McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[Winston]

[
Which is why I said the inflation level was too low. But the fact that fifteen grand in today's dollars got you a square mile in 1785 and it's going to take something in the range of five million today is another conversation.

But again, you can't possibly believe it was common, to have $640 laying around in 1785. That was about ten years worth of work in New England, maybe six down south. And real incomes declined till the end of the century.

But your perception, that early America was fueled by small farmers who owned their land is a Thomas Jefferson fantasy. Early America was owned by land barons, like George Washington. Many, like both he and Aaron Burr, dreamed have having their very own kingdom.

The federal land sales of 1785 were conducted prior to the whiskey tax and prior to the government guaranteeing all federal and state issued continental scripts. Which means those scripts used to pay for that government land were virtually worthless. Bought for pennies on the dollars from the farmers who held them.

Now Jefferson, who authored the original act of 1784, wanted smaller parcels. So Congress shipped his ass off to France and got the deed done before he got back.

Again, the fact that the land (which was in addition to all of the grants already given) was bought up as fast as it was surveyed shows that the common people could indeed afford it.

You keep speaking of script, which was used almost exclusively by the Continental Congress to pay the military. It was indeed worthless, but not terribly relevant since most of the country was on hard currency, silver and gold coins.

That is stupid as hell. I am pretty sure Lamborginis sell as quick as they can make them. Does that mean the common people can afford them?

And the hard currency bit, hell, that makes it even less likely someone had a big sack of doubloons or a nice rock of gold to take to the state land office.

And the script part, just shows how little you know about early American history. Scripts were used by the Continental government and the state government. Let's say the North Carolina militia was mustering and they needed some food to feed the men. Well they would waltz in to your farm and grab them some cows, maybe some corn, and if you had any liquor, well they probably going to take it too. They would leave you a "script", noting what they took and promising that the state government in this case, or the federal government in the case of the Continental Army, would pay the agreed upon amount which was noted.

Now, after the war things were pretty tough. Like I said, real incomes declined all the way to the end of the century. Goods were scare, hard currency even more so. Those farmers, they had lost "capital" to the war effort and were holding paper instead. They needed food, sold that paper for pennies on the dollar because, well the federal government was broke and the state governments were more broke.

The paper was bought up by wealthy speculators like, yep--George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. So as soon as they bought up all the land they passed legislation that promised to pay full par for all that script. And to raise the funds to pay for it, they created the whiskey tax. Washington had to raise an army bigger than the one that won the War of Independence to put down the resulting revolt.

 

[Winston]

And it is worth mentioning how that whiskey tax worked. Especially in light of the fact that George Washington was the wealthiest president prior to Trump.

It was a per gallon tax on the small distiller. But a large distiller could pay a lump sum and produce all the liquor they wanted. Anyone want to take a guess as to who the number one distiller in America was after the whiskey tax?

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!

Your anecdotal observations are just that.

• That's one form of socialism. Despite what you may think, there is not just one form of socialism. The reason for that is that the economic, social and political aspects of socialism are separable, though they need not be separated in any given implementation of socialism.

Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

That is indicative of nothing. It may be the consequence of state controlled/stipulated pho prices, but that the all the street vendors charge the same price does not in any way show that the state is controlling the prices. Showing a piece of legislation or a regulation that does stipulate such pricing would show your claim to be so.

For example:

• If you look here, every seller in the U.S. charges the exact same price for the items you'll see at the link. That being the case has nothing to do with state controls on prices.
• When one is in downtown D.C., one will find hotdog vendors all over the place. They all charge the same prices, and the state has nothing to do with it.
  
  
  

• Looking at the photo above, you'll see a taxicab. The prices the taxis charge are controlled by the taxicab commission. There are other goods/services in the U.S. that are stipulated by various governments: water, electricity, and home heating oil and gas.
• Go to Macy's, Bloomingdales, and Saks, and you'll find the price of a Ralph Lauren button down shirt is the same at all of them. The same is so for nearly perfume and cosmetic one might aim to buy. The government is not making that be so.

