McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[usmbguest5318]

Let's say you got a two dairy farms. They have several hundred cows, dozens of workers, and spend thousands of dollars on equipment, fertilizer, pesticides, and seeds since they also produce the crops to feed the cows. Of course, they sell the milk.

Now one of the dairy farmers is a good operator. He turns a profit and invests it in better equipment, training for his employees, and even a few additional cows every year. The other farmer, well he ain't so swooft. But he turns a profit every year. He doesn't make enough selling milk to cover his expenses, but he sells several cows every year, lays off a few employees, and sells off some of his equipment while replacing it with leased equipment.

Tell me, which one is contributing to the economy and which one is riding along in the cart?

They are both contributing to the economy because they are both engaging in trade. They contribute differently and to different degrees, but they both contribute.

 

[OKTexas]

Thanks to the left, now even high school kids can't get jobs.

Thanks To 'Fight For $15' Minimum Wage, McDonald's Unveils Job-Replacing Self-Service Kiosks Nationwide

Till they come up with a way to continuously sanitize them I'll never touch one. You don't know what kinds of viruses or bacteria are on the hands of the people ahead of you.

DO you always wear a respirator when you leave your house. Mr. Hughes?

Nope, but I also don't intentionally expose myself to people I know are sick either. At my age, that's just living smart.

 

[danielpalos]

Thanks to the left, now even high school kids can't get jobs.

Thanks To 'Fight For $15' Minimum Wage, McDonald's Unveils Job-Replacing Self-Service Kiosks Nationwide

If people making $172 dollars a month are being replaced by machines, then why would you think workers wouldn't be replaced unless they worked for free?

Foxconn replaces '60,000 factory workers with robots' - BBC News

Oh these Republicans. They just can't learn. How will they have jobs in the future?

why so many problems instead of fine, capital solutions from the fantastical, right wing?

we should merely, change our social tax codes, so that artificial persons can pay the social taxes of the poor.

 

[Winston]

Let's say you got a two dairy farms. They have several hundred cows, dozens of workers, and spend thousands of dollars on equipment, fertilizer, pesticides, and seeds since they also produce the crops to feed the cows. Of course, they sell the milk.

Now one of the dairy farmers is a good operator. He turns a profit and invests it in better equipment, training for his employees, and even a few additional cows every year. The other farmer, well he ain't so swooft. But he turns a profit every year. He doesn't make enough selling milk to cover his expenses, but he sells several cows every year, lays off a few employees, and sells off some of his equipment while replacing it with leased equipment.

Tell me, which one is contributing to the economy and which one is riding along in the cart?

They are both contributing to the economy because they are both engaging in trade. They contribute differently and to different degrees, but they both contribute.

How so. The first farmer, his operation is going to be around for a while. It is growing. Next year this farmer will produce more milk. He is expanding the economy.

The second farmer, well he is on a path to destruction. He is not growing, he is contracting. He won't produce more milk next year, he will produce less. He is contracting the economy.

You see the difference? Same thing is happening with many of our corporations. The cows--well that is capital. Now, a CEO's job is to manage the capital resources of the company, along with labor and materials, and generate a positive return on that capital. Notice, I said "on" and not "of" Notice I also said, "materials" and didn't leave it at just labor and capital. That might be important later on.

But that is not what those CEO's are doing. See, when one uses profits to finance share buybacks they are not managing capital. They are, quite literally, destroying capital. Basically, it is like this. The company was initially provided capital by "investors". The investors believed that the CEO's would manage that capital and provide a better return than the investors could make by placing their money in an alternative investment. When a company conducts stock buybacks they are telling those investors, thanks, but no thanks--here is your investment back, take it somewhere else, we don't have any profitable opportunities at the moment, maybe you can find some elsewhere.

