McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[Uncensored2008]

I support a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour.

Of course you do, you don't run a business.

I do not want an employer to pay an employee more than the value of his production.

You contradict yourself. You seek to use the coercive power of the state to dictate what a once free person is permitted to accept. If a person cannot sell their talents for $15 an hour, you demand that the starve, even if there are some who would buy those talents for $10.

Such is the cruelty of the minimum wage.

But, if the employer wants to pay an employee at least fifteen dollars an hour, even when the employee doesn't produce fifteen dollars worth of value, I don't care.

How big of you, Comrade.

Now,the problem, especially in regards to both Walmart and McDonalds, is not there there is not enough "profit" being generated by these employees to justify fifteen dollars an hour. In both cases, Walmart and McDonalds, the required increase in labor cost to get those employees to fifteen dollars can be financed from the money those companies are spending on stock buybacks. In other words, instead of spending money on rent seeking activities those companies will be investing money in their employees.

If only you could be elected to the board of either company, you could dictate you Chomsky ideals to them...

 

[Winston]

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

What an ignorant statement,.

A free market is one where the seller and buyer agree upon value uncoerced by the state or other actors.

"Rent" is the boogey man of Marxist though. Those who oppose the right of the little people to own and keep real property perpetually decry "rent."

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

The Alaska permanent fund is not a production operation, it simply disburses RENT collected from the oil companies.

LOL. We are both saying the same thing. The difference between the price paid due to the coercion you speak of, and the price that would be paid in a properly functioning marketplace, is RENT. It is not a Marxist bogeyman, it is a free market bogeyman. Of course, I see the Libertarian tag, so you have to be obsessed with rents stemming from government actions. But sometimes it is necessary for the government to initiate action to STOP rent seeking activities. Not all government actions enable them, some prevent them.

And I agree, the Alaska Permanent Fund is not a production operation. And I also agree, they are collecting the "rent" that the oil companies are collecting by being able to extract oil that they do not own. The people of Alaska own that oil. A perfect example of a government initiating action to stop rent seeking activities, or at least distribute the proceeds of those rents back to the people.

The people of Alaska sold the oil to the oil companies. That's why they don't pay State taxes, they get a refund.

Just like with labor, you don't grasp the concept that when you sell someone something ... you don't own it anymore ...

Oh, I get it pretty well. The people own the oil, the oil companies pump it out, the people get paid for the oil. Fair deal if the people are getting a fair price for the oil. If they are not, then the oil company is collecting rents. Ever wonder what the people get for their oil in other parts of the country? What about oil on private property? Did the owner of that land "make" that oil?

 

[kaz]

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

What an ignorant statement,.

A free market is one where the seller and buyer agree upon value uncoerced by the state or other actors.

"Rent" is the boogey man of Marxist though. Those who oppose the right of the little people to own and keep real property perpetually decry "rent."

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

The Alaska permanent fund is not a production operation, it simply disburses RENT collected from the oil companies.

LOL. We are both saying the same thing. The difference between the price paid due to the coercion you speak of, and the price that would be paid in a properly functioning marketplace, is RENT. It is not a Marxist bogeyman, it is a free market bogeyman. Of course, I see the Libertarian tag, so you have to be obsessed with rents stemming from government actions. But sometimes it is necessary for the government to initiate action to STOP rent seeking activities. Not all government actions enable them, some prevent them.

And I agree, the Alaska Permanent Fund is not a production operation. And I also agree, they are collecting the "rent" that the oil companies are collecting by being able to extract oil that they do not own. The people of Alaska own that oil. A perfect example of a government initiating action to stop rent seeking activities, or at least distribute the proceeds of those rents back to the people.

The people of Alaska sold the oil to the oil companies. That's why they don't pay State taxes, they get a refund.

Just like with labor, you don't grasp the concept that when you sell someone something ... you don't own it anymore ...

Oh, I get it pretty well. The people own the oil, the oil companies pump it out, the people get paid for the oil. Fair deal if the people are getting a fair price for the oil. If they are not, then the oil company is collecting rents. Ever wonder what the people get for their oil in other parts of the country? What about oil on private property? Did the owner of that land "make" that oil?

Can you translate that from Marxist rhetoric to English?

 

[martybegan]

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

What an ignorant statement,.

A free market is one where the seller and buyer agree upon value uncoerced by the state or other actors.

