?

The point here to the chagrin of the minimum wage pushers is that there is a price to pay when you attack industry. Everybody on the left thinks that when you increase costs to a manufacturer or service outlet, they simply dig deeper in their pockets.

There is no truth to that because automation has been happening in manufacturing for decades, it's just that few knew about it.

As for fat lazy Americans, those fat lazy Americans will do anything for a cheaper price. I remember when this started with self-serve gasoline pumps. The idea was for the garages to keep their mechanics working on cars instead of pumping gas for customers. They all started off with perhaps one pump. As that pump became increasingly popular, they added another self-serve pump, then another one.

It didn't take long before all gas stations were self-serve. Now they are doing the same in grocery stores and places like Sam's Club.

Same thing will happen to trucking industry you know. Auto drive trucks and all.

This is going to be a far bigger impact than fast food. Transportation is the largest employment sector in the nation and auto vehicles will all but eliminate one of the massive expenditures there - liability.

The major problem with automated trucks/cars are the painted lines on the highways.
The entire 'automated' vehicles industry has come to a grinding halt. Seems the cameras in the vehicles can't 100% pick up the painted lines. This because millions of miles of roads have painted lines barely visible even to human operators. In europe there have been hundreds of cases were the driverless vehicle suddenly stops in the middle of the road because the computer can't figure out where the line is or isn't.
The automated vehicle driving itself down a road full of potholes that remove the painted lines can't go very far.
Causing some very serious accidents.
First all the lines need repainting. If even one line is missed causing an accident someone is going to get their ass sued off.
So fix all the potholes and repaint all the lines then these vehicles will become viable. The next US President will need to come up with a few trillion bucks to repair the highway system. Don't anyone hold their breath.

For all its faults, there's still no better computer than the human brain, at least in the way we process information around us and react without conciously thinking, computerized vehicles will never be able to run through the options we can while driving

The exact opposite is true.

Computers will far surpass us in such tasks. They require no thinking - just processing of information. That computers are very good at.

 

[dannyboys]

Again, you live in a fantasy where Scrooge McDuck swims in a pool of gold coins.

You have no grasp of reality.

So they will happily lose money. Figuring that losing a couple of bucks per order will even out, they can make it up with volume, right?

Interesting note that even In&Out was stung by the California hike. Though already starting at a relative high way, $9.60, the jump to $10.50 (and eventually to $15) punishes the Seasoned workers the most. Those who have worked hard for raises are now at minimum. Perhaps the biggest problem is that In&Out workers now make no more than those at Taco Bell or McDonalds. The incentive to work in the high productivity, high stress environment of In&Out has been destroyed.

But you're working hard to turn it into the USSR.

The problem is that you are abjectly ignorant. You have no grasp at all of the concepts at play. You don't know what marginal contribution is, no doubt you think EBIT is a cockney wrestler....

Well thank you for calling me ignorant and defining for me what I know and don't know in the most arrogant of ways. Reread you post to me and see how much of a dipshit you are please.
I've started 6 companies in my lifetime and am very familiar with company operations at all levels. Don't lecture me with your half cocked theories and don't dictate to me what I know and don't know. I've stated before that I think $15 is too high for a nationwide mandate and think each state should be left to set the minimum that is appropriate for their SOL. $7.25 is a joke and I would support a $10-$12 an hour minimum wage as a national base and let the states that want $15 take it from there.

Your regurgitated talking points are full of flaws. You act like you are trying to protect the workers but what you are really doing is sticking up for the richies at the top.
With smart budgeting and tweaking their business plan they can easily increase the wages they pay their workers. Competition forces companies to do this all the time. This is not much different.

So mr. Know it all I have started six businesses, tell us how a small business with maybe a few employees and a small profit margin is going to meet the expectations of a fifteen dollar an hour wage? Should the owner work for nothing?

Small business is a tough situation. I'd say if wages are below minimum standards, which they mostly are in the start up phase, then workers would receive a profit share, equity, or bonus plan. I never claimed to know it all, but I get tired of dumbshits in this forum calling me ignorant while they spout off mindless talking points. I listen to everybody's ideas objectively.

And yes, as a biz owner I've worked many years for no pay

If you have worked as a business owner for "many years" for no pay you are a seriously one of the stupidest people ever to be born.

I'd say the majority of start ups are founded on sweat equity, funny you call me stupid while making a completely ignorant statement.

