McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[martybegan]

that is up to them; but, they may have to compete, with Henry Ford imitators.

The current "Henry Ford" concept IS automation..

No, Henry Ford utilized the specialization of labor, a concept that was first addressed by Plato. But Ford was a Georgist, he understood Adam Smith and economic rent, which is why he utilized his knowledge of Marx and his arguments against the specialization of labor, and offered high compensation to offset employee disappoint and unrest due to consistently repeated actions. The very "spiritual and physical depression" that Marx had addressed.

No question here. Henry Ford would be an advocate of a fifteen dollar minimum wage. He would be absolutely horrified at the structure of the McDonald's organization and it's efficient extraction of economic rent from multiple sectors of the US economy.

He would also still be railing against the Jews.

Ford made a product people could afford, using low skilled labor that he paid well, but that he was not forced to pay more than they were worth.

The issue isn't businesspeople deciding to spend more on labor to get loyalty/productivity, the issue is government mandating that they do without any guarantees of a better return on their labor investment.

My position is that the minimum wage, in no way, reflects the value of the labor produced by the minimum wage worker. Lots of reasons for that. Doesn't matter. The minimum wage has become a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated. When this happens, distortions enter the marketplace, market inefficiencies begin popping up, and we turn a welfare program that was suppose to help the down and out into a program to subsidize the low wages of employers extracting huge amounts of rent from the economy.

I say the minimum wage worker is already producing fifteen dollars worth of value. If he is not, then hell, I want them replaced by a robot. Hell, I don't care if you don't replace them at all. The way I see it, if someone can't produce at least fifteen dollars of value to the economy they should stay the hell at the house and out of the way. It costs more than fifteen dollars an hour worth of infrastructure and resources to get them back and forth to work, let alone what resources they consume when they are there. And that is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. A minimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employer wants to pay.

Aminimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employerwants to pay.

You thought you could sneak that in you did you?

If they are only producing $5 bucks of goods how can the employer pay them $15 an hour?


.

You know the answer, the guy putting up the capital and assuming all the risk should work for free.

 

[martybegan]

why hire them if the labor they produce is not economically justified by the minimum pay mandated by the government?

the left already has an answer to the right wing, canard, of unemployment.

"something i made up and think may work" is not an answer.

i did not just make it up; unlike the right wing, with nothing but diversion.

we can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis our at-will employment States.

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

Yep, kind of like that. No food stamps, no welfare, no housing subsidies, no social security, everyone has Medicare. Everyone gets a check. The wealthy get a check, the poor get a check, the elderly get a check, the kids get a check. You can make it on the check, you happy, we all happy. Hell, I hope you can make it on the check.

That is "Ideal gas law thinking". Great for hashing out a concept, but not usable in real life.

People will waste that check, then bleeding heart assholes like you will want programs to help them, then to pay them, then we will be back in the same situation, but my tax bracket will then be 75%.

No thank you.

 

[Winston]

that is up to them; but, they may have to compete, with Henry Ford imitators.

The current "Henry Ford" concept IS automation..

No, Henry Ford utilized the specialization of labor, a concept that was first addressed by Plato. But Ford was a Georgist, he understood Adam Smith and economic rent, which is why he utilized his knowledge of Marx and his arguments against the specialization of labor, and offered high compensation to offset employee disappoint and unrest due to consistently repeated actions. The very "spiritual and physical depression" that Marx had addressed.

No question here. Henry Ford would be an advocate of a fifteen dollar minimum wage. He would be absolutely horrified at the structure of the McDonald's organization and it's efficient extraction of economic rent from multiple sectors of the US economy.

He would also still be railing against the Jews.

Ford made a product people could afford, using low skilled labor that he paid well, but that he was not forced to pay more than they were worth.

The issue isn't businesspeople deciding to spend more on labor to get loyalty/productivity, the issue is government mandating that they do without any guarantees of a better return on their labor investment.

My position is that the minimum wage, in no way, reflects the value of the labor produced by the minimum wage worker. Lots of reasons for that. Doesn't matter. The minimum wage has become a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated. When this happens, distortions enter the marketplace, market inefficiencies begin popping up, and we turn a welfare program that was suppose to help the down and out into a program to subsidize the low wages of employers extracting huge amounts of rent from the economy.

I say the minimum wage worker is already producing fifteen dollars worth of value. If he is not, then hell, I want them replaced by a robot. Hell, I don't care if you don't replace them at all. The way I see it, if someone can't produce at least fifteen dollars of value to the economy they should stay the hell at the house and out of the way. It costs more than fifteen dollars an hour worth of infrastructure and resources to get them back and forth to work, let alone what resources they consume when they are there. And that is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. A minimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employer wants to pay.

Aminimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employerwants to pay.

You thought you could sneak that in you did you?

