McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[RealDave]

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

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

You dumbass, kiosks have been used in various businesses for years.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Do you understand basic economics? A business makes a profit when it earns more money than it spends, and labor costs are a part of the money a company spends. You simply cannot raise that labor cost significantly without impacting that profit, and a company that operates on a 3% profit margin cannot double its labor costs without significant changes.

If labor cost more, the business has these choices:

1. Reduce profit to absorb the increased cost. Not likely to happen because the profit margin is not going to be that big, except in rare cases. Double labor costs for most companies and they would start losing money.

2. Raise prices to cover the added cost. Likely. prices would go up and the poor would no longer be able to afford the cheap stuff they can now. Is it better to be able to buy a cheap TV at Walmart and have a low MW or to have a high MW and have the poor pay a good deal more for that TV?

3. Reduce the number of workers to bring costs back in line with revenue. Very likely to happen, and the workers laid off would not be cheering the MW hike that cost them their jobs.

You do understand the basic economics here, right? You just can't double most company's labor costs overnight and expect nothing to happen.

A business makes a profit off of every employee. Rising labor costs are no different than rising costs of supplies, taxes, rent, insurance or even executive pay. All have risen over the last eight years while minimum wage has remained frozen

Minimum wage has stayed the same because what's required to do minimum wage jobs hasn't risen. When the skill level required stays frozen, so do the wages. You mention 8 years. That's 8 years those low skilled people could have done something to raise their skill level. If they spent a quarter of the time bettering themselves as they did whining about wanting to be handed more, this wouldn't be a conversation.

You mention 8 years. The skills required to do a minimum wage job today are the same as they were 50 years ago. Pushing a broom, emptying trash, and cleaning a toilet require the same skill level today as they did when I was a kid and learned to do those things as chores around the house.

Used to be minimum wage was a true...starter wage
I started at $2 an hour in 1972. For $2 an hour, I could pay my entire college tuition working just the summer. I could buy a new car working six months. I could buy seven gallons of gas for that car.
It would take $15 an hour to do that today

Used to be those making minimum wage did things to improve those skills. The problem is those refusing to improve their skills only want their wage increased for refusing to do so.

It's kind of the way it works......I earned minimum wage while I was trying to pay my way through college. I got a degree and demanded a higher salary.......someone else moved into that minimum wage job

You didn't demand shit, they saw your potential..

To bad you didn't give them your all..

 

[rightwinger]

Your business is making a profit off of low cost labor. If society has to step in and support your worker, than you should have to contribute some of that profit to that fund.
Otherwise, pay a decent wage

Do you understand basic economics? A business makes a profit when it earns more money than it spends, and labor costs are a part of the money a company spends. You simply cannot raise that labor cost significantly without impacting that profit, and a company that operates on a 3% profit margin cannot double its labor costs without significant changes.

If labor cost more, the business has these choices:

1. Reduce profit to absorb the increased cost. Not likely to happen because the profit margin is not going to be that big, except in rare cases. Double labor costs for most companies and they would start losing money.

2. Raise prices to cover the added cost. Likely. prices would go up and the poor would no longer be able to afford the cheap stuff they can now. Is it better to be able to buy a cheap TV at Walmart and have a low MW or to have a high MW and have the poor pay a good deal more for that TV?

3. Reduce the number of workers to bring costs back in line with revenue. Very likely to happen, and the workers laid off would not be cheering the MW hike that cost them their jobs.

You do understand the basic economics here, right? You just can't double most company's labor costs overnight and expect nothing to happen.

A business makes a profit off of every employee. Rising labor costs are no different than rising costs of supplies, taxes, rent, insurance or even executive pay. All have risen over the last eight years while minimum wage has remained frozen

Minimum wage has not remained the same states have risen it, which is the right thing to do - it's a regional thing not a national one.

It's why we call it a minimum

Some states would reimplement slavery if you let them

Name them?

The only slavery I see in modern day of America is by the democrat party.. Still

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee all needed federal forces to end segregation

 

[rightwinger]

A business makes a profit off of every employee. Rising labor costs are no different than rising costs of supplies, taxes, rent, insurance or even executive pay. All have risen over the last eight years while minimum wage has remained frozen

Minimum wage has stayed the same because what's required to do minimum wage jobs hasn't risen. When the skill level required stays frozen, so do the wages. You mention 8 years. That's 8 years those low skilled people could have done something to raise their skill level. If they spent a quarter of the time bettering themselves as they did whining about wanting to be handed more, this wouldn't be a conversation.

