McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[initforme]

You think Americans should do those same jobs for even close to what illegals do? Boy you hate working folk. Must be a lazy, do nothing CEO.

 

[Weatherman2020]

No american should ever be picking strawberries period. Once the illegals are gone I would hope and pray those businesses cannot find workers. Screw them they don't deserve american labor which is by far the most productive, least complaining, and hardest working in the world.

More Leftard compassion on display.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You think Americans should do those same jobs for even close to what illegals do? Boy you hate working folk. Must be a lazy, do nothing CEO.

I don't know if you're talking to me or not, but I'm lazy? You won't even take the time to learn how to quote so people know WTF you are even replying to.

 

[Winston]

Did you read the article you quoted? McDonalds head office takes 35% of that $2.6 million for rent, franchise fees and various other charges.

Considering that McDonalds made 9 billion net profit last year, they could certainly afford to adjust those fees to assist franchise owners with changes in the minimum wage.

McDonalds in Canada manages to pay $12 per hour and our prices are lower on some items that they are in the US. So does Walmart. Both corporations are very profitable in Canada. Puts the lie to the idea that these companies can't afford a wage hike.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Again, it has nothing to do with what McDonald's can afford, it has to do with paying people a wage the job is worth. Only a fool would pay somebody more money than they need to.

How much do you pay an employee that makes you all of your money?

The value of an employee is what an employer can get another person do to the same job for. That's it.

Exactly. And what part of that is dependent upon the value of production?

None of it. If you want to get paid by production, then get a job where you get paid by piece work or become a salesman.

Great. Then we are half way there. We negate all those arguments about standard of living, poverty level, inflation. They are irrelevant because they all presuppose that the stated minimum wage has some relationship to a minimum value of production. At the current level, it does not even come close.

Automation should replace all the McDonalds employees, except perhaps the managers, if the value of their labor is even close to the current minimum wage, it is not worth them working. That is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. If you can't generate at least that much value, and a healthy profit for the employer, then you should stay the hell at the house. Draw welfare, I don't care. At least your sorry ass is out of my way. And I swear, I have been in a work scenario where that precise thing took place. Employees were willing to take up a collection to send the non-productive employee home and out of the way. And yes, it was a sales position.

When the minimum wage is no longer linked to the value of production, when it is much lower, all kinds of things start going wrong with the economy. First, low wage workers become dependent upon public assistance in order to survive. And what the right doesn't see, is that assistance is not so much subsidizing the living standard of the low wage worker as much as it is subsidizing the stock holders, the corporate executives, and the owners.

And we can argue all day long. The numbers don't lie. I checked both. Walmart and McDonalds, have conducted large stock buybacks. To the tune of billions of dollars. In every case, stock repurchases are bad for the Macroeconomy, but in McDonalds case, it doesn't even make good sense in regards to capital management at the firm level. And the amount spent on those buybacks, and a little bit of wage compression, and poof--those low wage workers all make fifteen dollars an hour or more.

Fifteen dollars makes more sense. At least at that level a worker could be contributing to the economy, not draining it. And in the end, is not that what you want. I am not really in to spending my tax dollars subsidizing the wages of workers in order for them to work while McDonalds executives manipulate the stock price, build a bubble within the equities market (yeah, short the hell out of it}, simply to inflate their compensation.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

For the price of a basic burger at macducks I can buy a pound of hamburger and buns and make a few day's worth myself. The convenience factor is lost. Raising the minimum wage is akin to taking a piece of rope and cutting off a slice and adding it make it longer. Life and economics dosen't work like that. It will just add to the overall price of living and drive up prices. Besides, isn't that why we tolerate exploiting illegal aliens? They work for cheap and under the table and skirting taxes? Woops, different can of worms.

Most Americans eat out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, it has nothing to do with what McDonald's can afford, it has to do with paying people a wage the job is worth. Only a fool would pay somebody more money than they need to.

How much do you pay an employee that makes you all of your money?

The value of an employee is what an employer can get another person do to the same job for. That's it.

Exactly. And what part of that is dependent upon the value of production?

None of it. If you want to get paid by production, then get a job where you get paid by piece work or become a salesman.

Great. Then we are half way there. We negate all those arguments about standard of living, poverty level, inflation. They are irrelevant because they all presuppose that the stated minimum wage has some relationship to a minimum value of production. At the current level, it does not even come close.

Automation should replace all the McDonalds employees, except perhaps the managers, if the value of their labor is even close to the current minimum wage, it is not worth them working. That is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. If you can't generate at least that much value, and a healthy profit for the employer, then you should stay the hell at the house. Draw welfare, I don't care. At least your sorry ass is out of my way. And I swear, I have been in a work scenario where that precise thing took place. Employees were willing to take up a collection to send the non-productive employee home and out of the way. And yes, it was a sales position.

When the minimum wage is no longer linked to the value of production, when it is much lower, all kinds of things start going wrong with the economy. First, low wage workers become dependent upon public assistance in order to survive. And what the right doesn't see, is that assistance is not so much subsidizing the living standard of the low wage worker as much as it is subsidizing the stock holders, the corporate executives, and the owners.

And we can argue all day long. The numbers don't lie. I checked both. Walmart and McDonalds, have conducted large stock buybacks. To the tune of billions of dollars. In every case, stock repurchases are bad for the Macroeconomy, but in McDonalds case, it doesn't even make good sense in regards to capital management at the firm level. And the amount spent on those buybacks, and a little bit of wage compression, and poof--those low wage workers all make fifteen dollars an hour or more.