If they are only producing $5 bucks of goods how can the employer pay them $15 an hour?


.

He can't. He won't. The job is gone and the employee can do something worth fifteen dollars an hour or stay home. I don't care which. But if he is only producing five bucks an hour I don't want to even spend time waiting behind him at a stop light on the way to work.

 

[Winston]

The current "Henry Ford" concept IS automation..

No, Henry Ford utilized the specialization of labor, a concept that was first addressed by Plato. But Ford was a Georgist, he understood Adam Smith and economic rent, which is why he utilized his knowledge of Marx and his arguments against the specialization of labor, and offered high compensation to offset employee disappoint and unrest due to consistently repeated actions. The very "spiritual and physical depression" that Marx had addressed.

No question here. Henry Ford would be an advocate of a fifteen dollar minimum wage. He would be absolutely horrified at the structure of the McDonald's organization and it's efficient extraction of economic rent from multiple sectors of the US economy.

He would also still be railing against the Jews.

Ford made a product people could afford, using low skilled labor that he paid well, but that he was not forced to pay more than they were worth.

The issue isn't businesspeople deciding to spend more on labor to get loyalty/productivity, the issue is government mandating that they do without any guarantees of a better return on their labor investment.

My position is that the minimum wage, in no way, reflects the value of the labor produced by the minimum wage worker. Lots of reasons for that. Doesn't matter. The minimum wage has become a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated. When this happens, distortions enter the marketplace, market inefficiencies begin popping up, and we turn a welfare program that was suppose to help the down and out into a program to subsidize the low wages of employers extracting huge amounts of rent from the economy.

I say the minimum wage worker is already producing fifteen dollars worth of value. If he is not, then hell, I want them replaced by a robot. Hell, I don't care if you don't replace them at all. The way I see it, if someone can't produce at least fifteen dollars of value to the economy they should stay the hell at the house and out of the way. It costs more than fifteen dollars an hour worth of infrastructure and resources to get them back and forth to work, let alone what resources they consume when they are there. And that is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. A minimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employer wants to pay.

Aminimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employerwants to pay.

You thought you could sneak that in you did you?

If they are only producing $5 bucks of goods how can the employer pay them $15 an hour?


.

You know the answer, the guy putting up the capital and assuming all the risk should work for free.

The guy putting up the capital? Are you freakin serious? You realize, we are talking about the guy that is bringing in less than two hundred thousand dollars on two and a half million dollars worth of revenue. The owner put up all the capital. The owner is taking all the risk. But the poor dude sends almost 35% of his revenue, not his profit--to McDonald's corporate. They ain't put up shit. They aren't risky donkey squat, except good freakin will.

Nope, the one putting up the capital and assuming all the risk is not that much better off than the underpaid worker. Your "capitalist" system is kind of FUBARED.

 

[Winston]

that is up to them; but, they may have to compete, with Henry Ford imitators.

The current "Henry Ford" concept IS automation..

No, Henry Ford utilized the specialization of labor, a concept that was first addressed by Plato. But Ford was a Georgist, he understood Adam Smith and economic rent, which is why he utilized his knowledge of Marx and his arguments against the specialization of labor, and offered high compensation to offset employee disappoint and unrest due to consistently repeated actions. The very "spiritual and physical depression" that Marx had addressed.

No question here. Henry Ford would be an advocate of a fifteen dollar minimum wage. He would be absolutely horrified at the structure of the McDonald's organization and it's efficient extraction of economic rent from multiple sectors of the US economy.

He would also still be railing against the Jews.

Ford made a product people could afford, using low skilled labor that he paid well, but that he was not forced to pay more than they were worth.

The issue isn't businesspeople deciding to spend more on labor to get loyalty/productivity, the issue is government mandating that they do without any guarantees of a better return on their labor investment.

My position is that the minimum wage, in no way, reflects the value of the labor produced by the minimum wage worker. Lots of reasons for that. Doesn't matter. The minimum wage has become a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated. When this happens, distortions enter the marketplace, market inefficiencies begin popping up, and we turn a welfare program that was suppose to help the down and out into a program to subsidize the low wages of employers extracting huge amounts of rent from the economy.

I say the minimum wage worker is already producing fifteen dollars worth of value. If he is not, then hell, I want them replaced by a robot. Hell, I don't care if you don't replace them at all. The way I see it, if someone can't produce at least fifteen dollars of value to the economy they should stay the hell at the house and out of the way. It costs more than fifteen dollars an hour worth of infrastructure and resources to get them back and forth to work, let alone what resources they consume when they are there. And that is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. A minimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employer wants to pay.

I say if the minimum wage worker was able to produce $15 an hour of value, they would be working in a job that naturally allowed for a $15 an hour wage. What you are trying to foist on people is a half handed attempt at a living wage, not a minimum wage. The idea that entry level jobs like minimum or near minimum wage ones at fast food places are somehow livable is a fantasy.