You mention 8 years. The skills required to do a minimum wage job today are the same as they were 50 years ago. Pushing a broom, emptying trash, and cleaning a toilet require the same skill level today as they did when I was a kid and learned to do those things as chores around the house.

Used to be minimum wage was a true...starter wage
I started at $2 an hour in 1972. For $2 an hour, I could pay my entire college tuition working just the summer. I could buy a new car working six months. I could buy seven gallons of gas for that car.
It would take $15 an hour to do that today

Used to be those making minimum wage did things to improve those skills. The problem is those refusing to improve their skills only want their wage increased for refusing to do so.

It's kind of the way it works......I earned minimum wage while I was trying to pay my way through college. I got a degree and demanded a higher salary.......someone else moved into that minimum wage job

You didn't demand shit, they saw your potential..

To bad you didn't give them your all..

Went right over your head, didn't it Goober?

People move on from minimum wage jobs and new people come in to take their place

 

[Conservative65]

Minimum wage has stayed the same because what's required to do minimum wage jobs hasn't risen. When the skill level required stays frozen, so do the wages. You mention 8 years. That's 8 years those low skilled people could have done something to raise their skill level. If they spent a quarter of the time bettering themselves as they did whining about wanting to be handed more, this wouldn't be a conversation.

You mention 8 years. The skills required to do a minimum wage job today are the same as they were 50 years ago. Pushing a broom, emptying trash, and cleaning a toilet require the same skill level today as they did when I was a kid and learned to do those things as chores around the house.

Used to be minimum wage was a true...starter wage
I started at $2 an hour in 1972. For $2 an hour, I could pay my entire college tuition working just the summer. I could buy a new car working six months. I could buy seven gallons of gas for that car.
It would take $15 an hour to do that today

Used to be those making minimum wage did things to improve those skills. The problem is those refusing to improve their skills only want their wage increased for refusing to do so.

It's kind of the way it works......I earned minimum wage while I was trying to pay my way through college. I got a degree and demanded a higher salary.......someone else moved into that minimum wage job

You didn't demand shit, they saw your potential..

To bad you didn't give them your all..

Went right over your head, didn't it Goober?

People move on from minimum wage jobs and new people come in to take their place

Minimum wage has stayed the same because what's required to do minimum wage jobs hasn't risen. When the skill level required stays frozen, so do the wages. You mention 8 years. That's 8 years those low skilled people could have done something to raise their skill level. If they spent a quarter of the time bettering themselves as they did whining about wanting to be handed more, this wouldn't be a conversation.

You mention 8 years. The skills required to do a minimum wage job today are the same as they were 50 years ago. Pushing a broom, emptying trash, and cleaning a toilet require the same skill level today as they did when I was a kid and learned to do those things as chores around the house.

Used to be minimum wage was a true...starter wage
I started at $2 an hour in 1972. For $2 an hour, I could pay my entire college tuition working just the summer. I could buy a new car working six months. I could buy seven gallons of gas for that car.
It would take $15 an hour to do that today

Used to be those making minimum wage did things to improve those skills. The problem is those refusing to improve their skills only want their wage increased for refusing to do so.

It's kind of the way it works......I earned minimum wage while I was trying to pay my way through college. I got a degree and demanded a higher salary.......someone else moved into that minimum wage job

You didn't demand shit, they saw your potential..

To bad you didn't give them your all..

Went right over your head, didn't it Goober?

People move on from minimum wage jobs and new people come in to take their place

Some people move on and many others continue to do them demanding they get more pay for doing nothing more.

 

[Conservative65]

Do you understand basic economics? A business makes a profit when it earns more money than it spends, and labor costs are a part of the money a company spends. You simply cannot raise that labor cost significantly without impacting that profit, and a company that operates on a 3% profit margin cannot double its labor costs without significant changes.

If labor cost more, the business has these choices:

1. Reduce profit to absorb the increased cost. Not likely to happen because the profit margin is not going to be that big, except in rare cases. Double labor costs for most companies and they would start losing money.

2. Raise prices to cover the added cost. Likely. prices would go up and the poor would no longer be able to afford the cheap stuff they can now. Is it better to be able to buy a cheap TV at Walmart and have a low MW or to have a high MW and have the poor pay a good deal more for that TV?