So No, managing the harvesting of capital IS NOT contributing to the economy. It is exactly the same as selling the milk cow. The entire purpose of tax cuts and regulatory reform and all those other wonderful sounding conservative ideas is to encourage the creation of CAPITAL. The only way to expand the frontier curve, again some fundamental freshman level Econ, is to increase capital spending, to generate more capital. And one cannot even argue in regards to tax rates--they are much lower than they were before Ronald Reagan. But the hard cold truth is, adjusted for inflation, we have LESS CAPITAL SPENDING. Almost forty damn years of Reaganomics and we have LESS INVESTMENT. And we have more wealth inequality, real incomes for the vast majority of Americans have went NOWHERE. Dudes, IT DIDN'T WORK.

At some point, you have to start asking yourself WHY?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Let's say you got a two dairy farms. They have several hundred cows, dozens of workers, and spend thousands of dollars on equipment, fertilizer, pesticides, and seeds since they also produce the crops to feed the cows. Of course, they sell the milk.

Now one of the dairy farmers is a good operator. He turns a profit and invests it in better equipment, training for his employees, and even a few additional cows every year. The other farmer, well he ain't so swooft. But he turns a profit every year. He doesn't make enough selling milk to cover his expenses, but he sells several cows every year, lays off a few employees, and sells off some of his equipment while replacing it with leased equipment.

Tell me, which one is contributing to the economy and which one is riding along in the cart?

They are both contributing to the economy because they are both engaging in trade. They contribute differently and to different degrees, but they both contribute.

How so. The first farmer, his operation is going to be around for a while. It is growing. Next year this farmer will produce more milk. He is expanding the economy.

The second farmer, well he is on a path to destruction. He is not growing, he is contracting. He won't produce more milk next year, he will produce less. He is contracting the economy.

You see the difference? Same thing is happening with many of our corporations. The cows--well that is capital. Now, a CEO's job is to manage the capital resources of the company, along with labor and materials, and generate a positive return on that capital. Notice, I said "on" and not "of" Notice I also said, "materials" and didn't leave it at just labor and capital. That might be important later on.

But that is not what those CEO's are doing. See, when one uses profits to finance share buybacks they are not managing capital. They are, quite literally, destroying capital. Basically, it is like this. The company was initially provided capital by "investors". The investors believed that the CEO's would manage that capital and provide a better return than the investors could make by placing their money in an alternative investment. When a company conducts stock buybacks they are telling those investors, thanks, but no thanks--here is your investment back, take it somewhere else, we don't have any profitable opportunities at the moment, maybe you can find some elsewhere.

So No, managing the harvesting of capital IS NOT contributing to the economy. It is exactly the same as selling the milk cow. The entire purpose of tax cuts and regulatory reform and all those other wonderful sounding conservative ideas is to encourage the creation of CAPITAL. The only way to expand the frontier curve, again some fundamental freshman level Econ, is to increase capital spending, to generate more capital. And one cannot even argue in regards to tax rates--they are much lower than they were before Ronald Reagan. But the hard cold truth is, adjusted for inflation, we have LESS CAPITAL SPENDING. Almost forty damn years of Reaganomics and we have LESS INVESTMENT. And we have more wealth inequality, real incomes for the vast majority of Americans have went NOWHERE. Dudes, IT DIDN'T WORK.

At some point, you have to start asking yourself WHY?

How so.

What do you mean, "How so?" I stated directly how so. They are engaging in trade - the buying and selling of "stuff" - and trade, all of it, is what contributes to an economy.

 

[usmbguest5318]

How so. The first farmer, his operation is going to be around for a while. It is growing. Next year this farmer will produce more milk. He is expanding the economy.

The second farmer, well he is on a path to destruction. He is not growing, he is contracting. He won't produce more milk next year, he will produce less. He is contracting the economy.

You see the difference?

Of course I see the difference. The difference is seen in the enduring nature of their respective contributions, not whether they each currently contribute.

Look back at what you asked.

which one is contributing to the economy

 

[Winston]

How so. The first farmer, his operation is going to be around for a while. It is growing. Next year this farmer will produce more milk. He is expanding the economy.

The second farmer, well he is on a path to destruction. He is not growing, he is contracting. He won't produce more milk next year, he will produce less. He is contracting the economy.

You see the difference?

Of course I see the difference. The difference is seen in the enduring nature of their respective contributions, not whether they each currently contribute.

