McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[dannyboys]

Capitalism is the brother of 'Social Darwinism'.
The strongest most hardworking, smartest people are the 'Maker's'. They open businesses which employ people. They do so to make money.
The people who don't want to work hard and or aren't smart and or don't have the physical and mental stamina are the 'Takers'.
The 'Takers' are drawn to Socialism/Communism/Marxism.......call it what you want.....like moths to the flame.
The sweet irony is of course in EVERY case where a society is full of 'Takers' there's ALWAYS a few people at the top known as the 'ruling elite' who are in fact the top of the food chain 'Makers' who control the lives of the 'Takers'.

That's why all through history wherever you find the 'Taker's' you find poverty, corruption and failure at every level of human endeavor.

 

[rightwinger]

Lets look at the economics of kiosks

If cashiers make $10 an hour with benefits and overhead, replacing one cashier with a kiosk will save an average of $180 a day, $1260 a week, $5400 a month and $65,700 a year

Kiosks will be used regardless of what we charge for minimum wage

Threatening low wage workers is not the answer

 

[Winston]

He contradicts himself when he says he doesn't want someone paid more than they are worth. He already claimed that skills don't matter and someone should get paid enough to support him/herself and one other simply because the work is 40 hours. What he doesn't seem to get is that there are jobs that don't produce a dime in revenue yet he's willing to pay them a substantial amount.

Maybe I have it wrong, but from what I can understand, he's saying that companies that have jobs that pay less than $15.00 per hour (because those positions don't produce enough profit) should be eliminated. Okay, eliminated by who? Should government close down McDonald's because they have jobs that don't produce enough profit to pay a worker $15.00 an hour or more? People in a community should suffer because of that?

I can't figure out what he's offering as a good solution to the problem.

I support a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour.

I do not want an employer to pay an employee more than the value of his production. But, if the employer wants to pay an employee at least fifteen dollars an hour, even when the employee doesn't produce fifteen dollars worth of value, I don't care.

Now,the problem, especially in regards to both Walmart and McDonalds, is not there there is not enough "profit" being generated by these employees to justify fifteen dollars an hour. In both cases, Walmart and McDonalds, the required increase in labor cost to get those employees to fifteen dollars can be financed from the money those companies are spending on stock buybacks. In other words, instead of spending money on rent seeking activities those companies will be investing money in their employees.

 

[Winston]

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?

sure; you don't believe in Capitalism?

only True socialists, require a work ethic.

No, socialism requires a gun to force a work ethic.

Damn, not only do you conservatives not understand what a free market economy is. You don't even understand what socialism is.

 

[rightwinger]

He contradicts himself when he says he doesn't want someone paid more than they are worth. He already claimed that skills don't matter and someone should get paid enough to support him/herself and one other simply because the work is 40 hours. What he doesn't seem to get is that there are jobs that don't produce a dime in revenue yet he's willing to pay them a substantial amount.

Maybe I have it wrong, but from what I can understand, he's saying that companies that have jobs that pay less than $15.00 per hour (because those positions don't produce enough profit) should be eliminated. Okay, eliminated by who? Should government close down McDonald's because they have jobs that don't produce enough profit to pay a worker $15.00 an hour or more? People in a community should suffer because of that?

I can't figure out what he's offering as a good solution to the problem.

I support a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour.

I do not want an employer to pay an employee more than the value of his production. But, if the employer wants to pay an employee at least fifteen dollars an hour, even when the employee doesn't produce fifteen dollars worth of value, I don't care.

Now,the problem, especially in regards to both Walmart and McDonalds, is not there there is not enough "profit" being generated by these employees to justify fifteen dollars an hour. In both cases, Walmart and McDonalds, the required increase in labor cost to get those employees to fifteen dollars can be financed from the money those companies are spending on stock buybacks. In other words, instead of spending money on rent seeking activities those companies will be investing money in their employees.

It always amazes me that these gigantic corporations are able to compensate from market fluctuations in the cost of supplies and raw materials, rent, tax increases, increased advertising costs, increased executive pay

Yet when someone advocates an increase in pay for their lowest workers, it will bring them to their knees

 

[dannyboys]

"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?

sure; you don't believe in Capitalism?

only True socialists, require a work ethic.

No, socialism requires a gun to force a work ethic.

Damn, not only do you conservatives not understand what a free market economy is. You don't even understand what socialism is.

I understand that a "free market economy" can not exist within a Socialist state.
The operative word is: "FREE".
In a Socialist country no one is 'Free' to start and operate a 'for-profit' business.
They must deal with corrupt officials from top to bottom.
Basically the Socialist governments are run like the Mafia.
ALWAYS someone at the top of the food chain deciding the fate of those below.