"Rent" is the boogey man of Marxist though. Those who oppose the right of the little people to own and keep real property perpetually decry "rent."

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

The Alaska permanent fund is not a production operation, it simply disburses RENT collected from the oil companies.

LOL. We are both saying the same thing. The difference between the price paid due to the coercion you speak of, and the price that would be paid in a properly functioning marketplace, is RENT. It is not a Marxist bogeyman, it is a free market bogeyman. Of course, I see the Libertarian tag, so you have to be obsessed with rents stemming from government actions. But sometimes it is necessary for the government to initiate action to STOP rent seeking activities. Not all government actions enable them, some prevent them.

And I agree, the Alaska Permanent Fund is not a production operation. And I also agree, they are collecting the "rent" that the oil companies are collecting by being able to extract oil that they do not own. The people of Alaska own that oil. A perfect example of a government initiating action to stop rent seeking activities, or at least distribute the proceeds of those rents back to the people.

it is what you pay to use someone else's property, be it physical or intellectual. Someone at some point worked to acquire or create said property, and if it is valued by someone else, compensation is something between the owner and the person desiring access to said property.

 

[Uncensored2008]

LOL. We are both saying the same thing.

No, we are most certainly not.

The difference between the price paid due to the coercion you speak of, and the price that would be paid in a properly functioning marketplace, is RENT.

You misunderstand, I have read Chomsky, I am aware of these ideas, they simply are crap based on a complete failure to grasp fundamental economic principles.

It is not a Marxist bogeyman, it is a free market bogeyman.

Uh no.

What you are attempting, clumsily to espouse is the Marxist theory of rents, as described in Capital Vol. 1.

Here is a simplified explanation.

{It simply means that in agriculture and mining less productive labour (as in the general case analysed above) determines the market value of food or minerals, and that therefore more efficient farms and mines enjoy surplus profits which Marx calls differential (land and mining) rent. It also means that as long as productivity of labour in agriculture is generally below the average of the economy as a whole (or more correctly: that the organic composition of capital, the expenditure in machinery and raw materials as against wages, is inferior in agriculture to that in industry and transportation), the sum total of surplus-value produced in agriculture will accrue to landowners + capitalist farmers taken together, and will not enter the general process of (re)distribution of profit throughout the economy as a whole.}

Ernest Mandel: Karl Marx (Chap.5)

Of course, I see the Libertarian tag, so you have to be obsessed with rents stemming from government actions. But sometimes it is necessary for the government to initiate action to STOP rent seeking activities. Not all government actions enable them, some prevent them.

Thankfully, we live in a nation that retains property rights. The ownership of property naturally includes the right to charge for it's use by others.

Ultimately what Marxists demand, is abolishing private property. Chomsky couches this in claims of opposing "rent seeking." If one invests in anything, one generally seeks a return on that investment (or one is abysmally stupid.) Investments in land are no different than investments in machinery and equipment, a return on capital employed is expected.

The denial of the right to charge for the value granted by the use of ones property is tantamount to theft of that value, which is what you seek.

And I agree, the Alaska Permanent Fund is not a production operation. And I also agree, they are collecting the "rent" that the oil companies are collecting by being able to extract oil that they do not own. The people of Alaska own that oil. A perfect example of a government initiating action to stop rent seeking activities, or at least distribute the proceeds of those rents back to the people.

So, you are fine with collecting rent, so long as it is done by the ruling elite.

As I stated before, the Marxist goal is to deny ownership of property to the little people.

Ultimately Socialism is simply a return to feudalism. All things are property of the state (the crown/king). The state has governors (barons) who manage vast areas of land on behalf of the crown. These governors appoint ministers (Earls) to manage counties, who appoint bureaucrats (Nobles) to run the day to day affairs of the assets, including people who are entrusted to their rule.

Under Marxism, all assets, including people, are property of the ruling elite.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But did he have to? That is the question. Did market forces dictate that Henry Ford significantly increase the pay of his workers?

Yes.

Ford was introducing the production line and specialization. In order for his idea to work, he required the best automotive workers on the market. The way to gain them was to offer a wage significantly better than his competitors.

Did they all get together and do some collective bargaining and tell old Henry they were going to walk out if they didn't get a raise? And even if they did, you think he would have had a problem replacing those low skilled workers?

So again, the question is what "invisible hand" forced Henry Ford to increase his employee's wages?