Look back at what you asked.

which one is contributing to the economy

Oh, I see what you are saying, but by "contributing" I don't mean "participating". Not really in to giving trophies to everyone just for showing up. If you ain't helping move the ball forward on offense, or help pushing it back on defense--then you are not "contributing". Hell, you just in the damn way.

 

[usmbguest5318]

How so. The first farmer, his operation is going to be around for a while. It is growing. Next year this farmer will produce more milk. He is expanding the economy.

The second farmer, well he is on a path to destruction. He is not growing, he is contracting. He won't produce more milk next year, he will produce less. He is contracting the economy.

You see the difference?

Of course I see the difference. The difference is seen in the enduring nature of their respective contributions, not whether they each currently contribute.

Look back at what you asked.

which one is contributing to the economy

Oh, I see what you are saying, but by "contributing" I don't mean "participating". Not really in to giving trophies to everyone just for showing up. If you ain't helping move the ball forward on offense, or help pushing it back on defense--then you are not "contributing". Hell, you just in the damn way.

Okay....

The fact remains that any and all trade "moves the ball forward." Some trades "move the ball" farther, faster, more efficiently, more effectively, etc. than others, but all of it "moves the ball forward."

Yes, it's plausible that at some point in time the farmer who is not currently performing profitably will exit the marketplace and not re-enter it. If/when that happens, he might then no longer be a contributor. Whether he is or not depends on whether he resorts to activity that extracts resources from the economy while contributing none to it. I have to say "none" because even the editors of The Economist (not exactly a liberal leaning magazine) recognized that aid benefit recipients' transactions boost the economy, "Moody's Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less." [1]


[1]:

Moody's Analytics (MA) will, upon request, share the methodology for their study - see footnote #1 in the linked Moody's document. If one is of a mind to doubt the soundness of their findings, I suggest reviewing the methodology before lambasting the findings. I strongly suggest that given the audience for which MA composes its reports. Moody's has no control over the political and ideological bent its core readers hold; thus to maintain its client base, the analysis it publishes must be impartial, lest they risk their own profits.​

 

[Winston]

How so. The first farmer, his operation is going to be around for a while. It is growing. Next year this farmer will produce more milk. He is expanding the economy.

The second farmer, well he is on a path to destruction. He is not growing, he is contracting. He won't produce more milk next year, he will produce less. He is contracting the economy.

You see the difference?

Of course I see the difference. The difference is seen in the enduring nature of their respective contributions, not whether they each currently contribute.

Look back at what you asked.

which one is contributing to the economy

Oh, I see what you are saying, but by "contributing" I don't mean "participating". Not really in to giving trophies to everyone just for showing up. If you ain't helping move the ball forward on offense, or help pushing it back on defense--then you are not "contributing". Hell, you just in the damn way.

Okay....

The fact remains that any and all trade "moves the ball forward." Some trades "move the ball" farther, faster, more efficiently, more effectively, etc. than others, but all of it "moves the ball forward."

Yes, it's plausible that at some point in time the farmer who is not currently performing profitably will exit the marketplace and not re-enter it. If/when that happens, he might then no longer be a contributor. Whether he is or not depends on whether he resorts to activity that extracts resources from the economy while contributing none to it. I have to say "none" because even the editors of The Economist (not exactly a liberal leaning magazine) recognized that aid benefit recipients' transactions boost the economy, "Moody's Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less." [1]


[1]:

Moody's Analytics (MA) will, upon request, share the methodology for their study - see footnote #1 in the linked Moody's document. If one is of a mind to doubt the soundness of their findings, I suggest reviewing the methodology before lambasting the findings. I strongly suggest that given the audience for which MA composes its reports. Moody's has no control over the political and ideological bent its core readers hold; thus to maintain its client base, the analysis it publishes must be impartial, lest they risk their own profits.​

Look. You will get no argument from me as to the multiplier effect of food stamps. But the whole dairy farmer analogy was created in order to discuss capital and it's destruction. But we can incorporate those welfare beneficiaries within our analogy. They are the parlor cats, they get some of the milk and in return, they keep the pests under control. They don't really take anything of significance, they raise children and take care of parents and wash their McDonald's working spouses uniform.

