McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[hadit]

Just stop. You're lost in the weeds. Come to think of it, I think weeds are part of your problem.

you are simply lost, with no answers. you can't do it, why blame the poor.

Here's the thing. I don't blame the poor, and I don't blame corporations that are surviving on very small profit margins. You keep asking why all corporations don't double their labor costs overnight the way Ford did, and I've answered that question repeatedly.

Here, I'll ask you a question. Why don't we just raise the MW to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?

nice evasion; how does that work for the poor? capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. labor has a good excuse.

in any Case, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, that is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

why not ask Congress for a capital bailout via the corporate tax codes, whenever capitalists don't have what it takes, to make like Henry Ford.

So welfare costs $14/hr. If society wants to guarantee a $14/hr income, then society needs to step up and make up the difference between the wage and the welfare standard. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Pay a wage where your workers don't have to go on welfare

Sure, if the work justifies that much pay. To do otherwise is to turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

 

[rightwinger]

you are simply lost, with no answers. you can't do it, why blame the poor.

Here's the thing. I don't blame the poor, and I don't blame corporations that are surviving on very small profit margins. You keep asking why all corporations don't double their labor costs overnight the way Ford did, and I've answered that question repeatedly.

Here, I'll ask you a question. Why don't we just raise the MW to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?

nice evasion; how does that work for the poor? capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. labor has a good excuse.

in any Case, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, that is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

why not ask Congress for a capital bailout via the corporate tax codes, whenever capitalists don't have what it takes, to make like Henry Ford.

So welfare costs $14/hr. If society wants to guarantee a $14/hr income, then society needs to step up and make up the difference between the wage and the welfare standard. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Pay a wage where your workers don't have to go on welfare

Sure, if the work justifies that much pay. To do otherwise is to turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Henry Ford automated the automobile assembly line when that SOB, Taft, was elected. If It weren't for Taft, we would all have jobs hand building every automobile!

 

[hadit]

Here's the thing. I don't blame the poor, and I don't blame corporations that are surviving on very small profit margins. You keep asking why all corporations don't double their labor costs overnight the way Ford did, and I've answered that question repeatedly.

Here, I'll ask you a question. Why don't we just raise the MW to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?

nice evasion; how does that work for the poor? capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. labor has a good excuse.

in any Case, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, that is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

why not ask Congress for a capital bailout via the corporate tax codes, whenever capitalists don't have what it takes, to make like Henry Ford.

So welfare costs $14/hr. If society wants to guarantee a $14/hr income, then society needs to step up and make up the difference between the wage and the welfare standard. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Pay a wage where your workers don't have to go on welfare

Sure, if the work justifies that much pay. To do otherwise is to turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at will; there is no "means testing".

Employment IS at will. Unemployment compensation, though, IS means tested, and should be.

The only "means testing" is whether or not the employment was at-will, and not for-cause.

You are simply wrong. You've been clinging desperately to a myth.

i am not wrong; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Then why do you repeat things that are wrong?

i don't; you are simply ignorant.

 

[danielpalos]

Why blame the poor for not making like Henry Ford, if capitalists can't do it with their capital.

Just stop. You're lost in the weeds. Come to think of it, I think weeds are part of your problem.

you are simply lost, with no answers. you can't do it, why blame the poor.

Here's the thing. I don't blame the poor, and I don't blame corporations that are surviving on very small profit margins. You keep asking why all corporations don't double their labor costs overnight the way Ford did, and I've answered that question repeatedly.

Here, I'll ask you a question. Why don't we just raise the MW to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?

nice evasion; how does that work for the poor? capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. labor has a good excuse.

in any Case, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, that is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

why not ask Congress for a capital bailout via the corporate tax codes, whenever capitalists don't have what it takes, to make like Henry Ford.

So welfare costs $14/hr. If society wants to guarantee a $14/hr income, then society needs to step up and make up the difference between the wage and the welfare standard. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

this is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

it is about privatizing costs not socializing costs.

 

[Conservative65]

If I'm paying someone $7.25/hour because the government mandates that minimum, why would I double those wages if the $7.25 is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it? The only reason I pay $7.25 is because I have to not because the worker is doing a job worth that much.

The answer to your question is found in considering monopsony.

Then you have no answer. The is not a good answer to why you'd pay some low skilled worker doing a job a monkey could be trained to do twice what that job is worth.