 

[Winston]

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?

sure; you don't believe in Capitalism?

only True socialists, require a work ethic.

No, socialism requires a gun to force a work ethic.

Damn, not only do you conservatives not understand what a free market economy is. You don't even understand what socialism is.

I understand that a "free market economy" can not exist within a Socialist state.
The operative word is: "FREE".
In a Socialist country no one is 'Free' to start and operate a 'for-profit' business.
They must deal with corrupt officials from top to bottom.
Basically the Socialist governments are run like the Mafia.
ALWAYS someone at the top of the food chain deciding the fate of those below.

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Why are you not paying attention. I don't want anyone to be paid more than the value of their production. NOBODY. Everyone should be paid at least fifteen dollars an hour. If the job doesn't produce at least that much value to the economy--ELIMINATE THE JOB. If the industry shuts down. GOOD. There has to be an alternative use of the resources devoted to perpetuating that job or industry that provides a better return to the economy. Hell, that is what economics is all about.

So, perhaps you would envision a dedicated body, run by the state, that would determine the most proper use of the resources of the state, including those human resources? This centralized planning group could better determine the needs of people and the production to meet those needs than the market, yes?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

What an ignorant statement,.

A free market is one where the seller and buyer agree upon value uncoerced by the state or other actors.

"Rent" is the boogey man of Marxist though. Those who oppose the right of the little people to own and keep real property perpetually decry "rent."

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

The Alaska permanent fund is not a production operation, it simply disburses RENT collected from the oil companies.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Something my dad taught me long ago. Anything you have to sell, and that includes you skills/labor, isn't worth what you think it is but what someone is willing to pay for it.

Or as Milton Friedman put it, "Value is not set by the seller, but by the buyer."

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

sure; you don't believe in Capitalism?

only True socialists, require a work ethic.

No, socialism requires a gun to force a work ethic.

Damn, not only do you conservatives not understand what a free market economy is. You don't even understand what socialism is.

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

"Owning the factors of production" and "owning a couple dozen businesses" are two very different things. There are some 18M+ non-government owned enterprises in the U.S. and you equate the notion of "socialist system" with the government owning some 20 or so while there are that many others that no government owns?

I understand that a "free market economy" can not exist within a Socialist state.
The operative word is: "FREE".
In a Socialist country no one is 'Free' to start and operate a 'for-profit' business.
They must deal with corrupt officials from top to bottom.
Basically the Socialist governments are run like the Mafia.
ALWAYS someone at the top of the food chain deciding the fate of those below.

You can have a free market economy with socialism. You cannot have it with a command economy. If the socialist state implements a command economy, then no, but one can have a socialist state -- socialism -- without having a command economy.

Free market just means that the market forces determine the prices at which goods and services are exchanged and the quantities of them that are exchanged and made available.

 

[martybegan]

"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?

sure; you don't believe in Capitalism?

only True socialists, require a work ethic.

No, socialism requires a gun to force a work ethic.

Damn, not only do you conservatives not understand what a free market economy is. You don't even understand what socialism is.

The lack of understanding of how an economy in general works in on your part, not mine.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's about ROI. When labor is cheaper than technology then employers use labor. When it appears labor costs are going to go up, employers look into automation, outsourcing, and offshoring. It's pretty simple.

ROI, or more accurately ROCE in this case.

The capital costs have a tipping point, increased labor costs move the fulcrum.

Exactly. I've been looking at installing a second inserting machine. The only thing that has stopped me for the last few years is the readily available supply of $10 per hour labor. If that went up to $15 per hour, the return on the capital investment costs suddenly comes along much faster. Oh, and it puts some people out of work.

I'm calling bullshit.

They would have done the kiosk thing anyway.

How long does it take to design and develop the kiosks and computer programs? How long to install them nationwide?

This has been in the works longer than the call for wage increases.

How do you know? A kid making $8.00 an hour might be cheaper than the infrastructure costs needed to keep kiosks running. What we do know is that companies always look ahead for things (at least the successful ones do) and their concern might be that $15 an hour STILL won't placate the union idiots, and then they want $20 an hour.

Minimum wage has been frozen for eight years and McDonalds is still moving to kiosks

How much of a pay cut do you want before McDonalds takes them out?

They won't. Once the investment is made in the technology, those jobs are gone. They aren't coming back. Employers have been worried about a significant increase in the minimum wage for quite a while now. Liberals have been saying that they wanted $10 or $15 per hour to be the floor. Employers are looking for ways to automate, outsource, or offshore. Then there was that extra whammy from the Obamacare mandate.

Most on the left have no grasp of how business works. One capital is employed for equipment, it is a sunk cost. Removing the equipment will not recover the costs, other than salvage value. Once deployed, automation will stay.

