McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[danielpalos]

that is up to them; but, they may have to compete, with Henry Ford imitators.

The current "Henry Ford" concept IS automation..

No, Henry Ford utilized the specialization of labor, a concept that was first addressed by Plato. But Ford was a Georgist, he understood Adam Smith and economic rent, which is why he utilized his knowledge of Marx and his arguments against the specialization of labor, and offered high compensation to offset employee disappoint and unrest due to consistently repeated actions. The very "spiritual and physical depression" that Marx had addressed.

No question here. Henry Ford would be an advocate of a fifteen dollar minimum wage. He would be absolutely horrified at the structure of the McDonald's organization and it's efficient extraction of economic rent from multiple sectors of the US economy.

He would also still be railing against the Jews.

Ford made a product people could afford, using low skilled labor that he paid well, but that he was not forced to pay more than they were worth.

The issue isn't businesspeople deciding to spend more on labor to get loyalty/productivity, the issue is government mandating that they do without any guarantees of a better return on their labor investment.

My position is that the minimum wage, in no way, reflects the value of the labor produced by the minimum wage worker. Lots of reasons for that. Doesn't matter. The minimum wage has become a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated. When this happens, distortions enter the marketplace, market inefficiencies begin popping up, and we turn a welfare program that was suppose to help the down and out into a program to subsidize the low wages of employers extracting huge amounts of rent from the economy.

I say the minimum wage worker is already producing fifteen dollars worth of value. If he is not, then hell, I want them replaced by a robot. Hell, I don't care if you don't replace them at all. The way I see it, if someone can't produce at least fifteen dollars of value to the economy they should stay the hell at the house and out of the way. It costs more than fifteen dollars an hour worth of infrastructure and resources to get them back and forth to work, let alone what resources they consume when they are there. And that is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. A minimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employer wants to pay.

level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employerwants to pay.

You thought you could sneak that in you did you?

If they are only producing $5 bucks of goods how can the employer pay them $15 an hour?


.

There is No capital excuse for the right. Henry Ford doubled wages and realized gains from efficiency. Real Capitalists, do.

 

[Winston]

Well, kind of hard to make the argument that the McDonald's employee is only worth his minimum wage, or even less than fifteen dollars an hour, when his employer is sending up to corporate twice the cost of labor in the form or royalties and service fees.

Again, my position is produce fifteen dollars an hour worth worth of value or stay home. I am calling McDonald's and other corporations bluff. If they have to shut down because they can't turn a profit paying people at least fifteen dollars an hour. GOOD. If everyone has to pay a little more for a burger, perhaps one a little better for them. If everyone has to pay a little more for their toilet paper because Walmart closed. GOOD. Because in the end, the benefit to society of them no longer operating will be far greater than any benefit we have for them operating now.

If it's that much $$, then McDonald's wouldn't be able to get franchisee's anymore, oh wait, they have plenty of people lining up....

No, you don't want to shut down the system, you want government to do your dirty work for you, lazy bastard.

Go out and do something about it, Mr. Armchair anarchist.

Poseur.

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

No, economic rent is very real.

Say we build a factory. You will probably say it takes two components, labor and capital. But it is labor, capital, and land. So--the capital, that is the "owner". He builds the factory, he hires the workers, he buys the materials. He fails, he loses his money, his "capital". He walks away with nothing but the experience. The workers he hires, they are the labor, they increase the value of materials by producing his product. The business fails, he is unemployed. He walks away with nothing but the experience. Now you got the land owner. He puts up nothing. He risks nothing. He produces nothing. He collects RENT. And if the business fails, he is still there, and so is the land.

In the McDonalds situation, McDonald's puts up nothing except the system (I will give you advertising), they risk nothing except what little effect that single franchisee could do to their "goodwill" before they can shut him down. And if the franchisee fails, McDonalds will still be there, and so will their system. They are collecting economic rent.

Now, you don't even want to get me started on what collecting of economic rent causes. Considering the concept comes out of the last of the 19th century, it is almost scary as to how accurate those predictions were.

it both cases you are being allowed to use something someone else owns, either the actual property of the owner, or the intellectual property (and supply chain) of the owner, in the case of Mcdonald's. That they suffer little risk is due to the overall stability of the country and the strong brand in the case of McDonald's.