Obviously you didn't consider the implications of monopsony on wages.

I only need consider the skills to do the job and know that people with those low level skills are a dime a dozen. If one doesn't want to work for the skill level equivalent wage, another one will. When the next one decides he doesn't like it, another one will be there.

That remark alone illustrates your lack of understanding about monopsony. I'm not going to try to convince you that you should broaden your knowledge on the matter rather than remain in the state of intransigently willful ignorance in which you find yourself.

Your remarks prove you have no understanding of how to run a business. I'm not going to try and convince someone that will always be the subordinate how to do something as you'll never be able to do it.

 

[danielpalos]

you are simply lost, with no answers. you can't do it, why blame the poor.

Here's the thing. I don't blame the poor, and I don't blame corporations that are surviving on very small profit margins. You keep asking why all corporations don't double their labor costs overnight the way Ford did, and I've answered that question repeatedly.

Here, I'll ask you a question. Why don't we just raise the MW to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?

nice evasion; how does that work for the poor? capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. labor has a good excuse.

in any Case, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, that is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

why not ask Congress for a capital bailout via the corporate tax codes, whenever capitalists don't have what it takes, to make like Henry Ford.

So welfare costs $14/hr. If society wants to guarantee a $14/hr income, then society needs to step up and make up the difference between the wage and the welfare standard. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Pay a wage where your workers don't have to go on welfare

Sure, if the work justifies that much pay. To do otherwise is to turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

attention deficit disorder?

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, that is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

 

[Conservative65]

No, the right expects people to do their best, not to do less and expect society to make up the difference.

just right wing fantasy; promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution.

It is not promoting the general welfare to pay people who can work but choose not to.

Nor to pay farmers not to plant

You wouldn't last a day working on a farm. You have to actually do something and you want something for nothing.

Doesn't negate paying to not plant and subsidizing failed crops

Most of our farming is no longer mom and pop

Corporate Welfare

Sure it does. You wouldn't last on a farm, therefore, you have no understanding of anything related to it.

No such thing as corporate welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Here's the thing. I don't blame the poor, and I don't blame corporations that are surviving on very small profit margins. You keep asking why all corporations don't double their labor costs overnight the way Ford did, and I've answered that question repeatedly.

Here, I'll ask you a question. Why don't we just raise the MW to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?

nice evasion; how does that work for the poor? capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. labor has a good excuse.

in any Case, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, that is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

why not ask Congress for a capital bailout via the corporate tax codes, whenever capitalists don't have what it takes, to make like Henry Ford.

So welfare costs $14/hr. If society wants to guarantee a $14/hr income, then society needs to step up and make up the difference between the wage and the welfare standard. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Pay a wage where your workers don't have to go on welfare

Sure, if the work justifies that much pay. To do otherwise is to turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

they just want the poor to work harder for less, so they can get richer faster.

 

[Conservative65]

Great. I wasn't alive then.

too much work to acquire and posses a valid argument? why blame the poor for being lazy.

Because many that are poor are that way because they're lazy.

you only have fallacy for your Cause; how lazy is that.

I'm not poor because I'm not lazy. See how that works.

you seem too lazy to have valid arguments.

Since my argument are valid, seems you're wrong, again.

 

[Conservative65]

It solves nothing. It keeps low life like you thinking you're owed something for nothing.

For people unwilling to do for themselves and thinking something is owed to them, I'd let them starve. Now that solves the dilemma. They no longer around to ***** about being handed something for nothing.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics because they Only seem to have moral arguments.

dears, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.

My morals don't allow me to enable lazy people to be lazy while demand something for nothing. I have no problem letting a lazy piece of shit do without and have no concern about the results their laziness produces.

let me know,when you get some morals.

Since I don't promote laziness, sloth, and general freeloading, my morals are just fine.

you don't have any. it takes morals, to have moral forms of indignation. that is why, You need a valid argument, instead.

My morals don't allow me to accept laziness and freeloading. Your lack of morals allow you to enable it by being a lazy freeloader.

 

[Conservative65]

nice evasion; how does that work for the poor? capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. labor has a good excuse.

in any Case, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, that is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

why not ask Congress for a capital bailout via the corporate tax codes, whenever capitalists don't have what it takes, to make like Henry Ford.