So the cats are there, helping the farm operate, just like the food stamp beneficiaries are, helping the economy operate. But we are talking about the head of the whole farm. One of many executives of farms that make up our nation. One of those executives is not growing the farm. He is misallocating resources. Sure, he is generating "profit", but it is coming from the selling of the milk cows. Hell, the fool is openly admitting he can't handle the milk cows and is starting to get rid of them. And the whole damn time he is still misallocating resources. It is called mal-investment. It is not a good thing. It is the opposite of "contributing".

 

[usmbguest5318]

How so. The first farmer, his operation is going to be around for a while. It is growing. Next year this farmer will produce more milk. He is expanding the economy.

The second farmer, well he is on a path to destruction. He is not growing, he is contracting. He won't produce more milk next year, he will produce less. He is contracting the economy.

You see the difference?

Of course I see the difference. The difference is seen in the enduring nature of their respective contributions, not whether they each currently contribute.

Look back at what you asked.

which one is contributing to the economy

Oh, I see what you are saying, but by "contributing" I don't mean "participating". Not really in to giving trophies to everyone just for showing up. If you ain't helping move the ball forward on offense, or help pushing it back on defense--then you are not "contributing". Hell, you just in the damn way.

Okay....

The fact remains that any and all trade "moves the ball forward." Some trades "move the ball" farther, faster, more efficiently, more effectively, etc. than others, but all of it "moves the ball forward."

Yes, it's plausible that at some point in time the farmer who is not currently performing profitably will exit the marketplace and not re-enter it. If/when that happens, he might then no longer be a contributor. Whether he is or not depends on whether he resorts to activity that extracts resources from the economy while contributing none to it. I have to say "none" because even the editors of The Economist (not exactly a liberal leaning magazine) recognized that aid benefit recipients' transactions boost the economy, "Moody's Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less." [1]


[1]:

Moody's Analytics (MA) will, upon request, share the methodology for their study - see footnote #1 in the linked Moody's document. If one is of a mind to doubt the soundness of their findings, I suggest reviewing the methodology before lambasting the findings. I strongly suggest that given the audience for which MA composes its reports. Moody's has no control over the political and ideological bent its core readers hold; thus to maintain its client base, the analysis it publishes must be impartial, lest they risk their own profits.​

Look. You will get no argument from me as to the multiplier effect of food stamps. But the whole dairy farmer analogy was created in order to discuss capital and it's destruction. But we can incorporate those welfare beneficiaries within our analogy. They are the parlor cats, they get some of the milk and in return, they keep the pests under control. They don't really take anything of significance, they raise children and take care of parents and wash their McDonald's working spouses uniform.

So the cats are there, helping the farm operate, just like the food stamp beneficiaries are, helping the economy operate. But we are talking about the head of the whole farm. One of many executives of farms that make up our nation. One of those executives is not growing the farm. He is misallocating resources. Sure, he is generating "profit", but it is coming from the selling of the milk cows. Hell, the fool is openly admitting he can't handle the milk cows and is starting to get rid of them. And the whole damn time he is still misallocating resources. It is called mal-investment. It is not a good thing. It is the opposite of "contributing".

You will get no argument from me as to the multiplier effect of food stamps.

Fine. There is then no need to go further on that tangent. We concur there.

One of those executives is not growing the farm. He is misallocating resources. Sure, he is generating "profit", but it is coming from the selling of the milk cows. Hell, the fool is openly admitting he can't handle the milk cows and is starting to get rid of them. And the whole damn time he is still misallocating resources. It is called mal-investment. It is not a good thing. It is the opposite of "contributing".

Wait a minute. You are the one who attested to being an "old school economist." Now I have no idea what "old school" you mean by that -- Keynesian, Historicist, Marshallian/Neoclassical/Austrian/Walrasian/Stockholm, Ricardian (Classical/British), Mercantilist, etc. -- but I I know enough about each of them to know that they all make the same distinctions as do newer schools. Given your attestation, I would not expect you in your exposition to elide the distinction between contributions to an economy's growth and the nature, extent and timing of those contributions. Yet that is precisely what you persist in doing.