Your complaint boils down to the same thing "rent slavery" proponents end up at, "Someone has something that I don't, wah wah wah!!!"

Exactly right. We are getting there. In both cases, the land owner, and McDonald's--they are getting paid for what the OWN. Not what they produce, not what they create, not even what they put at risk. Just for what they own.

That is not good for the economy, not even a little bit. That is why it is called "rent". It is throwing money down the drain. A properly functioning economy awards risk taking, it rewards production. It does not simply reward "ownership" and a totally free market does not even allow rent seeking. When entities get paid simply for owning something we get poverty, we get inequity, we lose innovation, and we also get corrupt politicians and pay for play politics. No shit, it was all predicted by Henry George.

 

[Conservative65]

If you pay someone 7 bucks an hour do you expect good productivity and people to stay? McDonalds doesn't want nor expect good workers to stay. Otherwise they would pay more. Their business model is low wage and expecting little or no productivity. Some companies have to attract the least productive. Pretend to pay me I pretend to work.

When you're forced to pay someone a minimum of $7.25/hour because the federal government mandates it instead of paying based on skills required to do the job, absolutely I expect efficiency. You're already getting paid more than what you offer is worth.

They pay that amount because the job being done requires skills at that amount.

Pretend to work because you don't like what you agreed to work for and that won't be a problem. Someone else will be in your spot either doing the job correctly or they'll be replaced if they have the same attitude. When you offer low skills, don't expect anyone to come knocking on your door.

Only the right wing is that, fantastical.

Your current metrics are based on our current minimum wage.

My current metrics are based on the concept of if you take a job knowing the wage before you take it, do the job to the level it should be done not to the one you decide because you now don't like the pay.

I said nothing of the amount but the concept of doing what you were hired to do to the level you were hired to do it.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage makes knowing you can labor and have some money to spend, before you take the job, makes a lot of difference. I agree.

A $15/hour minimum wage is about 3x more than what a fast food job is worth.

If you took the job, regardless of the pay, knowing what it was BEFORE you took it, you have no argument. It's called whining if you do.

 

[Conservative65]

the left already has an answer to the right wing, canard, of unemployment.

"something i made up and think may work" is not an answer.

i did not just make it up; unlike the right wing, with nothing but diversion.

we can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis our at-will employment States.

So people work when they feel like it, and if they don't want to, we pay them something?

Yep, kind of like that. No food stamps, no welfare, no housing subsidies, no social security, everyone has Medicare. Everyone gets a check. The wealthy get a check, the poor get a check, the elderly get a check, the kids get a check. You can make it on the check, you happy, we all happy. Hell, I hope you can make it on the check.

Only those who are actually unemployed, need a check.

Only those that work deserve a check.

 

[Conservative65]

I say if the minimum wage worker was able to produce $15 an hour of value, they would be working in a job that naturally allowed for a $15 an hour wage. What you are trying to foist on people is a half handed attempt at a living wage, not a minimum wage. The idea that entry level jobs like minimum or near minimum wage ones at fast food places are somehow livable is a fantasy.

The idea is to actually not like making shit wages, and somehow improve your lot in life somehow, anyhow. If we pay people $15 an hour for doing $8 an hour of work, we consign them to be stuck in the same crap job for life, or at least until bleeding hearts start gunning for a $20, then a $30, then a $50 minimum wage.

At that point enjoy your $125 Big Mac with the $75 coke on the side.

Well, kind of hard to make the argument that the McDonald's employee is only worth his minimum wage, or even less than fifteen dollars an hour, when his employer is sending up to corporate twice the cost of labor in the form or royalties and service fees.

Again, my position is produce fifteen dollars an hour worth worth of value or stay home. I am calling McDonald's and other corporations bluff. If they have to shut down because they can't turn a profit paying people at least fifteen dollars an hour. GOOD. If everyone has to pay a little more for a burger, perhaps one a little better for them. If everyone has to pay a little more for their toilet paper because Walmart closed. GOOD. Because in the end, the benefit to society of them no longer operating will be far greater than any benefit we have for them operating now.

If it's that much $$, then McDonald's wouldn't be able to get franchisee's anymore, oh wait, they have plenty of people lining up....

No, you don't want to shut down the system, you want government to do your dirty work for you, lazy bastard.