The idea is to actually not like making shit wages, and somehow improve your lot in life somehow, anyhow. If we pay people $15 an hour for doing $8 an hour of work, we consign them to be stuck in the same crap job for life, or at least until bleeding hearts start gunning for a $20, then a $30, then a $50 minimum wage.

At that point enjoy your $125 Big Mac with the $75 coke on the side.

Well, kind of hard to make the argument that the McDonald's employee is only worth his minimum wage, or even less than fifteen dollars an hour, when his employer is sending up to corporate twice the cost of labor in the form or royalties and service fees.

Again, my position is produce fifteen dollars an hour worth worth of value or stay home. I am calling McDonald's and other corporations bluff. If they have to shut down because they can't turn a profit paying people at least fifteen dollars an hour. GOOD. If everyone has to pay a little more for a burger, perhaps one a little better for them. If everyone has to pay a little more for their toilet paper because Walmart closed. GOOD. Because in the end, the benefit to society of them no longer operating will be far greater than any benefit we have for them operating now.

 

[initforme]

We don't need laborers anymore. So don't apply for labor jobs as we know they don't pay well.

 

[hadit]

There are so many differences in what was happening in the photo compared to what's happening in FF outlets today it's not even relevant to mix the two.
Literally every one of the food products being sold in the photo were 'pre prepared' items. That's just for starters.
Apples and oranges.

Your not getting my premise, it's the entire thing of people want to interact with a human, fast food kiosk been around for over 10 years plus in this country and have not taken off.

.

Self checkout at the grocery store, self serve gas pumps. Customers adapt to changing situations, and when given a choice, choose the option they want at that time.

Ever order food at a Wawa gas station? Completely automated. In a few decades the fastest and cheapest option will be the kiosk. If you want to interact with a human, you'll pay a premium to do it.

Self checkout at the grocery store,

You just made my point, they didn't take off, go to the store you will see more people waiting in line for the cashier then using self check outs.


.

Nearly every store has them and they ARE being used. Right now, they are best suited for when you want to get a few things and get back to your car, but note this. Those self checkouts replace human workers. Without them, there would be more checkout lanes with paid cashiers swiping items and baggers at the end.

Automation will be used where it makes sense to use it, but to say that it will never replace a human worker is ridiculous. How many people said the same thing when self serve gas pumps came out? "Those stupid machines can't check your oil, tires and water like that teenager can, they'll never take off in a big way. People always want to interact with people when they buy gas."

Within a few decades you'll likely do most routine purchasing at a kiosk and you'll pay a premium to interact with a human.

You are hard headed are you not?

Again the self service has been around for over 100 years
.

And until now, humans have been cheaper than machines. When machines are significantly cheaper than humans, they will do the work. It's inevitable. If you want human interaction, you'll pay a premium for it.

 

[martybegan]

No, Henry Ford utilized the specialization of labor, a concept that was first addressed by Plato. But Ford was a Georgist, he understood Adam Smith and economic rent, which is why he utilized his knowledge of Marx and his arguments against the specialization of labor, and offered high compensation to offset employee disappoint and unrest due to consistently repeated actions. The very "spiritual and physical depression" that Marx had addressed.

No question here. Henry Ford would be an advocate of a fifteen dollar minimum wage. He would be absolutely horrified at the structure of the McDonald's organization and it's efficient extraction of economic rent from multiple sectors of the US economy.

He would also still be railing against the Jews.

Ford made a product people could afford, using low skilled labor that he paid well, but that he was not forced to pay more than they were worth.

The issue isn't businesspeople deciding to spend more on labor to get loyalty/productivity, the issue is government mandating that they do without any guarantees of a better return on their labor investment.

My position is that the minimum wage, in no way, reflects the value of the labor produced by the minimum wage worker. Lots of reasons for that. Doesn't matter. The minimum wage has become a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated. When this happens, distortions enter the marketplace, market inefficiencies begin popping up, and we turn a welfare program that was suppose to help the down and out into a program to subsidize the low wages of employers extracting huge amounts of rent from the economy.

I say the minimum wage worker is already producing fifteen dollars worth of value. If he is not, then hell, I want them replaced by a robot. Hell, I don't care if you don't replace them at all. The way I see it, if someone can't produce at least fifteen dollars of value to the economy they should stay the hell at the house and out of the way. It costs more than fifteen dollars an hour worth of infrastructure and resources to get them back and forth to work, let alone what resources they consume when they are there. And that is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. A minimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employer wants to pay.

Aminimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employerwants to pay.

You thought you could sneak that in you did you?

If they are only producing $5 bucks of goods how can the employer pay them $15 an hour?


.

You know the answer, the guy putting up the capital and assuming all the risk should work for free.