There was no force, there was a need for higher quality, which paid significant dividends.

 

[Winston]

I support a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour.

Of course you do, you don't run a business.

I do not want an employer to pay an employee more than the value of his production.

You contradict yourself. You seek to use the coercive power of the state to dictate what a once free person is permitted to accept. If a person cannot sell their talents for $15 an hour, you demand that the starve, even if there are some who would buy those talents for $10.

Such is the cruelty of the minimum wage.

But, if the employer wants to pay an employee at least fifteen dollars an hour, even when the employee doesn't produce fifteen dollars worth of value, I don't care.

How big of you, Comrade.

Now,the problem, especially in regards to both Walmart and McDonalds, is not there there is not enough "profit" being generated by these employees to justify fifteen dollars an hour. In both cases, Walmart and McDonalds, the required increase in labor cost to get those employees to fifteen dollars can be financed from the money those companies are spending on stock buybacks. In other words, instead of spending money on rent seeking activities those companies will be investing money in their employees.

If only you could be elected to the board of either company, you could dictate you Chomsky ideals to them...

Oh I have a business. One employee. Me. Find it works best that way.

But long ago, I was a meatcutter. A good one. And it was a great job. No better working conditions. Plus, I was producing. I was creating value. I was taking a raw material and turning it into a finished product. But, that job just didn't pay enough. And I could see it, even then. It was not that I wasn't producing enough value, it was that more and more of that value was being passed uphill.

And no, I don't have to be on the board of directors. I simply want the government to forbid companies from conducting stock buybacks. It is the manipulation of the stock price, which is considered illegal when conducted by any other entity. It was illegal in the United States for decades, until, ironically, the Ronald Reagan administration.

It is easy to see what has happened. Rothbard, George, Keynes--they would all agree. We have structured our economy in such a way that we now reward rent seeking behavior more than we reward production and innovation. Now, we have almost nothing but rent seeking and very little production. That is our central problem and almost every major economist not bought by the Koch foundation has finally came to that realization.

And my career is a reflection of that reality. I used to make more pie. Now, I run around and grab up more of the pie that is already there. It is what our system directed me to do and it is what our system directs our large corporations and wealthy individuals to do as well. That has to change.

 

[Winston]

LOL. We are both saying the same thing.

No, we are most certainly not.

The difference between the price paid due to the coercion you speak of, and the price that would be paid in a properly functioning marketplace, is RENT.

You misunderstand, I have read Chomsky, I am aware of these ideas, they simply are crap based on a complete failure to grasp fundamental economic principles.

It is not a Marxist bogeyman, it is a free market bogeyman.

Uh no.

What you are attempting, clumsily to espouse is the Marxist theory of rents, as described in Capital Vol. 1.

Here is a simplified explanation.

{It simply means that in agriculture and mining less productive labour (as in the general case analysed above) determines the market value of food or minerals, and that therefore more efficient farms and mines enjoy surplus profits which Marx calls differential (land and mining) rent. It also means that as long as productivity of labour in agriculture is generally below the average of the economy as a whole (or more correctly: that the organic composition of capital, the expenditure in machinery and raw materials as against wages, is inferior in agriculture to that in industry and transportation), the sum total of surplus-value produced in agriculture will accrue to landowners + capitalist farmers taken together, and will not enter the general process of (re)distribution of profit throughout the economy as a whole.}

Ernest Mandel: Karl Marx (Chap.5)

Of course, I see the Libertarian tag, so you have to be obsessed with rents stemming from government actions. But sometimes it is necessary for the government to initiate action to STOP rent seeking activities. Not all government actions enable them, some prevent them.

Thankfully, we live in a nation that retains property rights. The ownership of property naturally includes the right to charge for it's use by others.

Ultimately what Marxists demand, is abolishing private property. Chomsky couches this in claims of opposing "rent seeking." If one invests in anything, one generally seeks a return on that investment (or one is abysmally stupid.) Investments in land are no different than investments in machinery and equipment, a return on capital employed is expected.

The denial of the right to charge for the value granted by the use of ones property is tantamount to theft of that value, which is what you seek.

And I agree, the Alaska Permanent Fund is not a production operation. And I also agree, they are collecting the "rent" that the oil companies are collecting by being able to extract oil that they do not own. The people of Alaska own that oil. A perfect example of a government initiating action to stop rent seeking activities, or at least distribute the proceeds of those rents back to the people.