One need not consider the matter solely in terms of differentiated goods. Purchase any commodity on the commodities exchange and you'll find that at any given point in time, every sellers sells at the same price unless and until (1) a buyer offers a higher price or (2) a seller agrees to accept a lower price. That happens because commodity sellers are price takers.

As for Vietnam, I'm aware of their Law on Price, but I don't know that pho is included in its scope. A variety of food items appear to be outside its scope judging by the variability noted for certain items shown here. Now it may still be that the price of pho is controlled, but you've not shown that to be so, and I don't know it to be so. In light of that, I'd say that pho sellers offer a commoditized good -- pho -- and are thus price takers. Now, if you care to put forth something that shows Vietnam has indeed by governmental fiat set pho prices, I'll accept that as so.

Communities like that police themselves. If someone sold Pho for less the rest would destroy his stand. If he's stubborn they'd break a few of his bones. That is why all Pho cost the same.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!

Your anecdotal observations are just that.

• That's one form of socialism. Despite what you may think, there is not just one form of socialism. The reason for that is that the economic, social and political aspects of socialism are separable, though they need not be separated in any given implementation of socialism.

Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

That is indicative of nothing. It may be the consequence of state controlled/stipulated pho prices, but that the all the street vendors charge the same price does not in any way show that the state is controlling the prices. Showing a piece of legislation or a regulation that does stipulate such pricing would show your claim to be so.

For example:

• If you look here, every seller in the U.S. charges the exact same price for the items you'll see at the link. That being the case has nothing to do with state controls on prices.
• When one is in downtown D.C., one will find hotdog vendors all over the place. They all charge the same prices, and the state has nothing to do with it.
  
  
  

• Looking at the photo above, you'll see a taxicab. The prices the taxis charge are controlled by the taxicab commission. There are other goods/services in the U.S. that are stipulated by various governments: water, electricity, and home heating oil and gas.
• Go to Macy's, Bloomingdales, and Saks, and you'll find the price of a Ralph Lauren button down shirt is the same at all of them. The same is so for nearly perfume and cosmetic one might aim to buy. The government is not making that be so.

One need not consider the matter solely in terms of differentiated goods. Purchase any commodity on the commodities exchange and you'll find that at any given point in time, every sellers sells at the same price unless and until (1) a buyer offers a higher price or (2) a seller agrees to accept a lower price. That happens because commodity sellers are price takers.

As for Vietnam, I'm aware of their Law on Price, but I don't know that pho is included in its scope. A variety of food items appear to be outside its scope judging by the variability noted for certain items shown here. Now it may still be that the price of pho is controlled, but you've not shown that to be so, and I don't know it to be so. In light of that, I'd say that pho sellers offer a commoditized good -- pho -- and are thus price takers. Now, if you care to put forth something that shows Vietnam has indeed by governmental fiat set pho prices, I'll accept that as so.

Communities like that police themselves. If someone sold Pho for less the rest would destroy his stand. If he's stubborn they'd break a few of his bones. That is why all Pho cost the same.

TY. I didn't know that. I do know that competing vendors breaking one's legs isn't a socialist government regulating the prices, which is the point the other guy was trying to make.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!

Your anecdotal observations are just that.

• That's one form of socialism. Despite what you may think, there is not just one form of socialism. The reason for that is that the economic, social and political aspects of socialism are separable, though they need not be separated in any given implementation of socialism.

Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

That is indicative of nothing. It may be the consequence of state controlled/stipulated pho prices, but that the all the street vendors charge the same price does not in any way show that the state is controlling the prices. Showing a piece of legislation or a regulation that does stipulate such pricing would show your claim to be so.

For example:

• If you look here, every seller in the U.S. charges the exact same price for the items you'll see at the link. That being the case has nothing to do with state controls on prices.
• When one is in downtown D.C., one will find hotdog vendors all over the place. They all charge the same prices, and the state has nothing to do with it.
  
  
  

• Looking at the photo above, you'll see a taxicab. The prices the taxis charge are controlled by the taxicab commission. There are other goods/services in the U.S. that are stipulated by various governments: water, electricity, and home heating oil and gas.
• Go to Macy's, Bloomingdales, and Saks, and you'll find the price of a Ralph Lauren button down shirt is the same at all of them. The same is so for nearly perfume and cosmetic one might aim to buy. The government is not making that be so.