3. Reduce the number of workers to bring costs back in line with revenue. Very likely to happen, and the workers laid off would not be cheering the MW hike that cost them their jobs.

You do understand the basic economics here, right? You just can't double most company's labor costs overnight and expect nothing to happen.

A business makes a profit off of every employee. Rising labor costs are no different than rising costs of supplies, taxes, rent, insurance or even executive pay. All have risen over the last eight years while minimum wage has remained frozen

Minimum wage has not remained the same states have risen it, which is the right thing to do - it's a regional thing not a national one.

It's why we call it a minimum

Some states would reimplement slavery if you let them

Name them?

The only slavery I see in modern day of America is by the democrat party.. Still

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee all needed federal forces to end segregation

Just to make sure I understand what you're saying, you're claiming something that happened over 150 years ago is you support for saying some states would reimplement slavery if you let them?

No wonder you ever worked for minimum wage. You're an idiot.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Do you understand basic economics? A business makes a profit when it earns more money than it spends, and labor costs are a part of the money a company spends. You simply cannot raise that labor cost significantly without impacting that profit, and a company that operates on a 3% profit margin cannot double its labor costs without significant changes.

If labor cost more, the business has these choices:

1. Reduce profit to absorb the increased cost. Not likely to happen because the profit margin is not going to be that big, except in rare cases. Double labor costs for most companies and they would start losing money.

2. Raise prices to cover the added cost. Likely. prices would go up and the poor would no longer be able to afford the cheap stuff they can now. Is it better to be able to buy a cheap TV at Walmart and have a low MW or to have a high MW and have the poor pay a good deal more for that TV?

3. Reduce the number of workers to bring costs back in line with revenue. Very likely to happen, and the workers laid off would not be cheering the MW hike that cost them their jobs.

You do understand the basic economics here, right? You just can't double most company's labor costs overnight and expect nothing to happen.

A business makes a profit off of every employee. Rising labor costs are no different than rising costs of supplies, taxes, rent, insurance or even executive pay. All have risen over the last eight years while minimum wage has remained frozen

Minimum wage has not remained the same states have risen it, which is the right thing to do - it's a regional thing not a national one.

It's why we call it a minimum

Some states would reimplement slavery if you let them

Name them?

The only slavery I see in modern day of America is by the democrat party.. Still

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee all needed federal forces to end segregation

New's Flash....

They ended institutionalized segregation.

But their meddling has caused blacks to suffer needlessly for decades.

To bad they couldn't show a little restraint. Things were already on the move.

Now we have Black Lives Matters.....But the feds stopped all that.....right ?

 

[rightwinger]

A business makes a profit off of every employee. Rising labor costs are no different than rising costs of supplies, taxes, rent, insurance or even executive pay. All have risen over the last eight years while minimum wage has remained frozen

Minimum wage has not remained the same states have risen it, which is the right thing to do - it's a regional thing not a national one.

It's why we call it a minimum

Some states would reimplement slavery if you let them

Name them?

The only slavery I see in modern day of America is by the democrat party.. Still

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee all needed federal forces to end segregation

New's Flash....

They ended institutionalized segregation.

But their meddling has caused blacks to suffer needlessly for decades.

To bad they couldn't show a little restraint. Things were already on the move.

Now we have Black Lives Matters.....But the feds stopped all that.....right ?

I know....Federal Government meddling like the right to vote, integration, affirmative action

Thank god we have the states looking out for the rights of their people

 

[Wyatt earp]

Minimum wage has not remained the same states have risen it, which is the right thing to do - it's a regional thing not a national one.

It's why we call it a minimum

Some states would reimplement slavery if you let them

Name them?

The only slavery I see in modern day of America is by the democrat party.. Still

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee all needed federal forces to end segregation

New's Flash....

They ended institutionalized segregation.

But their meddling has caused blacks to suffer needlessly for decades.

To bad they couldn't show a little restraint. Things were already on the move.

Now we have Black Lives Matters.....But the feds stopped all that.....right ?

I know....Federal Government meddling like the right to vote, integration, affirmative action

Thank god we have the states looking out for the rights of their people

Stop that bullshit... We all know the states were the first ones to implement the laws and worked it way to the top..

Obama tried to force his will on the people from the top..

He rolled the dice and lost.