The guy putting up the capital? Are you freakin serious? You realize, we are talking about the guy that is bringing in less than two hundred thousand dollars on two and a half million dollars worth of revenue. The owner put up all the capital. The owner is taking all the risk. But the poor dude sends almost 35% of his revenue, not his profit--to McDonald's corporate. They ain't put up shit. They aren't risky donkey squat, except good freakin will.

Nope, the one putting up the capital and assuming all the risk is not that much better off than the underpaid worker. Your "capitalist" system is kind of FUBARED.

I was talking about the franchisee. try reading a bit.

and of course socialism will work soooo much better, just ask Venezuelans.

 

[martybegan]

The current "Henry Ford" concept IS automation..

No, Henry Ford utilized the specialization of labor, a concept that was first addressed by Plato. But Ford was a Georgist, he understood Adam Smith and economic rent, which is why he utilized his knowledge of Marx and his arguments against the specialization of labor, and offered high compensation to offset employee disappoint and unrest due to consistently repeated actions. The very "spiritual and physical depression" that Marx had addressed.

No question here. Henry Ford would be an advocate of a fifteen dollar minimum wage. He would be absolutely horrified at the structure of the McDonald's organization and it's efficient extraction of economic rent from multiple sectors of the US economy.

He would also still be railing against the Jews.

Ford made a product people could afford, using low skilled labor that he paid well, but that he was not forced to pay more than they were worth.

The issue isn't businesspeople deciding to spend more on labor to get loyalty/productivity, the issue is government mandating that they do without any guarantees of a better return on their labor investment.

My position is that the minimum wage, in no way, reflects the value of the labor produced by the minimum wage worker. Lots of reasons for that. Doesn't matter. The minimum wage has become a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated. When this happens, distortions enter the marketplace, market inefficiencies begin popping up, and we turn a welfare program that was suppose to help the down and out into a program to subsidize the low wages of employers extracting huge amounts of rent from the economy.

I say the minimum wage worker is already producing fifteen dollars worth of value. If he is not, then hell, I want them replaced by a robot. Hell, I don't care if you don't replace them at all. The way I see it, if someone can't produce at least fifteen dollars of value to the economy they should stay the hell at the house and out of the way. It costs more than fifteen dollars an hour worth of infrastructure and resources to get them back and forth to work, let alone what resources they consume when they are there. And that is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. A minimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employer wants to pay.

I say if the minimum wage worker was able to produce $15 an hour of value, they would be working in a job that naturally allowed for a $15 an hour wage. What you are trying to foist on people is a half handed attempt at a living wage, not a minimum wage. The idea that entry level jobs like minimum or near minimum wage ones at fast food places are somehow livable is a fantasy.

The idea is to actually not like making shit wages, and somehow improve your lot in life somehow, anyhow. If we pay people $15 an hour for doing $8 an hour of work, we consign them to be stuck in the same crap job for life, or at least until bleeding hearts start gunning for a $20, then a $30, then a $50 minimum wage.

At that point enjoy your $125 Big Mac with the $75 coke on the side.

Well, kind of hard to make the argument that the McDonald's employee is only worth his minimum wage, or even less than fifteen dollars an hour, when his employer is sending up to corporate twice the cost of labor in the form or royalties and service fees.

Again, my position is produce fifteen dollars an hour worth worth of value or stay home. I am calling McDonald's and other corporations bluff. If they have to shut down because they can't turn a profit paying people at least fifteen dollars an hour. GOOD. If everyone has to pay a little more for a burger, perhaps one a little better for them. If everyone has to pay a little more for their toilet paper because Walmart closed. GOOD. Because in the end, the benefit to society of them no longer operating will be far greater than any benefit we have for them operating now.

If it's that much $$, then McDonald's wouldn't be able to get franchisee's anymore, oh wait, they have plenty of people lining up....

No, you don't want to shut down the system, you want government to do your dirty work for you, lazy bastard.

Go out and do something about it, Mr. Armchair anarchist.

Poseur.

 

[Winston]

No, Henry Ford utilized the specialization of labor, a concept that was first addressed by Plato. But Ford was a Georgist, he understood Adam Smith and economic rent, which is why he utilized his knowledge of Marx and his arguments against the specialization of labor, and offered high compensation to offset employee disappoint and unrest due to consistently repeated actions. The very "spiritual and physical depression" that Marx had addressed.

No question here. Henry Ford would be an advocate of a fifteen dollar minimum wage. He would be absolutely horrified at the structure of the McDonald's organization and it's efficient extraction of economic rent from multiple sectors of the US economy.

He would also still be railing against the Jews.

Ford made a product people could afford, using low skilled labor that he paid well, but that he was not forced to pay more than they were worth.

The issue isn't businesspeople deciding to spend more on labor to get loyalty/productivity, the issue is government mandating that they do without any guarantees of a better return on their labor investment.