So, you are fine with collecting rent, so long as it is done by the ruling elite.

As I stated before, the Marxist goal is to deny ownership of property to the little people.

Ultimately Socialism is simply a return to feudalism. All things are property of the state (the crown/king). The state has governors (barons) who manage vast areas of land on behalf of the crown. These governors appoint ministers (Earls) to manage counties, who appoint bureaucrats (Nobles) to run the day to day affairs of the assets, including people who are entrusted to their rule.

Under Marxism, all assets, including people, are property of the ruling elite.

Yes, Marx identified "rents", as did George. Rothbard, Smith, Keynes--they all acknowledge them. And I get you understand what they are. Hell, you even understand that economic rent is not present in a free market, you just don't want to admit it. Nor do you want to admit, like all the other economists, that economic rent is BAD.

And I agree with your take on socialism. I don't advocate a total socialist society. But some things, yes, the government should own the means of production. Health care, energy---they come to mind.

But mostly what I am saying is that we must examine the very structure of our tax code and regulatory environment and eliminate the opportunities of rent seeking that this environment currently creates and encourages. Libertarians should be supportive, although they might not like the fact, that in some cases, like a minimum wage, government action will be required to discourage rent seeking.

But anyone, and I mean anyone, that even flings out the term "free market" should be supportive of my views on rent seeking. As you can see, the opposite is almost always the case.

 

[kaz]

LOL. We are both saying the same thing.

No, we are most certainly not.

The difference between the price paid due to the coercion you speak of, and the price that would be paid in a properly functioning marketplace, is RENT.

You misunderstand, I have read Chomsky, I am aware of these ideas, they simply are crap based on a complete failure to grasp fundamental economic principles.

It is not a Marxist bogeyman, it is a free market bogeyman.

Uh no.

What you are attempting, clumsily to espouse is the Marxist theory of rents, as described in Capital Vol. 1.

Here is a simplified explanation.

{It simply means that in agriculture and mining less productive labour (as in the general case analysed above) determines the market value of food or minerals, and that therefore more efficient farms and mines enjoy surplus profits which Marx calls differential (land and mining) rent. It also means that as long as productivity of labour in agriculture is generally below the average of the economy as a whole (or more correctly: that the organic composition of capital, the expenditure in machinery and raw materials as against wages, is inferior in agriculture to that in industry and transportation), the sum total of surplus-value produced in agriculture will accrue to landowners + capitalist farmers taken together, and will not enter the general process of (re)distribution of profit throughout the economy as a whole.}

Ernest Mandel: Karl Marx (Chap.5)

Of course, I see the Libertarian tag, so you have to be obsessed with rents stemming from government actions. But sometimes it is necessary for the government to initiate action to STOP rent seeking activities. Not all government actions enable them, some prevent them.

Thankfully, we live in a nation that retains property rights. The ownership of property naturally includes the right to charge for it's use by others.

Ultimately what Marxists demand, is abolishing private property. Chomsky couches this in claims of opposing "rent seeking." If one invests in anything, one generally seeks a return on that investment (or one is abysmally stupid.) Investments in land are no different than investments in machinery and equipment, a return on capital employed is expected.

The denial of the right to charge for the value granted by the use of ones property is tantamount to theft of that value, which is what you seek.

And I agree, the Alaska Permanent Fund is not a production operation. And I also agree, they are collecting the "rent" that the oil companies are collecting by being able to extract oil that they do not own. The people of Alaska own that oil. A perfect example of a government initiating action to stop rent seeking activities, or at least distribute the proceeds of those rents back to the people.

So, you are fine with collecting rent, so long as it is done by the ruling elite.

As I stated before, the Marxist goal is to deny ownership of property to the little people.

Ultimately Socialism is simply a return to feudalism. All things are property of the state (the crown/king). The state has governors (barons) who manage vast areas of land on behalf of the crown. These governors appoint ministers (Earls) to manage counties, who appoint bureaucrats (Nobles) to run the day to day affairs of the assets, including people who are entrusted to their rule.

Under Marxism, all assets, including people, are property of the ruling elite.

Yes, Marx identified "rents", as did George. Rothbard, Smith, Keynes--they all acknowledge them. And I get you understand what they are. Hell, you even understand that economic rent is not present in a free market, you just don't want to admit it. Nor do you want to admit, like all the other economists, that economic rent is BAD.