Furthermore, economists of all schools recognize that misallocations of resources result in less growth than does optimal resource allocation, which maximizes long-run welfare and output. Misallocations, aka inefficient uses of resources, result in lower levels of output - not no output - and therefore show up in the aggregate as a lower level of total factor productivity (TFP). Small departures from the optimal allocation of, say, labor have tiny effects on TFP but significant misallocation can have very large effects In the presence of significant misallocation, a small improvement in the allocation of resources will have a large impact on TFP.

The "old schoolers" understood, as do more recent economic theorists and empiricists, that quite literally the extent to which the impact is lesser or greater depends quite literally on the shape of the economy. They all understood that, in part, because they were able to measure economic outcomes using the principles of calculus and Euclidean geometry, both of which far and away predated the "innovation" of economic theory ("theory" in the scientific sense) and social science as formally recognized disciplines of scholarship. As such, the foundations of economic growth theory, which is what seems in this discussion to be escaping you, have long been understood, even by the classicists who had far fewer insights to growth's causes than we do today.

There is no question that one of your allegory's farmers shows greater promise and contributes more substantially to economic growth than does the other, but that is a matter of degrees not of existentiality. Economically, ever smaller contributions nonetheless are contributions, until there no small contributions. Every little bit helps, but to be sure, larger bits help more. That is so in old and new schools of economics.

 

[Winston]

How so. The first farmer, his operation is going to be around for a while. It is growing. Next year this farmer will produce more milk. He is expanding the economy.

The second farmer, well he is on a path to destruction. He is not growing, he is contracting. He won't produce more milk next year, he will produce less. He is contracting the economy.

You see the difference?

Of course I see the difference. The difference is seen in the enduring nature of their respective contributions, not whether they each currently contribute.

Look back at what you asked.

which one is contributing to the economy

Oh, I see what you are saying, but by "contributing" I don't mean "participating". Not really in to giving trophies to everyone just for showing up. If you ain't helping move the ball forward on offense, or help pushing it back on defense--then you are not "contributing". Hell, you just in the damn way.

Okay....

The fact remains that any and all trade "moves the ball forward." Some trades "move the ball" farther, faster, more efficiently, more effectively, etc. than others, but all of it "moves the ball forward."

Yes, it's plausible that at some point in time the farmer who is not currently performing profitably will exit the marketplace and not re-enter it. If/when that happens, he might then no longer be a contributor. Whether he is or not depends on whether he resorts to activity that extracts resources from the economy while contributing none to it. I have to say "none" because even the editors of The Economist (not exactly a liberal leaning magazine) recognized that aid benefit recipients' transactions boost the economy, "Moody's Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less." [1]


[1]:

Moody's Analytics (MA) will, upon request, share the methodology for their study - see footnote #1 in the linked Moody's document. If one is of a mind to doubt the soundness of their findings, I suggest reviewing the methodology before lambasting the findings. I strongly suggest that given the audience for which MA composes its reports. Moody's has no control over the political and ideological bent its core readers hold; thus to maintain its client base, the analysis it publishes must be impartial, lest they risk their own profits.​

Look. You will get no argument from me as to the multiplier effect of food stamps. But the whole dairy farmer analogy was created in order to discuss capital and it's destruction. But we can incorporate those welfare beneficiaries within our analogy. They are the parlor cats, they get some of the milk and in return, they keep the pests under control. They don't really take anything of significance, they raise children and take care of parents and wash their McDonald's working spouses uniform.

So the cats are there, helping the farm operate, just like the food stamp beneficiaries are, helping the economy operate. But we are talking about the head of the whole farm. One of many executives of farms that make up our nation. One of those executives is not growing the farm. He is misallocating resources. Sure, he is generating "profit", but it is coming from the selling of the milk cows. Hell, the fool is openly admitting he can't handle the milk cows and is starting to get rid of them. And the whole damn time he is still misallocating resources. It is called mal-investment. It is not a good thing. It is the opposite of "contributing".

You will get no argument from me as to the multiplier effect of food stamps.