 

[hadit]

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?

That's his point. He doesn't want them to be hired and actually work, he just wants them to be paid, basically turning businesses into welfare distribution centers.

why is there any homelessness, in right to work States?

Why do you ask that question?

 

[hadit]

or they raise prices, which is made easier by people making more money, but doesn't lead t"o an increase in buying POWER.

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.

Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, he did not whine about minimum wages.

He was able to do so only because his company was making enough money to do it. But you knew that.

 

[Winston]

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

What an ignorant statement,.

A free market is one where the seller and buyer agree upon value uncoerced by the state or other actors.

"Rent" is the boogey man of Marxist though. Those who oppose the right of the little people to own and keep real property perpetually decry "rent."

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

The Alaska permanent fund is not a production operation, it simply disburses RENT collected from the oil companies.

LOL. We are both saying the same thing. The difference between the price paid due to the coercion you speak of, and the price that would be paid in a properly functioning marketplace, is RENT. It is not a Marxist bogeyman, it is a free market bogeyman. Of course, I see the Libertarian tag, so you have to be obsessed with rents stemming from government actions. But sometimes it is necessary for the government to initiate action to STOP rent seeking activities. Not all government actions enable them, some prevent them.

And I agree, the Alaska Permanent Fund is not a production operation. And I also agree, they are collecting the "rent" that the oil companies are collecting by being able to extract oil that they do not own. The people of Alaska own that oil. A perfect example of a government initiating action to stop rent seeking activities, or at least distribute the proceeds of those rents back to the people.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Lets look at the economics of kiosks

Oh, let's do shitflinger, this should be rich!

If cashiers make $10 an hour with benefits and overhead, replacing one cashier with a kiosk will save an average of $180 a day, $1260 a week, $5400 a month and $65,700 a year

Your math is sketchy at best, are you assuming a 100% overhead on the $10? I would guess it closer to 300%.

Kiosks will be used regardless of what we charge for minimum wage

Threatening low wage workers is not the answer

Then why have they not been so far?

The reason is that there is a cost to the kiosk. The initial cost of buying the computers, wiring infrastructure, increasing the server capacity, etc. Once installed, there is the cost to maintain the machines and ensure they are not destroyed by vandals.

So the franchise owners conduct a cost benefit analysis. At some point it is more cost effective to use the kiosks. At $10 an hour, that does not appear to be the case, at $15 it clearly is.

 

[kaz]

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

What an ignorant statement,.

A free market is one where the seller and buyer agree upon value uncoerced by the state or other actors.

"Rent" is the boogey man of Marxist though. Those who oppose the right of the little people to own and keep real property perpetually decry "rent."

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

The Alaska permanent fund is not a production operation, it simply disburses RENT collected from the oil companies.

LOL. We are both saying the same thing. The difference between the price paid due to the coercion you speak of, and the price that would be paid in a properly functioning marketplace, is RENT. It is not a Marxist bogeyman, it is a free market bogeyman. Of course, I see the Libertarian tag, so you have to be obsessed with rents stemming from government actions. But sometimes it is necessary for the government to initiate action to STOP rent seeking activities. Not all government actions enable them, some prevent them.

And I agree, the Alaska Permanent Fund is not a production operation. And I also agree, they are collecting the "rent" that the oil companies are collecting by being able to extract oil that they do not own. The people of Alaska own that oil. A perfect example of a government initiating action to stop rent seeking activities, or at least distribute the proceeds of those rents back to the people.

The people of Alaska sold the oil to the oil companies. That's why they don't pay State taxes, they get a refund.

Just like with labor, you don't grasp the concept that when you sell someone something ... you don't own it anymore ...

 

[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.

Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, he did not whine about minimum wages.

He was able to do so only because his company was making enough money to do it. But you knew that.

But did he have to? That is the question. Did market forces dictate that Henry Ford significantly increase the pay of his workers? Did they all get together and do some collective bargaining and tell old Henry they were going to walk out if they didn't get a raise? And even if they did, you think he would have had a problem replacing those low skilled workers?

So again, the question is what "invisible hand" forced Henry Ford to increase his employee's wages?

 

[hadit]

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.

Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, he did not whine about minimum wages.

He was able to do so only because his company was making enough money to do it. But you knew that.

But did he have to? That is the question. Did market forces dictate that Henry Ford significantly increase the pay of his workers? Did they all get together and do some collective bargaining and tell old Henry they were going to walk out if they didn't get a raise? And even if they did, you think he would have had a problem replacing those low skilled workers?

So again, the question is what "invisible hand" forced Henry Ford to increase his employee's wages?

Based on what we've heard thus far, it was a voluntary decision. That is the best kind.