And I agree with your take on socialism. I don't advocate a total socialist society. But some things, yes, the government should own the means of production. Health care, energy---they come to mind.

But mostly what I am saying is that we must examine the very structure of our tax code and regulatory environment and eliminate the opportunities of rent seeking that this environment currently creates and encourages. Libertarians should be supportive, although they might not like the fact, that in some cases, like a minimum wage, government action will be required to discourage rent seeking.

But anyone, and I mean anyone, that even flings out the term "free market" should be supportive of my views on rent seeking. As you can see, the opposite is almost always the case.

I feel you

 

[Winston]

But did he have to? That is the question. Did market forces dictate that Henry Ford significantly increase the pay of his workers?

Yes.

Ford was introducing the production line and specialization. In order for his idea to work, he required the best automotive workers on the market. The way to gain them was to offer a wage significantly better than his competitors.

Did they all get together and do some collective bargaining and tell old Henry they were going to walk out if they didn't get a raise? And even if they did, you think he would have had a problem replacing those low skilled workers?

So again, the question is what "invisible hand" forced Henry Ford to increase his employee's wages?

There was no force, there was a need for higher quality, which paid significant dividends.

Uh, No. Go back in the thread. Ford did not come up with the concept of the production line and specialization. Plato did. And he didn't need the best automotive workers on the market. Hell, he didn't even need automotive workers. That was the whole point that Plato spoke about. The workers don't need as much skill when specializing. "Unskilled workers". That is what Ford required.

He paid them for their loss in dignity. Think about that for a moment in light of this discussion about the McDonalds worker.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uh, No. Go back in the thread. Ford did not come up with the concept of the production line and specialization. Plato did. And he didn't need the best automotive workers on the market. Hell, he didn't even need automotive workers. That was the whole point that Plato spoke about. The workers don't need as much skill when specializing. "Unskilled workers". That is what Ford required.

He paid them for their loss in dignity. Think about that for a moment in light of this discussion about the McDonalds worker.

That must explain why everyone in the 20's was driving a Plato Model Q.....

 

[Conservative65]

He contradicts himself when he says he doesn't want someone paid more than they are worth. He already claimed that skills don't matter and someone should get paid enough to support him/herself and one other simply because the work is 40 hours. What he doesn't seem to get is that there are jobs that don't produce a dime in revenue yet he's willing to pay them a substantial amount.

Maybe I have it wrong, but from what I can understand, he's saying that companies that have jobs that pay less than $15.00 per hour (because those positions don't produce enough profit) should be eliminated. Okay, eliminated by who? Should government close down McDonald's because they have jobs that don't produce enough profit to pay a worker $15.00 an hour or more? People in a community should suffer because of that?

I can't figure out what he's offering as a good solution to the problem.

I support a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour.

I do not want an employer to pay an employee more than the value of his production. But, if the employer wants to pay an employee at least fifteen dollars an hour, even when the employee doesn't produce fifteen dollars worth of value, I don't care.

Now,the problem, especially in regards to both Walmart and McDonalds, is not there there is not enough "profit" being generated by these employees to justify fifteen dollars an hour. In both cases, Walmart and McDonalds, the required increase in labor cost to get those employees to fifteen dollars can be financed from the money those companies are spending on stock buybacks. In other words, instead of spending money on rent seeking activities those companies will be investing money in their employees.

It always amazes me that these gigantic corporations are able to compensate from market fluctuations in the cost of supplies and raw materials, rent, tax increases, increased advertising costs, increased executive pay

Yet when someone advocates an increase in pay for their lowest workers, it will bring them to their knees

When are those advocates of increased pay for the lower workers going to advocate those workers increase their skill level?

 

[Conservative65]

Something my dad taught me long ago. Anything you have to sell, and that includes you skills/labor, isn't worth what you think it is but what someone is willing to pay for it.

Or as Milton Friedman put it, "Value is not set by the seller, but by the buyer."

I don't know if what my dad said was based on Friedman, but it meant the same thing. No matter how much someone claims something is worth is the most anyone will pay them for it and they accept is $(fill in the blank), it's worth $(fill in the blank).

 

[initforme]

So nothing in america is worth much then. I agree.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

They are reading the tea leaves and seeing the trending. The "Fight for $15" movement may not have started the automation trend, but they are adding a force to it.

better products at lower cost, what a concept.