Go out and do something about it, Mr. Armchair anarchist.

Poseur.

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

 

[Winston]

Well, kind of hard to make the argument that the McDonald's employee is only worth his minimum wage, or even less than fifteen dollars an hour, when his employer is sending up to corporate twice the cost of labor in the form or royalties and service fees.

Again, my position is produce fifteen dollars an hour worth worth of value or stay home. I am calling McDonald's and other corporations bluff. If they have to shut down because they can't turn a profit paying people at least fifteen dollars an hour. GOOD. If everyone has to pay a little more for a burger, perhaps one a little better for them. If everyone has to pay a little more for their toilet paper because Walmart closed. GOOD. Because in the end, the benefit to society of them no longer operating will be far greater than any benefit we have for them operating now.

If it's that much $$, then McDonald's wouldn't be able to get franchisee's anymore, oh wait, they have plenty of people lining up....

No, you don't want to shut down the system, you want government to do your dirty work for you, lazy bastard.

Go out and do something about it, Mr. Armchair anarchist.

Poseur.

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

Well see, that is where you and I differ. My position is that if you work forty hours a week you deserve the respect and the dignity to be able to support yourself AND at least one other person without government assistance. I don't care if there is skill involved or not. You show up, you do what you are told, and you do it for forty hours a week, you deserve at least that much.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Exactly right. We are getting there. In both cases, the land owner, and McDonald's--they are getting paid for what the OWN. Not what they produce, not what they create, not even what they put at risk. Just for what they own.

That is not good for the economy, not even a little bit. That is why it is called "rent". It is throwing money down the drain. A properly functioning economy awards risk taking, it rewards production. It does not simply reward "ownership" and a totally free market does not even allow rent seeking. When entities get paid simply for owning something we get poverty, we get inequity, we lose innovation, and we also get corrupt politicians and pay for play politics. No shit, it was all predicted by Henry George.

So, in your mind a patent would be "rent" as would trade secrets such as production formulas or recipes, correct?

 

[Conservative65]

If it's that much $$, then McDonald's wouldn't be able to get franchisee's anymore, oh wait, they have plenty of people lining up....

No, you don't want to shut down the system, you want government to do your dirty work for you, lazy bastard.

Go out and do something about it, Mr. Armchair anarchist.

Poseur.

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

Well see, that is where you and I differ. My position is that if you work forty hours a week you deserve the respect and the dignity to be able to support yourself AND at least one other person without government assistance. I don't care if there is skill involved or not. You show up, you do what you are told, and you do it for forty hours a week, you deserve at least that much.

That's where you and I differ. You think someone should be paid a certain amount solely because they breathe and I expect them to earn what they get. If it isn't enough, it's the fault of the one offering shitty skills not the equivalent wages to it.

You deserve what the one doing the paying says you deserve. You don't care about skills. That's why I say there is no reason for some freeloading piece of shit to ever do anything better than the minimum because people like you support paying them a certain amount when they don't. Sad part is you think by doing what you do they'll get better. They don't have to if you enable them to be leeches.

 

[Southern Dad]

It's about ROI. When labor is cheaper than technology then employers use labor. When it appears labor costs are going to go up, employers look into automation, outsourcing, and offshoring. It's pretty simple.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's about ROI. When labor is cheaper than technology then employers use labor. When it appears labor costs are going to go up, employers look into automation, outsourcing, and offshoring. It's pretty simple.

ROI, or more accurately ROCE in this case.

The capital costs have a tipping point, increased labor costs move the fulcrum.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If it's that much $$, then McDonald's wouldn't be able to get franchisee's anymore, oh wait, they have plenty of people lining up....

No, you don't want to shut down the system, you want government to do your dirty work for you, lazy bastard.

Go out and do something about it, Mr. Armchair anarchist.

Poseur.

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

Well see, that is where you and I differ. My position is that if you work forty hours a week you deserve the respect and the dignity to be able to support yourself AND at least one other person without government assistance. I don't care if there is skill involved or not. You show up, you do what you are told, and you do it for forty hours a week, you deserve at least that much.

For the millionth time how can your employer pay you that if your only producing $5 bucks worth of goods an hour?

.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

Well see, that is where you and I differ. My position is that if you work forty hours a week you deserve the respect and the dignity to be able to support yourself AND at least one other person without government assistance. I don't care if there is skill involved or not. You show up, you do what you are told, and you do it for forty hours a week, you deserve at least that much.