Fifteen dollars makes more sense. At least at that level a worker could be contributing to the economy, not draining it. And in the end, is not that what you want. I am not really in to spending my tax dollars subsidizing the wages of workers in order for them to work while McDonalds executives manipulate the stock price, build a bubble within the equities market (yeah, short the hell out of it}, simply to inflate their compensation.

As I have said repeatedly, the real solution is to cut social programs and not increase the minimum wage. All social programs do for the working is give them a reason to earn less. If somebody is getting government aid working 40 hours a week, and minimum wage increases, then they will work 30 hours a week or less to keep their benefits. I work in industry and hear stories about this all the time.

True experience: about two years ago I had to evict a family that was renting an apartment from me. When I seen trouble, I called them over to discuss the problem. This was an unmarried couple with two children: one a teen and the other about 3 years old. She supposedly stayed home to home-school her daughter and to bring up the younger. He worked full-time, but not one hour past 40. He didn't make a good wage to begin with.

So I made a suggestion. Since he wouldn't work on the weekends, perhaps he could watch the kids during that time and she could get a part-time job to get caught up and stay current with their rent. She didn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $210.00 a month in food stamps, and any income on her part (since she was not technically married) would cut into her benefits.

So now he has an evection on record which any landlord can dig up if he applies for other apartments. People gave up on home ownership so a good apartment is difficult to get. All for what? Food stamps.

"If you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't!"
Rush Limbaugh

 

[Winston]

No american should ever be picking strawberries period. Once the illegals are gone I would hope and pray those businesses cannot find workers. Screw them they don't deserve american labor which is by far the most productive, least complaining, and hardest working in the world.

And they can't pick strawberries? You starting to see the problem.

My son spent a couple of summers in high school working the tomato fields. He and his friend, who got him the job, were the only "Americans" in the bunch. He didn't pick, doubt he could have made it. He is six four, his friend, six six. It was comical watching them work their way through the fields with the Mexicans. He planted, pruned, and staked. It is the hardest work there is--field work. I was hesitate to even allow it, but it turned out to be much more rewarding than anyone could have expected. It gave him a foundation that has served him well.

 

[Weatherman2020]

No american should ever be picking strawberries period. Once the illegals are gone I would hope and pray those businesses cannot find workers. Screw them they don't deserve american labor which is by far the most productive, least complaining, and hardest working in the world.

And they can't pick strawberries? You starting to see the problem.

My son spent a couple of summers in high school working the tomato fields. He and his friend, who got him the job, were the only "Americans" in the bunch. He didn't pick, doubt he could have made it. He is six four, his friend, six six. It was comical watching them work their way through the fields with the Mexicans. He planted, pruned, and staked. It is the hardest work there is--field work. I was hesitate to even allow it, but it turned out to be much more rewarding than anyone could have expected. It gave him a foundation that has served him well.

Kids need to learn what work is.

 

[Winston]

How much do you pay an employee that makes you all of your money?

The value of an employee is what an employer can get another person do to the same job for. That's it.

Exactly. And what part of that is dependent upon the value of production?

None of it. If you want to get paid by production, then get a job where you get paid by piece work or become a salesman.

Great. Then we are half way there. We negate all those arguments about standard of living, poverty level, inflation. They are irrelevant because they all presuppose that the stated minimum wage has some relationship to a minimum value of production. At the current level, it does not even come close.

Automation should replace all the McDonalds employees, except perhaps the managers, if the value of their labor is even close to the current minimum wage, it is not worth them working. That is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. If you can't generate at least that much value, and a healthy profit for the employer, then you should stay the hell at the house. Draw welfare, I don't care. At least your sorry ass is out of my way. And I swear, I have been in a work scenario where that precise thing took place. Employees were willing to take up a collection to send the non-productive employee home and out of the way. And yes, it was a sales position.

When the minimum wage is no longer linked to the value of production, when it is much lower, all kinds of things start going wrong with the economy. First, low wage workers become dependent upon public assistance in order to survive. And what the right doesn't see, is that assistance is not so much subsidizing the living standard of the low wage worker as much as it is subsidizing the stock holders, the corporate executives, and the owners.

And we can argue all day long. The numbers don't lie. I checked both. Walmart and McDonalds, have conducted large stock buybacks. To the tune of billions of dollars. In every case, stock repurchases are bad for the Macroeconomy, but in McDonalds case, it doesn't even make good sense in regards to capital management at the firm level. And the amount spent on those buybacks, and a little bit of wage compression, and poof--those low wage workers all make fifteen dollars an hour or more.

Fifteen dollars makes more sense. At least at that level a worker could be contributing to the economy, not draining it. And in the end, is not that what you want. I am not really in to spending my tax dollars subsidizing the wages of workers in order for them to work while McDonalds executives manipulate the stock price, build a bubble within the equities market (yeah, short the hell out of it}, simply to inflate their compensation.

As I have said repeatedly, the real solution is to cut social programs and not increase the minimum wage. All social programs do for the working is give them a reason to earn less. If somebody is getting government aid working 40 hours a week, and minimum wage increases, then they will work 30 hours a week or less to keep their benefits. I work in industry and hear stories about this all the time.

True experience: about two years ago I had to evict a family that was renting an apartment from me. When I seen trouble, I called them over to discuss the problem. This was an unmarried couple with two children: one a teen and the other about 3 years old. She supposedly stayed home to home-school her daughter and to bring up the younger. He worked full-time, but not one hour past 40. He didn't make a good wage to begin with.

So I made a suggestion. Since he wouldn't work on the weekends, perhaps he could watch the kids during that time and she could get a part-time job to get caught up and stay current with their rent. She didn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $210.00 a month in food stamps, and any income on her part (since she was not technically married) would cut into her benefits.

So now he has an evection on record which any landlord can dig up if he applies for other apartments. People gave up on home ownership so a good apartment is difficult to get. All for what? Food stamps.

"If you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't!"
Rush Limbaugh

The problem is not solved by cutting benefits. The problem would have been solved if this mother would not have lost her benefits. She would have gotten the part time job. But who can blame her for not taking it. I am pretty sure you would not have.

Now, if they were not married, the children were hers, and she didn't work at all, you could have explained how the EITC could easily offset the loss in food stamps. But that is just in that case.

The real truth, that conservatives don't understand, is that individuals in family with incomes low enough to qualify for the EITC and food stamps face a massive marginal tax rate. Hell, conservatives complain about 39%. I mean a corporate CEO with a million dollar salary only gets to keep sixty cents of every one of his dollars after the federal government gets done with him. But the single mother making minimum wage---she takes on additional income she could pay a marginal tax rate of twice that 39%. Income tax, payroll tax, lost EITC, lost food stamps,---they end up with maybe, maybe, a damn quarter out of every additional dollar they make. That is the problem. That is what has to be fixed. And there is an easy fix. But I swear I ain't even going to mention it because it sends conservatives into convulsions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No american should ever be picking strawberries period. Once the illegals are gone I would hope and pray those businesses cannot find workers. Screw them they don't deserve american labor which is by far the most productive, least complaining, and hardest working in the world.

And they can't pick strawberries? You starting to see the problem.

My son spent a couple of summers in high school working the tomato fields. He and his friend, who got him the job, were the only "Americans" in the bunch. He didn't pick, doubt he could have made it. He is six four, his friend, six six. It was comical watching them work their way through the fields with the Mexicans. He planted, pruned, and staked. It is the hardest work there is--field work. I was hesitate to even allow it, but it turned out to be much more rewarding than anyone could have expected. It gave him a foundation that has served him well.

Kids need to learn what work is.

Yep, that's how I learned. I'm a son of a bricklayer. I've been working since the age of 11. I would carry bricks to my father, mix cement by hand, work until past dark in the summer, and he paid me $1.00 per hour. I would come home beat, loaded with sand and cement from head to toe, took a shower and went to bed.

I hated it back then, but now that I'm older and see other people at work, I was so fortunate for my childhood experiences.

 

[Rustic]

Again, it has nothing to do with what McDonald's can afford, it has to do with paying people a wage the job is worth. Only a fool would pay somebody more money than they need to.

How much do you pay an employee that makes you all of your money?

The value of an employee is what an employer can get another person do to the same job for. That's it.

Exactly. And what part of that is dependent upon the value of production?

None of it. If you want to get paid by production, then get a job where you get paid by piece work or become a salesman.

Great. Then we are half way there. We negate all those arguments about standard of living, poverty level, inflation. They are irrelevant because they all presuppose that the stated minimum wage has some relationship to a minimum value of production. At the current level, it does not even come close.

Automation should replace all the McDonalds employees, except perhaps the managers, if the value of their labor is even close to the current minimum wage, it is not worth them working. That is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. If you can't generate at least that much value, and a healthy profit for the employer, then you should stay the hell at the house. Draw welfare, I don't care. At least your sorry ass is out of my way. And I swear, I have been in a work scenario where that precise thing took place. Employees were willing to take up a collection to send the non-productive employee home and out of the way. And yes, it was a sales position.

When the minimum wage is no longer linked to the value of production, when it is much lower, all kinds of things start going wrong with the economy. First, low wage workers become dependent upon public assistance in order to survive. And what the right doesn't see, is that assistance is not so much subsidizing the living standard of the low wage worker as much as it is subsidizing the stock holders, the corporate executives, and the owners.

And we can argue all day long. The numbers don't lie. I checked both. Walmart and McDonalds, have conducted large stock buybacks. To the tune of billions of dollars. In every case, stock repurchases are bad for the Macroeconomy, but in McDonalds case, it doesn't even make good sense in regards to capital management at the firm level. And the amount spent on those buybacks, and a little bit of wage compression, and poof--those low wage workers all make fifteen dollars an hour or more.

Fifteen dollars makes more sense. At least at that level a worker could be contributing to the economy, not draining it. And in the end, is not that what you want. I am not really in to spending my tax dollars subsidizing the wages of workers in order for them to work while McDonalds executives manipulate the stock price, build a bubble within the equities market (yeah, short the hell out of it}, simply to inflate their compensation.

I don't think I will ever paying $15 for cheeseburger, that's what it would take for business to afford $15 an hour starting pay for a fucking beginner job. Take your fucking socialist views and shove them up your ass…

 

[Weatherman2020]

No american should ever be picking strawberries period. Once the illegals are gone I would hope and pray those businesses cannot find workers. Screw them they don't deserve american labor which is by far the most productive, least complaining, and hardest working in the world.

And they can't pick strawberries? You starting to see the problem.

My son spent a couple of summers in high school working the tomato fields. He and his friend, who got him the job, were the only "Americans" in the bunch. He didn't pick, doubt he could have made it. He is six four, his friend, six six. It was comical watching them work their way through the fields with the Mexicans. He planted, pruned, and staked. It is the hardest work there is--field work. I was hesitate to even allow it, but it turned out to be much more rewarding than anyone could have expected. It gave him a foundation that has served him well.

Kids need to learn what work is.

Yep, that's how I learned. I'm a son of a bricklayer. I've been working since the age of 11. I would carry bricks to my father, mix cement by hand, work until past dark in the summer, and he paid me $1.00 per hour. I would come home beat, loaded with sand and cement from head to toe, took a shower and went to bed.

I hated it back then, but now that I'm older and see other people at work, I was so fortunate for my childhood experiences.

18 year olds in Israel have 2 choices: 2 years military or 4 years law enforcement.
It's what we need to do.

 

[MaryL]

No american should ever be picking strawberries period. Once the illegals are gone I would hope and pray those businesses cannot find workers. Screw them they don't deserve american labor which is by far the most productive, least complaining, and hardest working in the world.

There should be NO excuse " jobs Americans won't do", they should pay people according to their merit. It's a weak excuse and a far reach to excuse illegal aliens or people that exploit them or to underplay the meliu that has been allowed to exist because of a few liberals and the wealthy that exploit illegals and don't have to deal with the social underpinnings that they bring.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The value of an employee is what an employer can get another person do to the same job for. That's it.

Exactly. And what part of that is dependent upon the value of production?

None of it. If you want to get paid by production, then get a job where you get paid by piece work or become a salesman.

Great. Then we are half way there. We negate all those arguments about standard of living, poverty level, inflation. They are irrelevant because they all presuppose that the stated minimum wage has some relationship to a minimum value of production. At the current level, it does not even come close.

Automation should replace all the McDonalds employees, except perhaps the managers, if the value of their labor is even close to the current minimum wage, it is not worth them working. That is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. If you can't generate at least that much value, and a healthy profit for the employer, then you should stay the hell at the house. Draw welfare, I don't care. At least your sorry ass is out of my way. And I swear, I have been in a work scenario where that precise thing took place. Employees were willing to take up a collection to send the non-productive employee home and out of the way. And yes, it was a sales position.

When the minimum wage is no longer linked to the value of production, when it is much lower, all kinds of things start going wrong with the economy. First, low wage workers become dependent upon public assistance in order to survive. And what the right doesn't see, is that assistance is not so much subsidizing the living standard of the low wage worker as much as it is subsidizing the stock holders, the corporate executives, and the owners.

And we can argue all day long. The numbers don't lie. I checked both. Walmart and McDonalds, have conducted large stock buybacks. To the tune of billions of dollars. In every case, stock repurchases are bad for the Macroeconomy, but in McDonalds case, it doesn't even make good sense in regards to capital management at the firm level. And the amount spent on those buybacks, and a little bit of wage compression, and poof--those low wage workers all make fifteen dollars an hour or more.

Fifteen dollars makes more sense. At least at that level a worker could be contributing to the economy, not draining it. And in the end, is not that what you want. I am not really in to spending my tax dollars subsidizing the wages of workers in order for them to work while McDonalds executives manipulate the stock price, build a bubble within the equities market (yeah, short the hell out of it}, simply to inflate their compensation.

As I have said repeatedly, the real solution is to cut social programs and not increase the minimum wage. All social programs do for the working is give them a reason to earn less. If somebody is getting government aid working 40 hours a week, and minimum wage increases, then they will work 30 hours a week or less to keep their benefits. I work in industry and hear stories about this all the time.

True experience: about two years ago I had to evict a family that was renting an apartment from me. When I seen trouble, I called them over to discuss the problem. This was an unmarried couple with two children: one a teen and the other about 3 years old. She supposedly stayed home to home-school her daughter and to bring up the younger. He worked full-time, but not one hour past 40. He didn't make a good wage to begin with.

So I made a suggestion. Since he wouldn't work on the weekends, perhaps he could watch the kids during that time and she could get a part-time job to get caught up and stay current with their rent. She didn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $210.00 a month in food stamps, and any income on her part (since she was not technically married) would cut into her benefits.

So now he has an evection on record which any landlord can dig up if he applies for other apartments. People gave up on home ownership so a good apartment is difficult to get. All for what? Food stamps.

"If you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't!"
Rush Limbaugh

The problem is not solved by cutting benefits. The problem would have been solved if this mother would not have lost her benefits. She would have gotten the part time job. But who can blame her for not taking it. I am pretty sure you would not have.

Now, if they were not married, the children were hers, and she didn't work at all, you could have explained how the EITC could easily offset the loss in food stamps. But that is just in that case.

The real truth, that conservatives don't understand, is that individuals in family with incomes low enough to qualify for the EITC and food stamps face a massive marginal tax rate. Hell, conservatives complain about 39%. I mean a corporate CEO with a million dollar salary only gets to keep sixty cents of every one of his dollars after the federal government gets done with him. But the single mother making minimum wage---she takes on additional income she could pay a marginal tax rate of twice that 39%. Income tax, payroll tax, lost EITC, lost food stamps,---they end up with maybe, maybe, a damn quarter out of every additional dollar they make. That is the problem. That is what has to be fixed. And there is an easy fix. But I swear I ain't even going to mention it because it sends conservatives into convulsions.