Not when forced by the government, and which results in higher costs down the road.

how do you believe we got our first world economy; it was, "forced by the government".

 

[rightwinger]

He contradicts himself when he says he doesn't want someone paid more than they are worth. He already claimed that skills don't matter and someone should get paid enough to support him/herself and one other simply because the work is 40 hours. What he doesn't seem to get is that there are jobs that don't produce a dime in revenue yet he's willing to pay them a substantial amount.

Maybe I have it wrong, but from what I can understand, he's saying that companies that have jobs that pay less than $15.00 per hour (because those positions don't produce enough profit) should be eliminated. Okay, eliminated by who? Should government close down McDonald's because they have jobs that don't produce enough profit to pay a worker $15.00 an hour or more? People in a community should suffer because of that?

I can't figure out what he's offering as a good solution to the problem.

I support a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour.

I do not want an employer to pay an employee more than the value of his production. But, if the employer wants to pay an employee at least fifteen dollars an hour, even when the employee doesn't produce fifteen dollars worth of value, I don't care.

Now,the problem, especially in regards to both Walmart and McDonalds, is not there there is not enough "profit" being generated by these employees to justify fifteen dollars an hour. In both cases, Walmart and McDonalds, the required increase in labor cost to get those employees to fifteen dollars can be financed from the money those companies are spending on stock buybacks. In other words, instead of spending money on rent seeking activities those companies will be investing money in their employees.

It always amazes me that these gigantic corporations are able to compensate from market fluctuations in the cost of supplies and raw materials, rent, tax increases, increased advertising costs, increased executive pay

Yet when someone advocates an increase in pay for their lowest workers, it will bring them to their knees

When are those advocates of increased pay for the lower workers going to advocate those workers increase their skill level?

Are you advocating they should all become CEO's to get a pay increase?

 

[danielpalos]

He contradicts himself when he says he doesn't want someone paid more than they are worth. He already claimed that skills don't matter and someone should get paid enough to support him/herself and one other simply because the work is 40 hours. What he doesn't seem to get is that there are jobs that don't produce a dime in revenue yet he's willing to pay them a substantial amount.

Maybe I have it wrong, but from what I can understand, he's saying that companies that have jobs that pay less than $15.00 per hour (because those positions don't produce enough profit) should be eliminated. Okay, eliminated by who? Should government close down McDonald's because they have jobs that don't produce enough profit to pay a worker $15.00 an hour or more? People in a community should suffer because of that?

I can't figure out what he's offering as a good solution to the problem.

I support a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour.

I do not want an employer to pay an employee more than the value of his production. But, if the employer wants to pay an employee at least fifteen dollars an hour, even when the employee doesn't produce fifteen dollars worth of value, I don't care.

Now,the problem, especially in regards to both Walmart and McDonalds, is not there there is not enough "profit" being generated by these employees to justify fifteen dollars an hour. In both cases, Walmart and McDonalds, the required increase in labor cost to get those employees to fifteen dollars can be financed from the money those companies are spending on stock buybacks. In other words, instead of spending money on rent seeking activities those companies will be investing money in their employees.

It always amazes me that these gigantic corporations are able to compensate from market fluctuations in the cost of supplies and raw materials, rent, tax increases, increased advertising costs, increased executive pay

Yet when someone advocates an increase in pay for their lowest workers, it will bring them to their knees

When are those advocates of increased pay for the lower workers going to advocate those workers increase their skill level?

Are you advocating they should all become CEO's to get a pay increase?

yes, that is the right wing solution. never mind that all capitalists cannot make like Henry Ford and double wages to realize gains from efficiency.

 

[dannyboys]

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

sure; you don't believe in Capitalism?

only True socialists, require a work ethic.

No, socialism requires a gun to force a work ethic.

Damn, not only do you conservatives not understand what a free market economy is. You don't even understand what socialism is.

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

"Owning the factors of production" and "owning a couple dozen businesses" are two very different things. There are some 18M+ non-government owned enterprises in the U.S. and you equate the notion of "socialist system" with the government owning some 20 or so while there are that many others that no government owns?

I understand that a "free market economy" can not exist within a Socialist state.
The operative word is: "FREE".
In a Socialist country no one is 'Free' to start and operate a 'for-profit' business.
They must deal with corrupt officials from top to bottom.
Basically the Socialist governments are run like the Mafia.
ALWAYS someone at the top of the food chain deciding the fate of those below.