Fine. There is then no need to go further on that tangent. We concur there.

One of those executives is not growing the farm. He is misallocating resources. Sure, he is generating "profit", but it is coming from the selling of the milk cows. Hell, the fool is openly admitting he can't handle the milk cows and is starting to get rid of them. And the whole damn time he is still misallocating resources. It is called mal-investment. It is not a good thing. It is the opposite of "contributing".

Wait a minute. You are the one who attested to being an "old school economist." Now I have no idea what "old school" you mean by that -- Keynesian, Historicist, Marshallian/Neoclassical/Austrian/Walrasian/Stockholm, Ricardian (Classical/British), Mercantilist, etc. -- but I I know enough about each of them to know that they all make the same distinctions as do newer schools. Given your attestation, I would not expect you in your exposition to elide the distinction between contributions to an economy's growth and the nature, extent and timing of those contributions. Yet that is precisely what you persist in doing.

Furthermore, economists of all schools recognize that misallocations of resources result in less growth than does optimal resource allocation, which maximizes long-run welfare and output. Misallocations, aka inefficient uses of resources, result in lower levels of output - not no output - and therefore show up in the aggregate as a lower level of total factor productivity (TFP). Small departures from the optimal allocation of, say, labor have tiny effects on TFP but significant misallocation can have very large effects In the presence of significant misallocation, a small improvement in the allocation of resources will have a large impact on TFP.

The "old schoolers" understood, as do more recent economic theorists and empiricists, that quite literally the extent to which the impact is lesser or greater depends quite literally on the shape of the economy. They all understood that, in part, because they were able to measure economic outcomes using the principles of calculus and Euclidean geometry, both of which far and away predated the "innovation" of economic theory ("theory" in the scientific sense) and social science as formally recognized disciplines of scholarship. As such, the foundations of economic growth theory, which is what seems in this discussion to be escaping you, have long been understood, even by the classicists who had far fewer insights to growth's causes than we do today.

There is no question that one of your allegory's farmers shows greater promise and contributes more substantially to economic growth than does the other, but that is a matter of degrees not of existentiality. Economically, ever smaller contributions nonetheless are contributions, until there no small contributions. Every little bit helps, but to be sure, larger bits help more. That is so in old and new schools of economics.

I am a Georgist. Funny, I believe Henry Ford has been mentioned in this thread. He was a Georgist. For modern day economist I have mentioned William Lazonick. Most recently joining the party, Joseph Stiglitz. Before both of them there was Mason Gaffney, Lazonick has been critical of the Neoclassical theory of Economics precisely because it fails to make the very distinction about behavior that we are debating. Gaffney is a straight out Georgist. And Stiglitz has been saying the very same thing I have been saying since The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future in 2012.

But honestly, perhaps that is the problem. For a Georgist, well this is just the way we see things. And thankfully there is a movement within the Economics community to find a new Macroeconomic Theory. It is back to Keynes, but this time with a proper foundation of Georgism, just like it was to suppose to have been all along.

 

[easyt65]

Liberals demand a raise to minimum wage.

McDonalds responds:

1.

2. Kiosks

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour, simply for being unemployed!

 

[hadit]

Thanks to the left, now even high school kids can't get jobs.

Thanks To 'Fight For $15' Minimum Wage, McDonald's Unveils Job-Replacing Self-Service Kiosks Nationwide

GOP-We only support welfare for corporations!
GOP-Too stupid to realize underpaid workers=workers getting welfare!

If society determines that no one should get less than $15/hr whether they earn it or not, society should step up to the plate and make it happen through welfare. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

If SOCIETY had its way we would all be making a livable wage. Political whores paid by corporations refuse to do as the people want.

Society is not willing to pay either in high prices or taxes what it would take to have a guaranteed income, which would be neutered by inflation anyway.

 

[hadit]

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour, simply for being unemployed!

That's called non-means tested welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Thanks to the left, now even high school kids can't get jobs.

Thanks To 'Fight For $15' Minimum Wage, McDonald's Unveils Job-Replacing Self-Service Kiosks Nationwide

GOP-We only support welfare for corporations!
GOP-Too stupid to realize underpaid workers=workers getting welfare!