Correct, who can blame her for not taking on a job? That was my point all along. If she did take a job, much of that labor would be almost like working for free.

Now if she was not receiving food stamps, she may have taken up on my idea, kept their home, and not have a court record of eviction. It also reflects on my earlier point that increasing minimum wage will not have that much of an effect on those receiving public assistance. All it would do is give them the opportunity to work less hours. They are not going to give up those goodies unless those goodies were never there to begin with.

And no, nobody working just above minimum wage is going to pay almost 80% in taxes I don't care what you include in that. Lose benefits? Yes. But that's why they shouldn't receive benefits in the first place.

But my former tenant is an anomaly. Most people working minimum wage are kids in school, college students, stay-at-home mothers looking to bring in an extra few bucks to the household income, retired people looking for something to do. Minimum wage workers in the US are about 4% of our workforce.

 

[Winston]

Exactly. And what part of that is dependent upon the value of production?

None of it. If you want to get paid by production, then get a job where you get paid by piece work or become a salesman.

Great. Then we are half way there. We negate all those arguments about standard of living, poverty level, inflation. They are irrelevant because they all presuppose that the stated minimum wage has some relationship to a minimum value of production. At the current level, it does not even come close.

Automation should replace all the McDonalds employees, except perhaps the managers, if the value of their labor is even close to the current minimum wage, it is not worth them working. That is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. If you can't generate at least that much value, and a healthy profit for the employer, then you should stay the hell at the house. Draw welfare, I don't care. At least your sorry ass is out of my way. And I swear, I have been in a work scenario where that precise thing took place. Employees were willing to take up a collection to send the non-productive employee home and out of the way. And yes, it was a sales position.

When the minimum wage is no longer linked to the value of production, when it is much lower, all kinds of things start going wrong with the economy. First, low wage workers become dependent upon public assistance in order to survive. And what the right doesn't see, is that assistance is not so much subsidizing the living standard of the low wage worker as much as it is subsidizing the stock holders, the corporate executives, and the owners.

And we can argue all day long. The numbers don't lie. I checked both. Walmart and McDonalds, have conducted large stock buybacks. To the tune of billions of dollars. In every case, stock repurchases are bad for the Macroeconomy, but in McDonalds case, it doesn't even make good sense in regards to capital management at the firm level. And the amount spent on those buybacks, and a little bit of wage compression, and poof--those low wage workers all make fifteen dollars an hour or more.

Fifteen dollars makes more sense. At least at that level a worker could be contributing to the economy, not draining it. And in the end, is not that what you want. I am not really in to spending my tax dollars subsidizing the wages of workers in order for them to work while McDonalds executives manipulate the stock price, build a bubble within the equities market (yeah, short the hell out of it}, simply to inflate their compensation.

As I have said repeatedly, the real solution is to cut social programs and not increase the minimum wage. All social programs do for the working is give them a reason to earn less. If somebody is getting government aid working 40 hours a week, and minimum wage increases, then they will work 30 hours a week or less to keep their benefits. I work in industry and hear stories about this all the time.

True experience: about two years ago I had to evict a family that was renting an apartment from me. When I seen trouble, I called them over to discuss the problem. This was an unmarried couple with two children: one a teen and the other about 3 years old. She supposedly stayed home to home-school her daughter and to bring up the younger. He worked full-time, but not one hour past 40. He didn't make a good wage to begin with.

So I made a suggestion. Since he wouldn't work on the weekends, perhaps he could watch the kids during that time and she could get a part-time job to get caught up and stay current with their rent. She didn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $210.00 a month in food stamps, and any income on her part (since she was not technically married) would cut into her benefits.

So now he has an evection on record which any landlord can dig up if he applies for other apartments. People gave up on home ownership so a good apartment is difficult to get. All for what? Food stamps.

"If you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't!"
Rush Limbaugh

The problem is not solved by cutting benefits. The problem would have been solved if this mother would not have lost her benefits. She would have gotten the part time job. But who can blame her for not taking it. I am pretty sure you would not have.

Now, if they were not married, the children were hers, and she didn't work at all, you could have explained how the EITC could easily offset the loss in food stamps. But that is just in that case.

The real truth, that conservatives don't understand, is that individuals in family with incomes low enough to qualify for the EITC and food stamps face a massive marginal tax rate. Hell, conservatives complain about 39%. I mean a corporate CEO with a million dollar salary only gets to keep sixty cents of every one of his dollars after the federal government gets done with him. But the single mother making minimum wage---she takes on additional income she could pay a marginal tax rate of twice that 39%. Income tax, payroll tax, lost EITC, lost food stamps,---they end up with maybe, maybe, a damn quarter out of every additional dollar they make. That is the problem. That is what has to be fixed. And there is an easy fix. But I swear I ain't even going to mention it because it sends conservatives into convulsions.

Correct, who can blame her for not taking on a job? That was my point all along. If she did take a job, much of that labor would be almost like working for free.

Now if she was not receiving food stamps, she may have taken up on my idea, kept their home, and not have a court record of eviction. It also reflects on my earlier point that increasing minimum wage will not have that much of an effect on those receiving public assistance. All it would do is give them the opportunity to work less hours. They are not going to give up those goodies unless those goodies were never there to begin with.

And no, nobody working just above minimum wage is going to pay almost 80% in taxes I don't care what you include in that. Lose benefits? Yes. But that's why they shouldn't receive benefits in the first place.

But my former tenant is an anomaly. Most people working minimum wage are kids in school, college students, stay-at-home mothers looking to bring in an extra few bucks to the household income, retired people looking for something to do. Minimum wage workers in the US are about 4% of our workforce.

Yes, they can face a marginal tax rate of 90%. Hell sometimes it is more than a hundred percent. You really ought to look in to it.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN.com

And cutting out social programs is not an answer. Remember when I said pay them to stay out of the way? No social programs and they are still in the way. They are begging in the street, or looting, still in the freaking way. Consider it a cost of doing business. If you can't make x amount of dollars, then we will pay you y amount of dollars to stay home. AND OUT OF THE DAMN WAY. It is a simple choice for them and an easy cutoff for us. Plus, with a new "minimum" floor for labor that actually reflects a realistic minimum value we will be back on the way to a productive economy producing growth for everyone, not just the privileged few.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

None of it. If you want to get paid by production, then get a job where you get paid by piece work or become a salesman.

Great. Then we are half way there. We negate all those arguments about standard of living, poverty level, inflation. They are irrelevant because they all presuppose that the stated minimum wage has some relationship to a minimum value of production. At the current level, it does not even come close.

Automation should replace all the McDonalds employees, except perhaps the managers, if the value of their labor is even close to the current minimum wage, it is not worth them working. That is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. If you can't generate at least that much value, and a healthy profit for the employer, then you should stay the hell at the house. Draw welfare, I don't care. At least your sorry ass is out of my way. And I swear, I have been in a work scenario where that precise thing took place. Employees were willing to take up a collection to send the non-productive employee home and out of the way. And yes, it was a sales position.

When the minimum wage is no longer linked to the value of production, when it is much lower, all kinds of things start going wrong with the economy. First, low wage workers become dependent upon public assistance in order to survive. And what the right doesn't see, is that assistance is not so much subsidizing the living standard of the low wage worker as much as it is subsidizing the stock holders, the corporate executives, and the owners.

And we can argue all day long. The numbers don't lie. I checked both. Walmart and McDonalds, have conducted large stock buybacks. To the tune of billions of dollars. In every case, stock repurchases are bad for the Macroeconomy, but in McDonalds case, it doesn't even make good sense in regards to capital management at the firm level. And the amount spent on those buybacks, and a little bit of wage compression, and poof--those low wage workers all make fifteen dollars an hour or more.

Fifteen dollars makes more sense. At least at that level a worker could be contributing to the economy, not draining it. And in the end, is not that what you want. I am not really in to spending my tax dollars subsidizing the wages of workers in order for them to work while McDonalds executives manipulate the stock price, build a bubble within the equities market (yeah, short the hell out of it}, simply to inflate their compensation.

As I have said repeatedly, the real solution is to cut social programs and not increase the minimum wage. All social programs do for the working is give them a reason to earn less. If somebody is getting government aid working 40 hours a week, and minimum wage increases, then they will work 30 hours a week or less to keep their benefits. I work in industry and hear stories about this all the time.

True experience: about two years ago I had to evict a family that was renting an apartment from me. When I seen trouble, I called them over to discuss the problem. This was an unmarried couple with two children: one a teen and the other about 3 years old. She supposedly stayed home to home-school her daughter and to bring up the younger. He worked full-time, but not one hour past 40. He didn't make a good wage to begin with.

So I made a suggestion. Since he wouldn't work on the weekends, perhaps he could watch the kids during that time and she could get a part-time job to get caught up and stay current with their rent. She didn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $210.00 a month in food stamps, and any income on her part (since she was not technically married) would cut into her benefits.

So now he has an evection on record which any landlord can dig up if he applies for other apartments. People gave up on home ownership so a good apartment is difficult to get. All for what? Food stamps.

"If you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't!"
Rush Limbaugh

The problem is not solved by cutting benefits. The problem would have been solved if this mother would not have lost her benefits. She would have gotten the part time job. But who can blame her for not taking it. I am pretty sure you would not have.

Now, if they were not married, the children were hers, and she didn't work at all, you could have explained how the EITC could easily offset the loss in food stamps. But that is just in that case.

The real truth, that conservatives don't understand, is that individuals in family with incomes low enough to qualify for the EITC and food stamps face a massive marginal tax rate. Hell, conservatives complain about 39%. I mean a corporate CEO with a million dollar salary only gets to keep sixty cents of every one of his dollars after the federal government gets done with him. But the single mother making minimum wage---she takes on additional income she could pay a marginal tax rate of twice that 39%. Income tax, payroll tax, lost EITC, lost food stamps,---they end up with maybe, maybe, a damn quarter out of every additional dollar they make. That is the problem. That is what has to be fixed. And there is an easy fix. But I swear I ain't even going to mention it because it sends conservatives into convulsions.

Correct, who can blame her for not taking on a job? That was my point all along. If she did take a job, much of that labor would be almost like working for free.