You can have a free market economy with socialism. You cannot have it with a command economy. If the socialist state implements a command economy, then no, but one can have a socialist state -- socialism -- without having a command economy.

Free market just means that the market forces determine the prices at which goods and services are exchanged and the quantities of them that are exchanged and made available.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!
Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho.
A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

sure; you don't believe in Capitalism?

only True socialists, require a work ethic.

No, socialism requires a gun to force a work ethic.

Damn, not only do you conservatives not understand what a free market economy is. You don't even understand what socialism is.

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

"Owning the factors of production" and "owning a couple dozen businesses" are two very different things. There are some 18M+ non-government owned enterprises in the U.S. and you equate the notion of "socialist system" with the government owning some 20 or so while there are that many others that no government owns?

I understand that a "free market economy" can not exist within a Socialist state.
The operative word is: "FREE".
In a Socialist country no one is 'Free' to start and operate a 'for-profit' business.
They must deal with corrupt officials from top to bottom.
Basically the Socialist governments are run like the Mafia.
ALWAYS someone at the top of the food chain deciding the fate of those below.

You can have a free market economy with socialism. You cannot have it with a command economy. If the socialist state implements a command economy, then no, but one can have a socialist state -- socialism -- without having a command economy.

Free market just means that the market forces determine the prices at which goods and services are exchanged and the quantities of them that are exchanged and made available.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!

Your anecdotal observations are just that.

• That's one form of socialism. Despite what you may think, there is not just one form of socialism. The reason for that is that the economic, social and political aspects of socialism are separable, though they need not be separated in any given implementation of socialism.

Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

That is indicative of nothing. It may be the consequence of state controlled/stipulated pho prices, but that the all the street vendors charge the same price does not in any way show that the state is controlling the prices. Showing a piece of legislation or a regulation that does stipulate such pricing would show your claim to be so.

For example:

• If you look here, every seller in the U.S. charges the exact same price for the items you'll see at the link. That being the case has nothing to do with state controls on prices.
• When one is in downtown D.C., one will find hotdog vendors all over the place. They all charge the same prices, and the state has nothing to do with it.
  
  
  

• Looking at the photo above, you'll see a taxicab. The prices the taxis charge are controlled by the taxicab commission. There are other goods/services in the U.S. that are stipulated by various governments: water, electricity, and home heating oil and gas.
• Go to Macy's, Bloomingdales, and Saks, and you'll find the price of a Ralph Lauren button down shirt is the same at all of them. The same is so for nearly perfume and cosmetic one might aim to buy. The government is not making that be so.

One need not consider the matter solely in terms of differentiated goods. Purchase any commodity on the commodities exchange and you'll find that at any given point in time, every sellers sells at the same price unless and until (1) a buyer offers a higher price or (2) a seller agrees to accept a lower price. That happens because commodity sellers are price takers.

As for Vietnam, I'm aware of their Law on Price, but I don't know that pho is included in its scope. A variety of food items appear to be outside its scope judging by the variability noted for certain items shown here. Now it may still be that the price of pho is controlled, but you've not shown that to be so, and I don't know it to be so. In light of that, I'd say that pho sellers offer a commoditized good -- pho -- and are thus price takers. Now, if you care to put forth something that shows Vietnam has indeed by governmental fiat set pho prices, I'll accept that as so.

 

[Uncensored2008]

how do you believe we got our first world economy; it was, "forced by the government".

Not at all true. The American miracle was largely driven by agricultural specialization. For the first time in recorded history, the majority of people owned their own land. This meant that farmers decided which crops to grow, rather than doing as nobles ordered. The natural canals of the North East provided a means of transportation, these canals were expanded to the Erie Canal, which meant that specialists could concentrate on a single crop, then take it to market where they would sell the excess and buy what they needed.

This was the "Market Revolution," which literally changed the world. For the first time, those not in the nobility were able escape the need to spend every moment scratching the dirt in desperate hope of producing enough that they and their family would not starve to death. Instead these people were able to produce in abundance, not only providing them with security, but also with leisure, something unheard of outside of the aristocracy. This allowed farmers to pursue education, and even art. Hence arose for the first time in history, the middle class.

The left has worked diligently ever since to destroy these usurpers of Aristocratic privilege..