If society determines that no one should get less than $15/hr whether they earn it or not, society should step up to the plate and make it happen through welfare. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

If SOCIETY had its way we would all be making a livable wage. Political whores paid by corporations refuse to do as the people want.

Society is not willing to pay either in high prices or taxes what it would take to have a guaranteed income, which would be neutered by inflation anyway.

yet, "society" is willing to pay for a drug war?

 

[hadit]

Thanks to the left, now even high school kids can't get jobs.

Thanks To 'Fight For $15' Minimum Wage, McDonald's Unveils Job-Replacing Self-Service Kiosks Nationwide

GOP-We only support welfare for corporations!
GOP-Too stupid to realize underpaid workers=workers getting welfare!

If society determines that no one should get less than $15/hr whether they earn it or not, society should step up to the plate and make it happen through welfare. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

If SOCIETY had its way we would all be making a livable wage. Political whores paid by corporations refuse to do as the people want.

Society is not willing to pay either in high prices or taxes what it would take to have a guaranteed income, which would be neutered by inflation anyway.

yet, "society" is willing to pay for a drug war?

Yeah, yeah, we know. You want legal pot and to get paid not to work. It doesn't work that way.

 

[danielpalos]

GOP-We only support welfare for corporations!
GOP-Too stupid to realize underpaid workers=workers getting welfare!

If society determines that no one should get less than $15/hr whether they earn it or not, society should step up to the plate and make it happen through welfare. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

If SOCIETY had its way we would all be making a livable wage. Political whores paid by corporations refuse to do as the people want.

Society is not willing to pay either in high prices or taxes what it would take to have a guaranteed income, which would be neutered by inflation anyway.

yet, "society" is willing to pay for a drug war?

Yeah, yeah, we know. You want legal pot and to get paid not to work. It doesn't work that way.

Yes, it does. why do you believe it doesn't? the right wing lost their moral clues and their moral Cause, last millennium.

 

[hadit]

If society determines that no one should get less than $15/hr whether they earn it or not, society should step up to the plate and make it happen through welfare. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

If SOCIETY had its way we would all be making a livable wage. Political whores paid by corporations refuse to do as the people want.

Society is not willing to pay either in high prices or taxes what it would take to have a guaranteed income, which would be neutered by inflation anyway.

yet, "society" is willing to pay for a drug war?

Yeah, yeah, we know. You want legal pot and to get paid not to work. It doesn't work that way.

Yes, it does. why do you believe it doesn't? the right wing lost their moral clues and their moral Cause, last millennium.

If it already did, why are you arguing that it should? The truth is that it has been tried, several times, and untold millions have died in misery as the result.

 

[dannyboys]

I'm calling bullshit.

They would have done the kiosk thing anyway.

How long does it take to design and develop the kiosks and computer programs? How long to install them nationwide?

This has been in the works longer than the call for wage increases.

How do you know? A kid making $8.00 an hour might be cheaper than the infrastructure costs needed to keep kiosks running. What we do know is that companies always look ahead for things (at least the successful ones do) and their concern might be that $15 an hour STILL won't placate the union idiots, and then they want $20 an hour.

Go back and read my posts on this subject.
I told you all this was coming.
FYI the "infrastructure" required to virtually make FF outlets 100 automated is a one-time investment (which is written off in tax deferments).
The bottom line cost savings by installing automated FF equipment is close to double digits per piece of equipment.
No more ******* semi-literates who don't wash their hands, who show up late/drunk/stoned.
No more ******* 'paperwork'!
No more product loss and theft.
A business acquaintance who owns a few FF outlets is switching over to fully automated operations.
Three years ago he had 40 people on the 'on-call' list to cover four outlets.
Today he employs three full time 'mature' employees, all over fifty with other sources of income like pensions, at each outlet.
And about ten 'mature' part time 'on call' employees also with other sources of income to cover evening shifts etc.
His businesses have never run so smoothly.
He is installing fully automated pieces of equipment as soon as they are available.
The fully automated chip fryers he installed eliminated about twenty part time jobs.