One need not consider the matter solely in terms of differentiated goods. Purchase any commodity on the commodities exchange and you'll find that at any given point in time, every sellers sells at the same price unless and until (1) a buyer offers a higher price or (2) a seller agrees to accept a lower price. That happens because commodity sellers are price takers.

As for Vietnam, I'm aware of their Law on Price, but I don't know that pho is included in its scope. A variety of food items appear to be outside its scope judging by the variability noted for certain items shown here. Now it may still be that the price of pho is controlled, but you've not shown that to be so, and I don't know it to be so. In light of that, I'd say that pho sellers offer a commoditized good -- pho -- and are thus price takers. Now, if you care to put forth something that shows Vietnam has indeed by governmental fiat set pho prices, I'll accept that as so.

Communities like that police themselves. If someone sold Pho for less the rest would destroy his stand. If he's stubborn they'd break a few of his bones. That is why all Pho cost the same.

TY. I didn't know that. I do know that competing vendors breaking one's legs isn't a socialist government regulating the prices, which is the point the other guy was trying to make.

It's citizens coping and surviving in a socialist country.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Anyone want to take a guess as to who the number one distiller in America was after the whiskey tax?

What I find interesting about GW's distilling whisky is that he was doing it in 1797, and at the time, commerical whiskey production was not really "a thing." In his initial year of production, he dripped some 11K gallons of whiskey when the average distiller produced about 650 gallons. He went on to sell his whiskey. The interesting part: the man innovated the notion of selling something that everyone of the day produced on their own -- it wasn't as though folks didn't know how or lacked the equipment needed -- thus he sold convenience/time. Pretty cool.

 

[dannyboys]

I support a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour.

Of course you do, you don't run a business.

I do not want an employer to pay an employee more than the value of his production.

You contradict yourself. You seek to use the coercive power of the state to dictate what a once free person is permitted to accept. If a person cannot sell their talents for $15 an hour, you demand that the starve, even if there are some who would buy those talents for $10.

Such is the cruelty of the minimum wage.

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.

How big of you, Comrade.

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.

If only you could be elected to the board of either company, you could dictate you Chomsky ideals to them...

Oh I have a business. One employee. Me. Find it works best that way.

But long ago, I was a meatcutter. A good one. And it was a great job. No better working conditions. Plus, I was producing. I was creating value. I was taking a raw material and turning it into a finished product. But, that job just didn't pay enough. And I could see it, even then. It was not that I wasn't producing enough value, it was that more and more of that value was being passed uphill.

And no, I don't have to be on the board of directors. I simply want the government to forbid companies from conducting stock buybacks. It is the manipulation of the stock price, which is considered illegal when conducted by any other entity. It was illegal in the United States for decades, until, ironically, the Ronald Reagan administration.

It is easy to see what has happened. Rothbard, George, Keynes--they would all agree. We have structured our economy in such a way that we now reward rent seeking behavior more than we reward production and innovation. Now, we have almost nothing but rent seeking and very little production. That is our central problem and almost every major economist not bought by the Koch foundation has finally came to that realization.

And my career is a reflection of that reality. I used to make more pie. Now, I run around and grab up more of the pie that is already there. It is what our system directed me to do and it is what our system directs our large corporations and wealthy individuals to do as well. That has to change.

That's enough from you!
First you're a fucking dummy. Your concept of simple economics is childlish.
If that's not bad enough you seem to think anyone here gives a fuck about 'your life'.
Second and even worse is you're fucking boring!
Go fuck yourself!
Permanent Ignore.

 

[dannyboys]

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.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!

Your anecdotal observations are just that.

• That's one form of socialism. Despite what you may think, there is not just one form of socialism. The reason for that is that the economic, social and political aspects of socialism are separable, though they need not be separated in any given implementation of socialism.

Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

That is indicative of nothing. It may be the consequence of state controlled/stipulated pho prices, but that the all the street vendors charge the same price does not in any way show that the state is controlling the prices. Showing a piece of legislation or a regulation that does stipulate such pricing would show your claim to be so.

For example:

• If you look here, every seller in the U.S. charges the exact same price for the items you'll see at the link. That being the case has nothing to do with state controls on prices.
• When one is in downtown D.C., one will find hotdog vendors all over the place. They all charge the same prices, and the state has nothing to do with it.
  
  
  

• Looking at the photo above, you'll see a taxicab. The prices the taxis charge are controlled by the taxicab commission. There are other goods/services in the U.S. that are stipulated by various governments: water, electricity, and home heating oil and gas.
• Go to Macy's, Bloomingdales, and Saks, and you'll find the price of a Ralph Lauren button down shirt is the same at all of them. The same is so for nearly perfume and cosmetic one might aim to buy. The government is not making that be so.

One need not consider the matter solely in terms of differentiated goods. Purchase any commodity on the commodities exchange and you'll find that at any given point in time, every sellers sells at the same price unless and until (1) a buyer offers a higher price or (2) a seller agrees to accept a lower price. That happens because commodity sellers are price takers.

As for Vietnam, I'm aware of their Law on Price, but I don't know that pho is included in its scope. A variety of food items appear to be outside its scope judging by the variability noted for certain items shown here. Now it may still be that the price of pho is controlled, but you've not shown that to be so, and I don't know it to be so. In light of that, I'd say that pho sellers offer a commoditized good -- pho -- and are thus price takers. Now, if you care to put forth something that shows Vietnam has indeed by governmental fiat set pho prices, I'll accept that as so.

There's much more to the the current price of Pho than meets the eye.
In no particular order but ALL originating from a central Communist doctrine:
Virtually every street food vendor today has relatives who lived during the Communist leadership of Ho Chi Minh. Back then every food vendor was told what to charge for their products.
Many of these old relatives still work in the food stalls.
There is still an unwritten rule that no one should be making more money than anyone else.
The concept is so ingrained now that no one would ever even question it.
So yes there are no longer any 'Government Officials' walking through the markets looking for 'Capitalists' because there is no need to. Everyone is on the same boat. And everyone likes it that way.
Any food vendor who would offer to sell their Pho for less than their neighbor would be considered 'unpatriotic' and be shunned by the community.
Self regulated economy based on Communist doctrine.
No one gets ahead of the others and no one falls behind unless they don't know how to make a great Pho. LOL

 

[dannyboys]

Keep in mind, McDonalds was gonna implement these kiosks no matter what the Minimum Wage was. It's a Corporation that doesn't care about Americans or America. It only cares about the money. But who knows? Maybe this move has put it on Trump's shitlist. I hope so.

ALL FF outlet franchise owners have been aware of the robotics sitting in Chinese warehouses for a decade just waiting to be but into their FF outlets.
It's NEVER been about the cost of the equipment.
A grade ten student with a calculator can figure out the massive cost benefits to installing robotic fry makers compared to having to deal with semiliterate dummies/dirty/late/thieving/dopers/drunks/'activists in the workplace' losers.
The ONLY reason the robots haven't virtually replaced humans has been local 'politics'.
But recent marketing studies have proven that the average person who eats at FF outlets doesn't give a fuck who or what is making their 'Whopper' as long as it's quick and cheap and what they ordered.
The $15 an hour movement put the final nail in the 'we must have humans flipping the burgers' coffin.

 

[Winston]

I support a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour.

Of course you do, you don't run a business.

I do not want an employer to pay an employee more than the value of his production.

You contradict yourself. You seek to use the coercive power of the state to dictate what a once free person is permitted to accept. If a person cannot sell their talents for $15 an hour, you demand that the starve, even if there are some who would buy those talents for $10.

Such is the cruelty of the minimum wage.

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.

How big of you, Comrade.

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.

If only you could be elected to the board of either company, you could dictate you Chomsky ideals to them...

Oh I have a business. One employee. Me. Find it works best that way.

But long ago, I was a meatcutter. A good one. And it was a great job. No better working conditions. Plus, I was producing. I was creating value. I was taking a raw material and turning it into a finished product. But, that job just didn't pay enough. And I could see it, even then. It was not that I wasn't producing enough value, it was that more and more of that value was being passed uphill.