Now if she was not receiving food stamps, she may have taken up on my idea, kept their home, and not have a court record of eviction. It also reflects on my earlier point that increasing minimum wage will not have that much of an effect on those receiving public assistance. All it would do is give them the opportunity to work less hours. They are not going to give up those goodies unless those goodies were never there to begin with.

And no, nobody working just above minimum wage is going to pay almost 80% in taxes I don't care what you include in that. Lose benefits? Yes. But that's why they shouldn't receive benefits in the first place.

But my former tenant is an anomaly. Most people working minimum wage are kids in school, college students, stay-at-home mothers looking to bring in an extra few bucks to the household income, retired people looking for something to do. Minimum wage workers in the US are about 4% of our workforce.

Yes, they can face a marginal tax rate of 90%. Hell sometimes it is more than a hundred percent. You really ought to look in to it.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN.com

And cutting out social programs is not an answer. Remember when I said pay them to stay out of the way? No social programs and they are still in the way. They are begging in the street, or looting, still in the freaking way. Consider it a cost of doing business. If you can't make x amount of dollars, then we will pay you y amount of dollars to stay home. AND OUT OF THE DAMN WAY. It is a simple choice for them and an easy cutoff for us. Plus, with a new "minimum" floor for labor that actually reflects a realistic minimum value we will be back on the way to a productive economy producing growth for everyone, not just the privileged few.

Again, not considering social programs (which should be cut) nobody is paying anywhere near 80%. What this article does is add in benefits equal to pay. Welfare is not pay, welfare is money taken from other people.

It's not a tax if benefits are cut off. Taxes are money taken from the pay you earn. Nobody earns welfare, Obama phones or food stamps.

In context however, it does point out to something that was studied, and that is people using all welfare available to them make as much as middle-class people who are actually working and paying taxes. With the exception of unemployment, government benefits are not taxed.

As Limbaugh said, if you pay people not to work, they won't work. And if liberals ever get a hold of government to increase government dependency, then most everybody will want to stay home instead of working. Hell, I would do it myself. Pay me the same income as I make working, and I'll be glad to get out of your way; most people would.

This is the Republican cart theory: If the townspeople pull an empty cart, if flies down the road effortlessly. As people grow tired of pulling the cart and jump inside the cart instead, and the cart moves slower and slower. When half of the people jump in the cart instead of pulling the cart, the cart stops. This is where we are at in America today.

Over one-third of our working age population are not working nor looking to work. What are they doing to survive? This is on top of the 4.5% that are unemployed and looking for work. The cart has stopped, and I don't see any advantage in putting more townspeople into that cart.

 

[Kondor3]

 

[MaryL]

Jobs Americans wont do. Um, what a pathetic lie. WHO USED TO DO THOSE SAME JOBS? Wasn't "The grapes of wrath" based on itinerant American migrant labor? And those people are being displaced by Illegal aliens that won't acclimate, why is recognizing that BAD? Something is broken here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Another reason the OP is bullshit:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...lds-doubles-down-on-restaurants-of-the-future

MacDonalds will also be adding table service which translates to MORE employees.

 

[Winston]

Great. Then we are half way there. We negate all those arguments about standard of living, poverty level, inflation. They are irrelevant because they all presuppose that the stated minimum wage has some relationship to a minimum value of production. At the current level, it does not even come close.

Automation should replace all the McDonalds employees, except perhaps the managers, if the value of their labor is even close to the current minimum wage, it is not worth them working. That is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. If you can't generate at least that much value, and a healthy profit for the employer, then you should stay the hell at the house. Draw welfare, I don't care. At least your sorry ass is out of my way. And I swear, I have been in a work scenario where that precise thing took place. Employees were willing to take up a collection to send the non-productive employee home and out of the way. And yes, it was a sales position.

When the minimum wage is no longer linked to the value of production, when it is much lower, all kinds of things start going wrong with the economy. First, low wage workers become dependent upon public assistance in order to survive. And what the right doesn't see, is that assistance is not so much subsidizing the living standard of the low wage worker as much as it is subsidizing the stock holders, the corporate executives, and the owners.

And we can argue all day long. The numbers don't lie. I checked both. Walmart and McDonalds, have conducted large stock buybacks. To the tune of billions of dollars. In every case, stock repurchases are bad for the Macroeconomy, but in McDonalds case, it doesn't even make good sense in regards to capital management at the firm level. And the amount spent on those buybacks, and a little bit of wage compression, and poof--those low wage workers all make fifteen dollars an hour or more.

Fifteen dollars makes more sense. At least at that level a worker could be contributing to the economy, not draining it. And in the end, is not that what you want. I am not really in to spending my tax dollars subsidizing the wages of workers in order for them to work while McDonalds executives manipulate the stock price, build a bubble within the equities market (yeah, short the hell out of it}, simply to inflate their compensation.

As I have said repeatedly, the real solution is to cut social programs and not increase the minimum wage. All social programs do for the working is give them a reason to earn less. If somebody is getting government aid working 40 hours a week, and minimum wage increases, then they will work 30 hours a week or less to keep their benefits. I work in industry and hear stories about this all the time.

True experience: about two years ago I had to evict a family that was renting an apartment from me. When I seen trouble, I called them over to discuss the problem. This was an unmarried couple with two children: one a teen and the other about 3 years old. She supposedly stayed home to home-school her daughter and to bring up the younger. He worked full-time, but not one hour past 40. He didn't make a good wage to begin with.