So welfare costs $14/hr. If society wants to guarantee a $14/hr income, then society needs to step up and make up the difference between the wage and the welfare standard. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Pay a wage where your workers don't have to go on welfare

Sure, if the work justifies that much pay. To do otherwise is to turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

they just want the poor to work harder for less, so they can get richer faster.

I want the poor to actually do something to better themselves instead of constantly demanding someone take care of them.

 

[danielpalos]

too much work to acquire and posses a valid argument? why blame the poor for being lazy.

Because many that are poor are that way because they're lazy.

you only have fallacy for your Cause; how lazy is that.

I'm not poor because I'm not lazy. See how that works.

you seem too lazy to have valid arguments.

Since my argument are valid, seems you're wrong, again.

dear, you have nothing but fallacy. only inferiors, do that.

 

[Conservative65]

I've not only rebutted it, I've destroyed it, many times.

Why blame the poor for not making like Henry Ford, if capitalists can't do it with their capital.

Just stop. You're lost in the weeds. Come to think of it, I think weeds are part of your problem.

you are simply lost, with no answers. you can't do it, why blame the poor.

Here's the thing. I don't blame the poor, and I don't blame corporations that are surviving on very small profit margins. You keep asking why all corporations don't double their labor costs overnight the way Ford did, and I've answered that question repeatedly.

Here, I'll ask you a question. Why don't we just raise the MW to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?

nice evasion; how does that work for the poor? capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. labor has a good excuse.

in any Case, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, that is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

why not ask Congress for a capital bailout via the corporate tax codes, whenever capitalists don't have what it takes, to make like Henry Ford.

$14/hour? That's enough of a reason to stop such programs.

 

[Conservative65]

Because many that are poor are that way because they're lazy.

you only have fallacy for your Cause; how lazy is that.

I'm not poor because I'm not lazy. See how that works.

you seem too lazy to have valid arguments.

Since my argument are valid, seems you're wrong, again.

dear, you have nothing but fallacy. only inferiors, do that.

I'm superior to in every way. You rank below the blacks and mexicans.

 

[danielpalos]

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics because they Only seem to have moral arguments.

dears, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.

My morals don't allow me to enable lazy people to be lazy while demand something for nothing. I have no problem letting a lazy piece of shit do without and have no concern about the results their laziness produces.

let me know,when you get some morals.

Since I don't promote laziness, sloth, and general freeloading, my morals are just fine.

you don't have any. it takes morals, to have moral forms of indignation. that is why, You need a valid argument, instead.

My morals don't allow me to accept laziness and freeloading. Your lack of morals allow you to enable it by being a lazy freeloader.

you Are lazy; you only have appeals to emotion not valid arguments. don't kid yourself.

 

[danielpalos]

So welfare costs $14/hr. If society wants to guarantee a $14/hr income, then society needs to step up and make up the difference between the wage and the welfare standard. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Pay a wage where your workers don't have to go on welfare

Sure, if the work justifies that much pay. To do otherwise is to turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

they just want the poor to work harder for less, so they can get richer faster.

I want the poor to actually do something to better themselves instead of constantly demanding someone take care of them.

i want the rich to be able to get into Heaven by taxing them into solving simple poverty.

My morals are better than yours.

 

[Conservative65]

My morals don't allow me to enable lazy people to be lazy while demand something for nothing. I have no problem letting a lazy piece of shit do without and have no concern about the results their laziness produces.

let me know,when you get some morals.

Since I don't promote laziness, sloth, and general freeloading, my morals are just fine.

you don't have any. it takes morals, to have moral forms of indignation. that is why, You need a valid argument, instead.

My morals don't allow me to accept laziness and freeloading. Your lack of morals allow you to enable it by being a lazy freeloader.

you Are lazy; you only have appeals to emotion not valid arguments. don't kid yourself.

Since I'm not poor, I can't be lazy.

 

[rightwinger]

nice evasion; how does that work for the poor? capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. labor has a good excuse.

in any Case, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, that is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

why not ask Congress for a capital bailout via the corporate tax codes, whenever capitalists don't have what it takes, to make like Henry Ford.

So welfare costs $14/hr. If society wants to guarantee a $14/hr income, then society needs to step up and make up the difference between the wage and the welfare standard. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Pay a wage where your workers don't have to go on welfare

Sure, if the work justifies that much pay. To do otherwise is to turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice