See we told you.. Mcdonalds is ordering 7K touch screen to replace cashiers

[Darkwind]

I forgot about those... I avoid them. I go to a friendly face. Hey flirting with a cute girl cashier is fun...

...right up until you discover that the stoner bagging your groceries has put sandwich rolls under canned fruit, eggs under a canned ham, and raw meat with highly-toxic insecticide!

Yea, that stoner figured out what an asshole you are and decided to **** with you. Good for the grocery bagger. He was correct.

All the more reason to do away with him.

 

[zeke]

McDonald's orders 7,000 touchscreen kiosks to replace cashiers - Neowin


YOu wanna walk out on your job for more money. Guess what you now might lose your jobs all because of UNIONS who are greedy..

LOL! You really ARE completely clueless, aren't you?

Automation has been an issue with unions for DECADES.

Businesses have long sought to replace workers with machines. One of the most noticeable examples of that trend in recent years has been replacing cashiers with automatic scanners in grocery stores. You've seen those, haven't you?

The companies save money when you do the work yourself, but you don't get a discount on your groceries because you self-scan, do you? Hell, you're actually working without getting paid.

So, go ahead and scan your own groceries. Bag them up too while you're at it. You've just helped the company with their bottom line, and you haven't been paid for your work, and some other poor slob has probably lost his job.

This is actually incorrect. My time is extremely valuable, and the 10 minutes I can save is much more savings than the hourly cost of a checkout clerk.

LMAO. Sure it is dude. Thats why you spend so much of it (time) ******* around on a message board.

Yea your time sure is valuable. And wasted to.

 

[zeke]

...right up until you discover that the stoner bagging your groceries has put sandwich rolls under canned fruit, eggs under a canned ham, and raw meat with highly-toxic insecticide!

Yea, that stoner figured out what an asshole you are and decided to **** with you. Good for the grocery bagger. He was correct.[/QUOTE]All the more reason to do away with him.

Because you are an asshole, you want to do away with this kids job? WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Mac1958]

Companies aren't in existence to provide jobs for the Hell of it.

Yup.

The literal purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value.

Shareholders are the people who count on value appreciation and dividends for their retirement account growth and retirement income. They've worked for their money and are depending on the company to produce.

Employees are the primary means to that end, and the more difficult it is for the company to keep those employees (especially when the reason is purely arbitrary and artificial), the less likely the people who have earned and invested their money will realize appropriate returns.

Now, I'm told by many that corporations are evil and stockholders are rich bastards who did not earn their money. Standard and irrelevant emotionalism, of course, but they really do think that. But those mean and greedy shareholders include young families trying to build for their future and elderly Americans who are just trying to get by.

When we inject simplistic, naive emotionalism into a terribly complex issue, we end up wasting a great deal of time.

.

 

[zeke]

Companies aren't in existence to provide jobs for the Hell of it.

Yup.

The literal purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value.

Shareholders are the people who count on value appreciation and dividends for their retirement account growth and retirement income. They've worked for their money and are depending on the company to produce.

Employees are the primary means to that end, and the more difficult it is for the company to keep those employees (especially when the reason is purely arbitrary and artificial), the less likely the people who have earned and invested their money will realize appropriate returns.

Now, I'm told by many that corporations are evil and stockholders are rich bastards who did not earn their money. Standard and irrelevant emotionalism, of course, but they really do think that. But those mean and greedy shareholders include young families trying to build for their future and elderly Americans who are just trying to get by.

When we inject simplistic, naive emotionalism into a terribly complex issue, we end up wasting a great deal of time.

.

Nice strawman you put up there Mac. Thought you didn't like straw men? Or maybe you could show that post you alluded to. The one where, what was it you said, "corporations are evil and stockholders are rich bastards".

Exactly who said that Mac? Besides a true socialist. Which there aren't enough of them to worry about. But I am sure you have the post all linked.

Or were those the words of your straw man?

 

[The T]

Companies aren't in existence to provide jobs for the Hell of it.

Yup.

The literal purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value.

Shareholders are the people who count on value appreciation and dividends for their retirement account growth and retirement income. They've worked for their money and are depending on the company to produce.

Employees are the primary means to that end, and the more difficult it is for the company to keep those employees (especially when the reason is purely arbitrary and artificial), the less likely the people who have earned and invested their money will realize appropriate returns.

Now, I'm told by many that corporations are evil and stockholders are rich bastards who did not earn their money. Standard and irrelevant emotionalism, of course, but they really do think that. But those mean and greedy shareholders include young families trying to build for their future and elderly Americans who are just trying to get by.

When we inject simplistic, naive emotionalism into a terribly complex issue, we end up wasting a great deal of time.

.

Indeed. And the low info voters, intellectually weak minded are told that not only did these people not earn it, the money was stolen from them and the politicians will return it to those that haven't earned it...
Now I have never figured that line of logic out yet.

 

[Mac1958]

Companies aren't in existence to provide jobs for the Hell of it.

Yup.

The literal purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value.

Shareholders are the people who count on value appreciation and dividends for their retirement account growth and retirement income. They've worked for their money and are depending on the company to produce.

Employees are the primary means to that end, and the more difficult it is for the company to keep those employees (especially when the reason is purely arbitrary and artificial), the less likely the people who have earned and invested their money will realize appropriate returns.

Now, I'm told by many that corporations are evil and stockholders are rich bastards who did not earn their money. Standard and irrelevant emotionalism, of course, but they really do think that. But those mean and greedy shareholders include young families trying to build for their future and elderly Americans who are just trying to get by.

When we inject simplistic, naive emotionalism into a terribly complex issue, we end up wasting a great deal of time.

.

Nice strawman you put up there Mac. Thought you didn't like straw men? Or maybe you could show that post you alluded to. The one where, what was it you said, "corporations are evil and stockholders are rich bastards".

Exactly who said that Mac? Besides a true socialist. Which there aren't enough of them to worry about. But I am sure you have the post all linked.

Or were those the words of your straw man?

I invite you to read any number of posts by JoeB and those who react to those posts. JoeB pops to mind, but there are others. It won't be that difficult to find, if you actually make an honest effort. Which I don't really expect.

And now that I have your attention, would you be kind enough to respond to my post #136? At least the fourth question? And I'd really appreciate it if you could do so in a mature, civil, honest manner. I'm sure you'll have a good answer.

Thanks Zeke.

.

 

[Freewill]

McDonald's orders 7,000 touchscreen kiosks to replace cashiers - Neowin


YOu wanna walk out on your job for more money. Guess what you now might lose your jobs all because of UNIONS who are greedy..

Right, and self checkouts at grocery stores would take over too. Dream on, conservatives Your predictions rarely come true.

Why are you yelling at conservatives? Listen to the poster boy for liberalism rdean, he says that these automatic tellers were invented by liberals. So it sounds like you are biting the hand that rdean says feeds you.

 

[jon_berzerk]

McDonald's orders 7,000 touchscreen kiosks to replace cashiers - Neowin


YOu wanna walk out on your job for more money. Guess what you now might lose your jobs all because of UNIONS who are greedy..

probably have less mistakes as well

--LOL

 

[rightwinger]

.

Four things I'd like to know.

1. How many people in this country are actually making the minimum wage?
2. How many of these people are actually trying to raise a family on a minimum wage?
3. Why have they put themselves in that position?
4. How, PRECISELY, do you create a "living wage" when the living expenses of employees will vary from "just needing some cash" to "I need to support a family on this"?

I'm not really against a minimum wage. I'm not really against some mechanism that would increase it annually. I'd just like to take a reasonable, educated, sober look at the actual situation and move away from the naive, simplistic emotionalism by which the "living wage" proponents are so consumed.

Can anyone answer my questions in a reasonable, civil manner, especially the last one?

.

My problem with a living wage is that companies that don't pay one rely on the taxpayers to make up the difference

Why do we have to support your workers?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Four things I'd like to know.

1. How many people in this country are actually making the minimum wage?
2. How many of these people are actually trying to raise a family on a minimum wage?
3. Why have they put themselves in that position?
4. How, PRECISELY, do you create a "living wage" when the living expenses of employees will vary from "just needing some cash" to "I need to support a family on this"?

I'm not really against a minimum wage. I'm not really against some mechanism that would increase it annually. I'd just like to take a reasonable, educated, sober look at the actual situation and move away from the naive, simplistic emotionalism by which the "living wage" proponents are so consumed.

Can anyone answer my questions in a reasonable, civil manner, especially the last one?

.

My problem with a living wage is that companies that don't pay one rely on the taxpayers to make up the difference

Why do we have to support your workers?

I wonder if you're planning on answering any of my questions, especially the fourth one.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As an employer, McDonald has every right, indeed, every obligation to increase profits for its shareholders.

If McDonald invests in automating its procedures, it is McDonald's money, with no contributions from those who are sitting around like despicable vultures, waiting to try too cash on somebody else's risks and investments.

Those who have no stake in the investments have no right to demand benefits from its success.

Those who are unhappy with the wages McDonald's pays, should educate themselves or go away peacefully and hope to get a better job.

MacDonalds will get rid of a job if they can whether it's a $15/hour job or an $8/hour job.

It' truly amazing how conservatives are so happy at the prospect of fewer and fewer jobs in a country with an ever increasing population.

 

[Freewill]

McDonald's orders 7,000 touchscreen kiosks to replace cashiers - Neowin


YOu wanna walk out on your job for more money. Guess what you now might lose your jobs all because of UNIONS who are greedy..

I used those things when I was working in Ohio for 10 weeks they are cool but the public will reject them. We like the human touch. A pretty girl smiling at us as she takes our order keepsus coming back.

Yeah that's why the drive thru is so popular.

I use the self check out at supermarkets and other stores all the time. It's faster and that's what people want. Get in get your stuff and get out as fast as possible.

Let me ask you something. I don't use the auto tellers I have found the only reason they are faster is because most people do not use them. I am conflicted about using them and putting someone out of work. Not everyone has made good choices in their lives, sadly, and this is all they have left.

Anyway, my question. Say you innocently put two packages together, one on top the other, so only the bottom one gets scanned. Say they now catch you doing so, are you now a criminal for making a mistake? How would you claim it was just an innocent mistake?

 

[zeke]

.

Four things I'd like to know.

1. How many people in this country are actually making the minimum wage?
2. How many of these people are actually trying to raise a family on a minimum wage?
3. Why have they put themselves in that position?
4. How, PRECISELY, do you create a "living wage" when the living expenses of employees will vary from "just needing some cash" to "I need to support a family on this"?

I'm not really against a minimum wage. I'm not really against some mechanism that would increase it annually. I'd just like to take a reasonable, educated, sober look at the actual situation and move away from the naive, simplistic emotionalism by which the "living wage" proponents are so consumed.

Can anyone answer my questions in a reasonable, civil manner, especially the last one?

.

My problem with a living wage is that companies that don't pay one rely on the taxpayers to make up the difference

Why do we have to support your workers?

Good luck on getting a response to that very legitimate question.

Or better yet, let me answer from what I have learned right here; if that low wage worker doesn't like his job and the fact that he/she needs food stamps to eat, let the lazy motherfuckers get a better job.

That about sum it up Mac?

How'd I do Mac? I could be a rethug if I wanted to practice being an asshole.

 

[Freewill]

As an employer, McDonald has every right, indeed, every obligation to increase profits for its shareholders.

If McDonald invests in automating its procedures, it is McDonald's money, with no contributions from those who are sitting around like despicable vultures, waiting to try too cash on somebody else's risks and investments.

Those who have no stake in the investments have no right to demand benefits from its success.

Those who are unhappy with the wages McDonald's pays, should educate themselves or go away peacefully and hope to get a better job.

MacDonalds will get rid of a job if they can whether it's a $15/hour job or an $8/hour job.

It' truly amazing how conservatives are so happy at the prospect of fewer and fewer jobs in a country with an ever increasing population.

Why do you say conservatives are happy? What is pointed out is that how liberalism cost jobs. And as usual liberalism can't take the blame so somehow the lost of jobs is put upon conservatives. Interesting how that always works out that way.

 

[Jroc]

As an employer, McDonald has every right, indeed, every obligation to increase profits for its shareholders.

If McDonald invests in automating its procedures, it is McDonald's money, with no contributions from those who are sitting around like despicable vultures, waiting to try too cash on somebody else's risks and investments.

Those who have no stake in the investments have no right to demand benefits from its success.

Those who are unhappy with the wages McDonald's pays, should educate themselves or go away peacefully and hope to get a better job.

MacDonalds will get rid of a job if they can whether it's a $15/hour job or an $8/hour job.

It' truly amazing how conservatives are so happy at the prospect of fewer and fewer jobs in a country with an ever increasing population.

Ummm ...it's the other way around genus. liberals and liberal policies destroy private sector jobs and there are fewer jobs now than when Obama took office, and most of the new jobs created are part time jobs...Thank you Obama

 

[Spiderman]

As an employer, McDonald has every right, indeed, every obligation to increase profits for its shareholders.

If McDonald invests in automating its procedures, it is McDonald's money, with no contributions from those who are sitting around like despicable vultures, waiting to try too cash on somebody else's risks and investments.

Those who have no stake in the investments have no right to demand benefits from its success.

Those who are unhappy with the wages McDonald's pays, should educate themselves or go away peacefully and hope to get a better job.

MacDonalds will get rid of a job if they can whether it's a $15/hour job or an $8/hour job.

It' truly amazing how conservatives are so happy at the prospect of fewer and fewer jobs in a country with an ever increasing population.

I thought democrats were all about science and technology and were always calling republicans anti science and anti education

 

[zeke]

Hey Mac, how is it that companies seem to be able to figure out what a "living wage" is when they hire executives?

But they can't figure it out for an hourly employee. They sure seem to know what they are not paying a "living wage". Isn't that why they have the HR department telling employees how to apply for government assistance? They know that don't pay enough for their employees to live on.

Don't they know what housing costs are in their market? Food, utilities, medical care. schooling etc.

How is it that these companies know that a manager in NYC has to make more than a manager in Bowling Green, Ohio.

Is corporate management so stupid today they can't figure this out for a hourly worker?

Do you know that the cost of living differs all over the country?

Your desire for an answer to your question is a little simplified isn't it.

Beside Mac, with you being a financial planner, seems like YOU should be able to answer this question.

 

[jon_berzerk]

First time I saw that dynamic was in 1960. Small city radio station threatened with a walkout by "talent" did the math. Rented a primitive reel-to-reel/Seeburg jukebox mashup and eliminated three fulltime jobs. Also laid off a fourth employee and replaced him (it was a male) with a recent grad who was skilled at programming the punch-card/pin clock system.

first time i seen that happen was in a factory that made shelving for stores

for the big stores

they had to weld thousands of shelves daily

so they had a numerous welders

actually taught the trade as well to newbees

well they went on strike

the company offered generous bids

not any good enough

they did finally settle

the parent company sold off after this

the new company

hired an engineering firm

that built a automated line the did all the welding

now today

the have an operator

and a position that loads parts and another position

that stacks them when they come off the line

dozens of skilled jobs gone in a flash

 

[The T]

As an employer, McDonald has every right, indeed, every obligation to increase profits for its shareholders.

If McDonald invests in automating its procedures, it is McDonald's money, with no contributions from those who are sitting around like despicable vultures, waiting to try too cash on somebody else's risks and investments.

Those who have no stake in the investments have no right to demand benefits from its success.

Those who are unhappy with the wages McDonald's pays, should educate themselves or go away peacefully and hope to get a better job.

MacDonalds will get rid of a job if they can whether it's a $15/hour job or an $8/hour job.

It' truly amazing how conservatives are so happy at the prospect of fewer and fewer jobs in a country with an ever increasing population.

Why do you say conservatives are happy? What is pointed out is that how liberalism cost jobs. And as usual liberalism can't take the blame so somehow the lost of jobs is put upon conservatives. Interesting how that always works out that way.

Having their cake and eating it too. Doubles standards rule them for the sake of power. Whom is really greedy?

Their projections are unraveling as surely as their faulty logic.