So I made a suggestion. Since he wouldn't work on the weekends, perhaps he could watch the kids during that time and she could get a part-time job to get caught up and stay current with their rent. She didn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $210.00 a month in food stamps, and any income on her part (since she was not technically married) would cut into her benefits.

So now he has an evection on record which any landlord can dig up if he applies for other apartments. People gave up on home ownership so a good apartment is difficult to get. All for what? Food stamps.

"If you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't!"
Rush Limbaugh

The problem is not solved by cutting benefits. The problem would have been solved if this mother would not have lost her benefits. She would have gotten the part time job. But who can blame her for not taking it. I am pretty sure you would not have.

Now, if they were not married, the children were hers, and she didn't work at all, you could have explained how the EITC could easily offset the loss in food stamps. But that is just in that case.

The real truth, that conservatives don't understand, is that individuals in family with incomes low enough to qualify for the EITC and food stamps face a massive marginal tax rate. Hell, conservatives complain about 39%. I mean a corporate CEO with a million dollar salary only gets to keep sixty cents of every one of his dollars after the federal government gets done with him. But the single mother making minimum wage---she takes on additional income she could pay a marginal tax rate of twice that 39%. Income tax, payroll tax, lost EITC, lost food stamps,---they end up with maybe, maybe, a damn quarter out of every additional dollar they make. That is the problem. That is what has to be fixed. And there is an easy fix. But I swear I ain't even going to mention it because it sends conservatives into convulsions.

Correct, who can blame her for not taking on a job? That was my point all along. If she did take a job, much of that labor would be almost like working for free.

Now if she was not receiving food stamps, she may have taken up on my idea, kept their home, and not have a court record of eviction. It also reflects on my earlier point that increasing minimum wage will not have that much of an effect on those receiving public assistance. All it would do is give them the opportunity to work less hours. They are not going to give up those goodies unless those goodies were never there to begin with.

And no, nobody working just above minimum wage is going to pay almost 80% in taxes I don't care what you include in that. Lose benefits? Yes. But that's why they shouldn't receive benefits in the first place.

But my former tenant is an anomaly. Most people working minimum wage are kids in school, college students, stay-at-home mothers looking to bring in an extra few bucks to the household income, retired people looking for something to do. Minimum wage workers in the US are about 4% of our workforce.

Yes, they can face a marginal tax rate of 90%. Hell sometimes it is more than a hundred percent. You really ought to look in to it.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN.com

And cutting out social programs is not an answer. Remember when I said pay them to stay out of the way? No social programs and they are still in the way. They are begging in the street, or looting, still in the freaking way. Consider it a cost of doing business. If you can't make x amount of dollars, then we will pay you y amount of dollars to stay home. AND OUT OF THE DAMN WAY. It is a simple choice for them and an easy cutoff for us. Plus, with a new "minimum" floor for labor that actually reflects a realistic minimum value we will be back on the way to a productive economy producing growth for everyone, not just the privileged few.

Again, not considering social programs (which should be cut) nobody is paying anywhere near 80%. What this article does is add in benefits equal to pay. Welfare is not pay, welfare is money taken from other people.

It's not a tax if benefits are cut off. Taxes are money taken from the pay you earn. Nobody earns welfare, Obama phones or food stamps.

In context however, it does point out to something that was studied, and that is people using all welfare available to them make as much as middle-class people who are actually working and paying taxes. With the exception of unemployment, government benefits are not taxed.

As Limbaugh said, if you pay people not to work, they won't work. And if liberals ever get a hold of government to increase government dependency, then most everybody will want to stay home instead of working. Hell, I would do it myself. Pay me the same income as I make working, and I'll be glad to get out of your way; most people would.

This is the Republican cart theory: If the townspeople pull an empty cart, if flies down the road effortlessly. As people grow tired of pulling the cart and jump inside the cart instead, and the cart moves slower and slower. When half of the people jump in the cart instead of pulling the cart, the cart stops. This is where we are at in America today.

Over one-third of our working age population are not working nor looking to work. What are they doing to survive? This is on top of the 4.5% that are unemployed and looking for work. The cart has stopped, and I don't see any advantage in putting more townspeople into that cart.

You can't claim those low income are not paying 90% by simply changing the definition. The bottom line is still the same, they only get to keep ten cents on the dollar.

And should not a single mother get every dime of public assistance she is entitled too? Does she not have the same obligation to her family as the CEO of a company does to his shareholders? Because he is suppose to take advantage of every tax break. There is not a difference.

And I am willing to run with your cart analogy. For one thing, no way in hell even half the people need to be pushing the cart to make it go forward if we are on level ground. Now if we are on a hill most the people are going to have to be pushing. And if it is going downhill, well we all can jump in the damn thing and still be going forward. But best of all, we can slap a damn machine on that bitch and all of us ride in the car all the time. And guess what, the damn thing is still GOING FORWARD.

The moral is you need to quit worrying about everyone else. You need to quit belly aching about the taxes you pay and instead be grateful you have the opportunity to pay them. I take a great deal of pride in stroking my quarterly check. Instead, focus on what can keep the economy going forward and everyone happily traveling together in the cart, some pushing, some riding. I mean damn, do you think them cowboys bitched about the women riding in the damn wagon? Come on, be a cowboy.