My position is that the minimum wage, in no way, reflects the value of the labor produced by the minimum wage worker. Lots of reasons for that. Doesn't matter. The minimum wage has become a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated. When this happens, distortions enter the marketplace, market inefficiencies begin popping up, and we turn a welfare program that was suppose to help the down and out into a program to subsidize the low wages of employers extracting huge amounts of rent from the economy.

I say the minimum wage worker is already producing fifteen dollars worth of value. If he is not, then hell, I want them replaced by a robot. Hell, I don't care if you don't replace them at all. The way I see it, if someone can't produce at least fifteen dollars of value to the economy they should stay the hell at the house and out of the way. It costs more than fifteen dollars an hour worth of infrastructure and resources to get them back and forth to work, let alone what resources they consume when they are there. And that is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. A minimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employer wants to pay.

I say if the minimum wage worker was able to produce $15 an hour of value, they would be working in a job that naturally allowed for a $15 an hour wage. What you are trying to foist on people is a half handed attempt at a living wage, not a minimum wage. The idea that entry level jobs like minimum or near minimum wage ones at fast food places are somehow livable is a fantasy.

The idea is to actually not like making shit wages, and somehow improve your lot in life somehow, anyhow. If we pay people $15 an hour for doing $8 an hour of work, we consign them to be stuck in the same crap job for life, or at least until bleeding hearts start gunning for a $20, then a $30, then a $50 minimum wage.

At that point enjoy your $125 Big Mac with the $75 coke on the side.

Well, kind of hard to make the argument that the McDonald's employee is only worth his minimum wage, or even less than fifteen dollars an hour, when his employer is sending up to corporate twice the cost of labor in the form or royalties and service fees.

Again, my position is produce fifteen dollars an hour worth worth of value or stay home. I am calling McDonald's and other corporations bluff. If they have to shut down because they can't turn a profit paying people at least fifteen dollars an hour. GOOD. If everyone has to pay a little more for a burger, perhaps one a little better for them. If everyone has to pay a little more for their toilet paper because Walmart closed. GOOD. Because in the end, the benefit to society of them no longer operating will be far greater than any benefit we have for them operating now.

If it's that much $$, then McDonald's wouldn't be able to get franchisee's anymore, oh wait, they have plenty of people lining up....

No, you don't want to shut down the system, you want government to do your dirty work for you, lazy bastard.

Go out and do something about it, Mr. Armchair anarchist.

Poseur.

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

 

[martybegan]

He would also still be railing against the Jews.

Ford made a product people could afford, using low skilled labor that he paid well, but that he was not forced to pay more than they were worth.

The issue isn't businesspeople deciding to spend more on labor to get loyalty/productivity, the issue is government mandating that they do without any guarantees of a better return on their labor investment.

My position is that the minimum wage, in no way, reflects the value of the labor produced by the minimum wage worker. Lots of reasons for that. Doesn't matter. The minimum wage has become a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated. When this happens, distortions enter the marketplace, market inefficiencies begin popping up, and we turn a welfare program that was suppose to help the down and out into a program to subsidize the low wages of employers extracting huge amounts of rent from the economy.

I say the minimum wage worker is already producing fifteen dollars worth of value. If he is not, then hell, I want them replaced by a robot. Hell, I don't care if you don't replace them at all. The way I see it, if someone can't produce at least fifteen dollars of value to the economy they should stay the hell at the house and out of the way. It costs more than fifteen dollars an hour worth of infrastructure and resources to get them back and forth to work, let alone what resources they consume when they are there. And that is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. A minimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employer wants to pay.

I say if the minimum wage worker was able to produce $15 an hour of value, they would be working in a job that naturally allowed for a $15 an hour wage. What you are trying to foist on people is a half handed attempt at a living wage, not a minimum wage. The idea that entry level jobs like minimum or near minimum wage ones at fast food places are somehow livable is a fantasy.

The idea is to actually not like making shit wages, and somehow improve your lot in life somehow, anyhow. If we pay people $15 an hour for doing $8 an hour of work, we consign them to be stuck in the same crap job for life, or at least until bleeding hearts start gunning for a $20, then a $30, then a $50 minimum wage.

At that point enjoy your $125 Big Mac with the $75 coke on the side.

Well, kind of hard to make the argument that the McDonald's employee is only worth his minimum wage, or even less than fifteen dollars an hour, when his employer is sending up to corporate twice the cost of labor in the form or royalties and service fees.

Again, my position is produce fifteen dollars an hour worth worth of value or stay home. I am calling McDonald's and other corporations bluff. If they have to shut down because they can't turn a profit paying people at least fifteen dollars an hour. GOOD. If everyone has to pay a little more for a burger, perhaps one a little better for them. If everyone has to pay a little more for their toilet paper because Walmart closed. GOOD. Because in the end, the benefit to society of them no longer operating will be far greater than any benefit we have for them operating now.