That's where you and I differ. You think someone should be paid a certain amount solely because they breathe and I expect them to earn what they get. If it isn't enough, it's the fault of the one offering shitty skills not the equivalent wages to it.

You deserve what the one doing the paying says you deserve. You don't care about skills. That's why I say there is no reason for some freeloading piece of shit to ever do anything better than the minimum because people like you support paying them a certain amount when they don't. Sad part is you think by doing what you do they'll get better. They don't have to if you enable them to be leeches.

Insofar as labor is one of the factors of production, apply the idea you just articulated above to the supply and demand of labor.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

Well see, that is where you and I differ. My position is that if you work forty hours a week you deserve the respect and the dignity to be able to support yourself AND at least one other person without government assistance. I don't care if there is skill involved or not. You show up, you do what you are told, and you do it for forty hours a week, you deserve at least that much.

That's where you and I differ. You think someone should be paid a certain amount solely because they breathe and I expect them to earn what they get. If it isn't enough, it's the fault of the one offering shitty skills not the equivalent wages to it.

You deserve what the one doing the paying says you deserve. You don't care about skills. That's why I say there is no reason for some freeloading piece of shit to ever do anything better than the minimum because people like you support paying them a certain amount when they don't. Sad part is you think by doing what you do they'll get better. They don't have to if you enable them to be leeches.

Insofar as labor is one of the factors of production, apply the idea you just articulated above to the supply and demand of labor.

Well, that's the rub, isn't it?

The demand for unskilled labor is falling at such a rapid rate that there are those disenfranchised.

We imported millions of illegal aliens to provided unskilled labor, but now the demand for that labor has fallen to a point that it's difficult to sustain the workers we imported.

Illegals brought in to work packing houses and factories have turned to fast food as those other jobs moved to China. America mostly turned a blind eye because it was mostly teens and inner city (that would be black) workers affected.

We have an abundance of supply, with little demand. This drives the VALUE of unskilled labor down. When the cost of labor exceeds the value of labor, then automation is inevitable. Mandating a cost that is non-synchronous to value will either end the activity incurring the cost, or force innovation.

Automated frying machines, automated grills, and customer kiosks are some of the ways that fast food is realigning the cost/value paradigm.

 

[Winston]

[

Exactly right. We are getting there. In both cases, the land owner, and McDonald's--they are getting paid for what the OWN. Not what they produce, not what they create, not even what they put at risk. Just for what they own.

That is not good for the economy, not even a little bit. That is why it is called "rent". It is throwing money down the drain. A properly functioning economy awards risk taking, it rewards production. It does not simply reward "ownership" and a totally free market does not even allow rent seeking. When entities get paid simply for owning something we get poverty, we get inequity, we lose innovation, and we also get corrupt politicians and pay for play politics. No shit, it was all predicted by Henry George.

So, in your mind a patent would be "rent" as would trade secrets such as production formulas or recipes, correct?

No, I don't go down that Libertarian path. I believe there is some value to patents and trade secrets that should be passed to the owners as a reward for their innovation. But that is just it, there must be innovation. Creating a timed released version or changing the color of a pill is not innovation and should not be rewarded with an extended patent. And, to the extent those rewards actually reflect the value of that patent or trade secret to the economy, well I am not opposed nor would I call it rent seeking. That is not what we are talking about in respect to McDonalds.

 

[Conservative65]

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

Well see, that is where you and I differ. My position is that if you work forty hours a week you deserve the respect and the dignity to be able to support yourself AND at least one other person without government assistance. I don't care if there is skill involved or not. You show up, you do what you are told, and you do it for forty hours a week, you deserve at least that much.

For the millionth time how can your employer pay you that if your only producing $5 bucks worth of goods an hour?

.

That's the problem with the bleeding heart living wagers. They don't give a shit that the person they want to be paid a wage far above their skills doesn't produce revenue even up to the wage. They expect the owner to eat that cost because of some bullshit concept they support.

Looking at what Winston posted to proves that. He said he didn't care about skill level. In other words, Winston bases pay for the low skilled not on what offer but that they breathe and have a heartbeat. His mindset is that of the just tying is OK, participation trophy mindset of the bleeding hearts.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Minimum wage has been frozen for eight years and McDonalds is still moving to kiosks

How much of a pay cut do you want before McDonalds takes them out?