 

[rightwinger]

It's why we call it a minimum

Some states would reimplement slavery if you let them

Name them?

The only slavery I see in modern day of America is by the democrat party.. Still

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee all needed federal forces to end segregation

New's Flash....

They ended institutionalized segregation.

But their meddling has caused blacks to suffer needlessly for decades.

To bad they couldn't show a little restraint. Things were already on the move.

Now we have Black Lives Matters.....But the feds stopped all that.....right ?

I know....Federal Government meddling like the right to vote, integration, affirmative action

Thank god we have the states looking out for the rights of their people

Stop that bullshit... We all know the states were the first ones to implement the laws and worked it way to the top..

Obama tried to force his will on the people from the top..

He rolled the dice and lost.

I know

Laws like poll taxes and segregation.
Laws that persecute gays and minorities
Laws that restrict workers rights

 

[danielpalos]

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

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

Then if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, society needs to pass legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between a worker's pay and whatever arbitrary (and infinitely increasing) value is deemed sufficient.

why not cost shift from our drug war?

Why not stop the war on poverty? It hasn't worked.

because the drug war costs more and does not promote the general welfare. only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[Penelope]

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

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

Boycott them. If they want machines more money goes to welfare. See how that works. Call them at their own game. Its time to get money from the rich slobs who think 7.25 is a living wage.

 

[danielpalos]

Why would someone double wages when he wagers they're already forced to pay for certain jobs is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it?

What? Would you mind rewriting your thought so that the sentence is coherent. I'd like to know what you've asked, but I have no idea what you mean that sentence to say. I can't even tell if the thought of it belongs in one sentence.

maybe the typo "he" instead of "the" helps.

danielpalos keeps bringing up Henry Ford and doubling wages and efficiency claiming it's what capitalist employers should do.

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 typo bit didn't help at all. The incoherence didn't derive from that.

The explanatory paragraph you provided does help, so much so that if you still can, it'd be worth replacing the original question with that paragraph.

Maybe the incoherence isn't the fault of what was said but the one reading it.

nope; just a lazy work ethic for writing.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

just a lousy reading work ethic, too?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Henry Ford ran a business; you can''t make like Henry Ford. Why blame others.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You have not established that. I, OTOH, have established that you have nothing significant to say. You just simply cycle through the same phrases over and over again. You are no longer entertaining.

you have nothing but appeals to ignorance, dear.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

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

Boycott them. If they want machines more money goes to welfare. See how that works. Call them at their own game. Its time to get money from the rich slobs who think 7.25 is a living wage.

Why does more money go to welfare?

 

[danielpalos]

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

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

All you offer is to hand those low wage workers who get that low wage because they are LOW SKILLED money someone else earned. That isn't a solution at all because it solves NOTHING. That's why I expect those of you that propose useless answers to use your own money. You expect those of us that know it won't work to support doing something that has failed. In the last 50 years the U.S. has done that to the tune of $22 trillion dollars. The result. The same percentage of Americans in poverty.

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison. that is why we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage; to privatize costs instead of socialize costs.

We shouldn't have a minimum wage nor social services. If you want to help someone you deem worthy, it would be privatized because you would have to use YOUR money.

it isn't Your money; money is printed by the government and belongs to the government; you can merely use it. money has already been taxed and labored over, why pay double.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

only in right wing fantasy; we have a mixed market economy. you are simply too lazy to come up with valid arguments, slacker.

You are simply too lazy to do for yourself. That makes you a waste and worthless to society.

being too lazy to come up with a valid argument, is work ethic moral.

That's two ways I'm not lazy. I support myself and have provided a valid argument why others currently not doing so should do the same.

i have to wonder how you support yourself, since you Only have fallacies instead of good argument. crony capitalism, accounts for that.

 

[danielpalos]

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

Then if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, society needs to pass legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between a worker's pay and whatever arbitrary (and infinitely increasing) value is deemed sufficient.

Since people like rightwinger think someone with low skills getting an equivalent wage to those skills should get more, he should provide that difference himself.

CEOs are getting richer faster, by paying low wages and having people sign up for welfare benefits, subsidized by the People.

Those low wages are due to low skills being offered. Stop having the people subsidize someone offering low skills. If their abilities aren't getting it done for them, let them either step up and improve or do without.

it is relative. those same skills pay different amounts in different countries. only the right wing, never gets it.