If it's that much $$, then McDonald's wouldn't be able to get franchisee's anymore, oh wait, they have plenty of people lining up....

No, you don't want to shut down the system, you want government to do your dirty work for you, lazy bastard.

Go out and do something about it, Mr. Armchair anarchist.

Poseur.

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

 

[Winston]

My position is that the minimum wage, in no way, reflects the value of the labor produced by the minimum wage worker. Lots of reasons for that. Doesn't matter. The minimum wage has become a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated. When this happens, distortions enter the marketplace, market inefficiencies begin popping up, and we turn a welfare program that was suppose to help the down and out into a program to subsidize the low wages of employers extracting huge amounts of rent from the economy.

I say the minimum wage worker is already producing fifteen dollars worth of value. If he is not, then hell, I want them replaced by a robot. Hell, I don't care if you don't replace them at all. The way I see it, if someone can't produce at least fifteen dollars of value to the economy they should stay the hell at the house and out of the way. It costs more than fifteen dollars an hour worth of infrastructure and resources to get them back and forth to work, let alone what resources they consume when they are there. And that is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. A minimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employer wants to pay.

I say if the minimum wage worker was able to produce $15 an hour of value, they would be working in a job that naturally allowed for a $15 an hour wage. What you are trying to foist on people is a half handed attempt at a living wage, not a minimum wage. The idea that entry level jobs like minimum or near minimum wage ones at fast food places are somehow livable is a fantasy.

The idea is to actually not like making shit wages, and somehow improve your lot in life somehow, anyhow. If we pay people $15 an hour for doing $8 an hour of work, we consign them to be stuck in the same crap job for life, or at least until bleeding hearts start gunning for a $20, then a $30, then a $50 minimum wage.

At that point enjoy your $125 Big Mac with the $75 coke on the side.

Well, kind of hard to make the argument that the McDonald's employee is only worth his minimum wage, or even less than fifteen dollars an hour, when his employer is sending up to corporate twice the cost of labor in the form or royalties and service fees.

Again, my position is produce fifteen dollars an hour worth worth of value or stay home. I am calling McDonald's and other corporations bluff. If they have to shut down because they can't turn a profit paying people at least fifteen dollars an hour. GOOD. If everyone has to pay a little more for a burger, perhaps one a little better for them. If everyone has to pay a little more for their toilet paper because Walmart closed. GOOD. Because in the end, the benefit to society of them no longer operating will be far greater than any benefit we have for them operating now.

If it's that much $$, then McDonald's wouldn't be able to get franchisee's anymore, oh wait, they have plenty of people lining up....

No, you don't want to shut down the system, you want government to do your dirty work for you, lazy bastard.

Go out and do something about it, Mr. Armchair anarchist.

Poseur.

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

No, economic rent is very real.

Say we build a factory. You will probably say it takes two components, labor and capital. But it is labor, capital, and land. So--the capital, that is the "owner". He builds the factory, he hires the workers, he buys the materials. He fails, he loses his money, his "capital". He walks away with nothing but the experience. The workers he hires, they are the labor, they increase the value of materials by producing his product. The business fails, he is unemployed. He walks away with nothing but the experience. Now you got the land owner. He puts up nothing. He risks nothing. He produces nothing. He collects RENT. And if the business fails, he is still there, and so is the land.

In the McDonalds situation, McDonald's puts up nothing except the system (I will give you advertising), they risk nothing except what little effect that single franchisee could do to their "goodwill" before they can shut him down. And if the franchisee fails, McDonalds will still be there, and so will their system. They are collecting economic rent.

Now, you don't even want to get me started on what collecting of economic rent causes. Considering the concept comes out of the last of the 19th century, it is almost scary as to how accurate those predictions were.

 

[martybegan]

I say if the minimum wage worker was able to produce $15 an hour of value, they would be working in a job that naturally allowed for a $15 an hour wage. What you are trying to foist on people is a half handed attempt at a living wage, not a minimum wage. The idea that entry level jobs like minimum or near minimum wage ones at fast food places are somehow livable is a fantasy.

The idea is to actually not like making shit wages, and somehow improve your lot in life somehow, anyhow. If we pay people $15 an hour for doing $8 an hour of work, we consign them to be stuck in the same crap job for life, or at least until bleeding hearts start gunning for a $20, then a $30, then a $50 minimum wage.

At that point enjoy your $125 Big Mac with the $75 coke on the side.

Well, kind of hard to make the argument that the McDonald's employee is only worth his minimum wage, or even less than fifteen dollars an hour, when his employer is sending up to corporate twice the cost of labor in the form or royalties and service fees.