 

[Wyatt earp]

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

Well see, that is where you and I differ. My position is that if you work forty hours a week you deserve the respect and the dignity to be able to support yourself AND at least one other person without government assistance. I don't care if there is skill involved or not. You show up, you do what you are told, and you do it for forty hours a week, you deserve at least that much.

For the millionth time how can your employer pay you that if your only producing $5 bucks worth of goods an hour?

.

That's the problem with the bleeding heart living wagers. They don't give a shit that the person they want to be paid a wage far above their skills doesn't produce revenue even up to the wage. They expect the owner to eat that cost because of some bullshit concept they support.

Looking at what Winston posted to proves that. He said he didn't care about skill level. In other words, Winston bases pay for the low skilled not on what offer but that they breathe and have a heartbeat. His mindset is that of the just tying is OK, participation trophy mindset of the bleeding hearts.

It's just kids on here..


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Minimum wage has been frozen for eight years and McDonalds is still moving to kiosks

How much of a pay cut do you want before McDonalds takes them out?

What pay cut?


.

 

[Winston]

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

Well see, that is where you and I differ. My position is that if you work forty hours a week you deserve the respect and the dignity to be able to support yourself AND at least one other person without government assistance. I don't care if there is skill involved or not. You show up, you do what you are told, and you do it for forty hours a week, you deserve at least that much.

That's where you and I differ. You think someone should be paid a certain amount solely because they breathe and I expect them to earn what they get. If it isn't enough, it's the fault of the one offering shitty skills not the equivalent wages to it.

You deserve what the one doing the paying says you deserve. You don't care about skills. That's why I say there is no reason for some freeloading piece of shit to ever do anything better than the minimum because people like you support paying them a certain amount when they don't. Sad part is you think by doing what you do they'll get better. They don't have to if you enable them to be leeches.

Why are you not paying attention. I don't want anyone to be paid more than the value of their production. NOBODY. Everyone should be paid at least fifteen dollars an hour. If the job doesn't produce at least that much value to the economy--ELIMINATE THE JOB. If the industry shuts down. GOOD. There has to be an alternative use of the resources devoted to perpetuating that job or industry that provides a better return to the economy. Hell, that is what economics is all about.

 

[Conservative65]

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

There's a better solution. If the only skill you have get you the current minimum wage, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering such shitty skills. Since the one offering the low skills is the cause of the low wage, they shouldn't get a dime to offset what is their fault. If they can't afford food, clothing, shelter, or anything else as a result, that's the best motivator to do better.

Well see, that is where you and I differ. My position is that if you work forty hours a week you deserve the respect and the dignity to be able to support yourself AND at least one other person without government assistance. I don't care if there is skill involved or not. You show up, you do what you are told, and you do it for forty hours a week, you deserve at least that much.

That's where you and I differ. You think someone should be paid a certain amount solely because they breathe and I expect them to earn what they get. If it isn't enough, it's the fault of the one offering shitty skills not the equivalent wages to it.

You deserve what the one doing the paying says you deserve. You don't care about skills. That's why I say there is no reason for some freeloading piece of shit to ever do anything better than the minimum because people like you support paying them a certain amount when they don't. Sad part is you think by doing what you do they'll get better. They don't have to if you enable them to be leeches.

Insofar as labor is one of the factors of production, apply the idea you just articulated above to the supply and demand of labor.

I did that. Low skills for which most people have the ability to do by the age of 8 don't pay much. If low skills are all you can supply and those supplying them are plentiful in number, you can't expect much in the way of pay. If there is a surplus of workers with a low level skill set, they don't make much. On the other hand, if you offer skills that only a small percentage can do and there is a greater demand for that skill set than those having it, pay is much higher. The one doing then paying, since it's his/her money, is the only determining what that skill set is worth.

Something my dad taught me long ago. A good/service isn't worth what you think it is, it's worth what someone that's doing then paying will give you for it. Sometimes those two match and sometimes they don't. If I don't think what you offer is worth what you want, I don't spend my money on it. That leaves 3 options. Live with it, change it, or move on. In many cases, changing it is the hardest so 2 options tend to stick out.