You claimed you worked for YEARS!!!!! and didn't take home any money.
You have to be the dumbest person on the planet.

 

[dannyboys]

This may backfire on Wendys. Many Americans aren't gonna appreciate it eliminating American jobs. Many will stop eating there. And also, never estimate how fat, greedy, and lazy most Americans are. They feel entitled, they want the service.

Now they'll be doing the work themselves. Moving towards self-serve service is gonna be a bitter pill to swallow for most fat lazy Americans. So calm down greedy white Republican dude, don't go celebrating this too much just yet.

Who's celebrating it?

The point here to the chagrin of the minimum wage pushers is that there is a price to pay when you attack industry. Everybody on the left thinks that when you increase costs to a manufacturer or service outlet, they simply dig deeper in their pockets.

There is no truth to that because automation has been happening in manufacturing for decades, it's just that few knew about it.

As for fat lazy Americans, those fat lazy Americans will do anything for a cheaper price. I remember when this started with self-serve gasoline pumps. The idea was for the garages to keep their mechanics working on cars instead of pumping gas for customers. They all started off with perhaps one pump. As that pump became increasingly popular, they added another self-serve pump, then another one.

It didn't take long before all gas stations were self-serve. Now they are doing the same in grocery stores and places like Sam's Club.

Same thing will happen to trucking industry you know. Auto drive trucks and all.

This is going to be a far bigger impact than fast food. Transportation is the largest employment sector in the nation and auto vehicles will all but eliminate one of the massive expenditures there - liability.

The major problem with automated trucks/cars are the painted lines on the highways.
The entire 'automated' vehicles industry has come to a grinding halt. Seems the cameras in the vehicles can't 100% pick up the painted lines. This because millions of miles of roads have painted lines barely visible even to human operators. In europe there have been hundreds of cases were the driverless vehicle suddenly stops in the middle of the road because the computer can't figure out where the line is or isn't.
The automated vehicle driving itself down a road full of potholes that remove the painted lines can't go very far.
Causing some very serious accidents.
First all the lines need repainting. If even one line is missed causing an accident someone is going to get their ass sued off.
So fix all the potholes and repaint all the lines then these vehicles will become viable. The next US President will need to come up with a few trillion bucks to repair the highway system. Don't anyone hold their breath.

For all its faults, there's still no better computer than the human brain, at least in the way we process information around us and react without conciously thinking, computerized vehicles will never be able to run through the options we can while driving

I agree.
So explain why the automobile industry is working so hard and spending so much money to develop driverless vehicles.

 

[Faun]

Well thank you for calling me ignorant and defining for me what I know and don't know in the most arrogant of ways. Reread you post to me and see how much of a dipshit you are please.
I've started 6 companies in my lifetime and am very familiar with company operations at all levels. Don't lecture me with your half cocked theories and don't dictate to me what I know and don't know. I've stated before that I think $15 is too high for a nationwide mandate and think each state should be left to set the minimum that is appropriate for their SOL. $7.25 is a joke and I would support a $10-$12 an hour minimum wage as a national base and let the states that want $15 take it from there.

Your regurgitated talking points are full of flaws. You act like you are trying to protect the workers but what you are really doing is sticking up for the richies at the top.
With smart budgeting and tweaking their business plan they can easily increase the wages they pay their workers. Competition forces companies to do this all the time. This is not much different.

So mr. Know it all I have started six businesses, tell us how a small business with maybe a few employees and a small profit margin is going to meet the expectations of a fifteen dollar an hour wage? Should the owner work for nothing?

Small business is a tough situation. I'd say if wages are below minimum standards, which they mostly are in the start up phase, then workers would receive a profit share, equity, or bonus plan. I never claimed to know it all, but I get tired of dumbshits in this forum calling me ignorant while they spout off mindless talking points. I listen to everybody's ideas objectively.

And yes, as a biz owner I've worked many years for no pay

If you have worked as a business owner for "many years" for no pay you are a seriously one of the stupidest people ever to be born.

I'd say the majority of start ups are founded on sweat equity, funny you call me stupid while making a completely ignorant statement.

You claimed you worked for YEARS!!!!! and didn't take home any money.
You have to be the dumbest person on the planet.

Spits the forum rightard who actually said he sold 5 FF franchises before saying he sold 7 of them.