Again, my position is produce fifteen dollars an hour worth worth of value or stay home. I am calling McDonald's and other corporations bluff. If they have to shut down because they can't turn a profit paying people at least fifteen dollars an hour. GOOD. If everyone has to pay a little more for a burger, perhaps one a little better for them. If everyone has to pay a little more for their toilet paper because Walmart closed. GOOD. Because in the end, the benefit to society of them no longer operating will be far greater than any benefit we have for them operating now.

If it's that much $$, then McDonald's wouldn't be able to get franchisee's anymore, oh wait, they have plenty of people lining up....

No, you don't want to shut down the system, you want government to do your dirty work for you, lazy bastard.

Go out and do something about it, Mr. Armchair anarchist.

Poseur.

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

No, economic rent is very real.

Say we build a factory. You will probably say it takes two components, labor and capital. But it is labor, capital, and land. So--the capital, that is the "owner". He builds the factory, he hires the workers, he buys the materials. He fails, he loses his money, his "capital". He walks away with nothing but the experience. The workers he hires, they are the labor, they increase the value of materials by producing his product. The business fails, he is unemployed. He walks away with nothing but the experience. Now you got the land owner. He puts up nothing. He risks nothing. He produces nothing. He collects RENT. And if the business fails, he is still there, and so is the land.

In the McDonalds situation, McDonald's puts up nothing except the system (I will give you advertising), they risk nothing except what little effect that single franchisee could do to their "goodwill" before they can shut him down. And if the franchisee fails, McDonalds will still be there, and so will their system. They are collecting economic rent.

Now, you don't even want to get me started on what collecting of economic rent causes. Considering the concept comes out of the last of the 19th century, it is almost scary as to how accurate those predictions were.

it both cases you are being allowed to use something someone else owns, either the actual property of the owner, or the intellectual property (and supply chain) of the owner, in the case of Mcdonald's. That they suffer little risk is due to the overall stability of the country and the strong brand in the case of McDonald's.

Your complaint boils down to the same thing "rent slavery" proponents end up at, "Someone has something that I don't, wah wah wah!!!"

 

[danielpalos]

hire them, if it, "offends you"; especially in, Right to Work, States.

why hire them if the labor they produce is not economically justified by the minimum pay mandated by the government?

the left already has an answer to the right wing, canard, of unemployment.

"something i made up and think may work" is not an answer.

i did not just make it up; unlike the right wing, with nothing but diversion.

we can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis our at-will employment States.

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

it is, employment at will, not slave labor for lucre because you might otherwise starve. We have a First World economy.

 

[martybegan]

why hire them if the labor they produce is not economically justified by the minimum pay mandated by the government?

the left already has an answer to the right wing, canard, of unemployment.

"something i made up and think may work" is not an answer.

i did not just make it up; unlike the right wing, with nothing but diversion.

we can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis our at-will employment States.

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

it is, employment at will, not slave labor for lucre because you might otherwise starve. We have a First World economy.

And a first world economy means paying freeloaders to freeload?

 

[danielpalos]

If you pay someone 7 bucks an hour do you expect good productivity and people to stay? McDonalds doesn't want nor expect good workers to stay. Otherwise they would pay more. Their business model is low wage and expecting little or no productivity. Some companies have to attract the least productive. Pretend to pay me I pretend to work.

When you're forced to pay someone a minimum of $7.25/hour because the federal government mandates it instead of paying based on skills required to do the job, absolutely I expect efficiency. You're already getting paid more than what you offer is worth.

They pay that amount because the job being done requires skills at that amount.

Pretend to work because you don't like what you agreed to work for and that won't be a problem. Someone else will be in your spot either doing the job correctly or they'll be replaced if they have the same attitude. When you offer low skills, don't expect anyone to come knocking on your door.

Only the right wing is that, fantastical.

Your current metrics are based on our current minimum wage.

My current metrics are based on the concept of if you take a job knowing the wage before you take it, do the job to the level it should be done not to the one you decide because you now don't like the pay.

I said nothing of the amount but the concept of doing what you were hired to do to the level you were hired to do it.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage makes knowing you can labor and have some money to spend, before you take the job, makes a lot of difference. I agree.

 

[danielpalos]

why hire them if the labor they produce is not economically justified by the minimum pay mandated by the government?

the left already has an answer to the right wing, canard, of unemployment.

"something i made up and think may work" is not an answer.

i did not just make it up; unlike the right wing, with nothing but diversion.

we can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis our at-will employment States.

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

Yep, kind of like that. No food stamps, no welfare, no housing subsidies, no social security, everyone has Medicare. Everyone gets a check. The wealthy get a check, the poor get a check, the elderly get a check, the kids get a check. You can make it on the check, you happy, we all happy. Hell, I hope you can make it on the check.

Only those who are actually unemployed, need a check.

 

[danielpalos]

My position is that the minimum wage, in no way, reflects the value of the labor produced by the minimum wage worker. Lots of reasons for that. Doesn't matter. The minimum wage has become a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated. When this happens, distortions enter the marketplace, market inefficiencies begin popping up, and we turn a welfare program that was suppose to help the down and out into a program to subsidize the low wages of employers extracting huge amounts of rent from the economy.

I say the minimum wage worker is already producing fifteen dollars worth of value. If he is not, then hell, I want them replaced by a robot. Hell, I don't care if you don't replace them at all. The way I see it, if someone can't produce at least fifteen dollars of value to the economy they should stay the hell at the house and out of the way. It costs more than fifteen dollars an hour worth of infrastructure and resources to get them back and forth to work, let alone what resources they consume when they are there. And that is what a minimum wage is suppose to be. A minimal level of production value society is willing to accept, not the minimum amount an employer wants to pay.

I say if the minimum wage worker was able to produce $15 an hour of value, they would be working in a job that naturally allowed for a $15 an hour wage. What you are trying to foist on people is a half handed attempt at a living wage, not a minimum wage. The idea that entry level jobs like minimum or near minimum wage ones at fast food places are somehow livable is a fantasy.

The idea is to actually not like making shit wages, and somehow improve your lot in life somehow, anyhow. If we pay people $15 an hour for doing $8 an hour of work, we consign them to be stuck in the same crap job for life, or at least until bleeding hearts start gunning for a $20, then a $30, then a $50 minimum wage.

At that point enjoy your $125 Big Mac with the $75 coke on the side.

Well, kind of hard to make the argument that the McDonald's employee is only worth his minimum wage, or even less than fifteen dollars an hour, when his employer is sending up to corporate twice the cost of labor in the form or royalties and service fees.

Again, my position is produce fifteen dollars an hour worth worth of value or stay home. I am calling McDonald's and other corporations bluff. If they have to shut down because they can't turn a profit paying people at least fifteen dollars an hour. GOOD. If everyone has to pay a little more for a burger, perhaps one a little better for them. If everyone has to pay a little more for their toilet paper because Walmart closed. GOOD. Because in the end, the benefit to society of them no longer operating will be far greater than any benefit we have for them operating now.

If it's that much $$, then McDonald's wouldn't be able to get franchisee's anymore, oh wait, they have plenty of people lining up....

No, you don't want to shut down the system, you want government to do your dirty work for you, lazy bastard.

Go out and do something about it, Mr. Armchair anarchist.

Poseur.

Does not matter if they have people lined up to be franchisee's. The franchisee's are making money. And you don't have to get all tore up if you don't understand.

Look. Minimum wage is an artificial floor. Because of this artificial floor, franchisee's can pay employees significantly less than the value of their production. The difference between the amount the employee would be paid in a fair "free" market where he has equal power, there is equal consideration, and the labor market is functioning without a dysfunctional minimal wage floor, and what he is currently paid is economic rent.

My entrance in to this thread is that the franchisee, the one putting up the capital and taking the risk, is not collecting this economic rent. It is passed up to corporate McDonald's in the form of fees and expenses. Therefore, the owner can no more afford a capital expansion into automation than he can afford fifteen dollars an hour cashiers.

The point is the problem is not the franchisee. The problem is not the employee's lack of skills or productivity, the problem is not even automation replacing jobs. The problem is a system that allows McDonalds, the franchise, to extract that economic rent. Part of that problem, and only a small part, is a minimum wage that no longer serves it's purpose because it does not reflect a minimum social value of a working individual.

They are buying the brand name and all the advertising power and recognition that comes with it. it's part of the package. They could open up their own no name burger joint, but they don't. That's the pact they make with McDonald's corporate. Don't go rambling about "economic rent", that is just an excuse people who are lazy and feckless use to get free crap from others.

The real problem is people think they can make an entry level McDonald's job a career that allows for a family and a life of some type of leisure. That is the real crock here.

Only in right wing fantasy, can it be that arbitrary and that capricious; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, simply competes favorably with the cost of social services.

 

[danielpalos]

the left already has an answer to the right wing, canard, of unemployment.

"something i made up and think may work" is not an answer.

i did not just make it up; unlike the right wing, with nothing but diversion.

we can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis our at-will employment States.

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

it is, employment at will, not slave labor for lucre because you might otherwise starve. We have a First World economy.

And a first world economy means paying freeloaders to freeload?

yup. that is why we have a first world economy and not a third world economy.

 

[danielpalos]

that is up to them; but, they may have to compete, with Henry Ford imitators.

The current "Henry Ford" concept IS automation..

your point?

the left already has an answer to the right wing, canard, of unemployment.

and what is that? Pay people to do nothing?

hire them, if it, "offends you"; especially in, Right to Work, States.

why hire them if the labor they produce is not economically justified by the minimum pay mandated by the government?

then stop being offended by unemployment compensation on at-will basis.