And no, I don't have to be on the board of directors. I simply want the government to forbid companies from conducting stock buybacks. It is the manipulation of the stock price, which is considered illegal when conducted by any other entity. It was illegal in the United States for decades, until, ironically, the Ronald Reagan administration.

It is easy to see what has happened. Rothbard, George, Keynes--they would all agree. We have structured our economy in such a way that we now reward rent seeking behavior more than we reward production and innovation. Now, we have almost nothing but rent seeking and very little production. That is our central problem and almost every major economist not bought by the Koch foundation has finally came to that realization.

And my career is a reflection of that reality. I used to make more pie. Now, I run around and grab up more of the pie that is already there. It is what our system directed me to do and it is what our system directs our large corporations and wealthy individuals to do as well. That has to change.

That's enough from you!
First you're a fucking dummy. Your concept of simple economics is childlish.
If that's not bad enough you seem to think anyone here gives a fuck about 'your life'.
Second and even worse is you're fucking boring!
Go fuck yourself!
Permanent Ignore.

I understand if the economics is a little over your head. Understanding basics, like opportunity costs, the frontier curve, and rent seeking is critical to any discussion concerning the US economy. Perhaps you should be spending your time on Facebook where the conversations are a little more in line with your intelligence.

 

[Winston]

Keep in mind, McDonalds was gonna implement these kiosks no matter what the Minimum Wage was. It's a Corporation that doesn't care about Americans or America. It only cares about the money. But who knows? Maybe this move has put it on Trump's shitlist. I hope so.

ALL FF outlet franchise owners have been aware of the robotics sitting in Chinese warehouses for a decade just waiting to be but into their FF outlets.
It's NEVER been about the cost of the equipment.
A grade ten student with a calculator can figure out the massive cost benefits to installing robotic fry makers compared to having to deal with semiliterate dummies/dirty/late/thieving/dopers/drunks/'activists in the workplace' losers.
The ONLY reason the robots haven't virtually replaced humans has been local 'politics'.
But recent marketing studies have proven that the average person who eats at FF outlets doesn't give a fuck who or what is making their 'Whopper' as long as it's quick and cheap and what they ordered.
The $15 an hour movement put the final nail in the 'we must have humans flipping the burgers' coffin.

Yep, the technology has been around for a while. Burger King made a big attempt at automation in the 1980's--ordering, broiling and preparing burgers, frying and apportioning fries. They shelved the project.

Turns out, robots are damn good at complex calculations and precise, repetitive tasks. Not so good at simple things little kids could do like stacking blocks or sensing objects in space.

And get your calculator out. You can start yourself an automated pizza parlor. Machine makes the pie, well except for the toppings. Take about a million dollars of initial investment. You could set up five Domino's franchises for the same price.

But my entrance to this thread was pretty simple. If an operator can't afford to pay their help fifteen dollars an hour they can't afford the investment required to automate.

Why Restaurant Workers Won’t Be Replaced by Robots Any Time Soon

file:///C:/Users/todd/Downloads/wp2013-26-pdf.pdf

 

[hadit]

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

When are those advocates of increased pay for the lower workers going to advocate those workers increase their skill level?

Are you advocating they should all become CEO's to get a pay increase?

yes, that is the right wing solution. never mind that all capitalists cannot make like Henry Ford and double wages to realize gains from efficiency.

The last time you owned a large corporation and doubled your labor costs overnight was when?

 

[Dschrute3]

Keep in mind, McDonalds was gonna implement these kiosks no matter what the Minimum Wage was. It's a Corporation that doesn't care about Americans or America. It only cares about the money. But who knows? Maybe this move has put it on Trump's shitlist. I hope so.

ALL FF outlet franchise owners have been aware of the robotics sitting in Chinese warehouses for a decade just waiting to be but into their FF outlets.
It's NEVER been about the cost of the equipment.
A grade ten student with a calculator can figure out the massive cost benefits to installing robotic fry makers compared to having to deal with semiliterate dummies/dirty/late/thieving/dopers/drunks/'activists in the workplace' losers.
The ONLY reason the robots haven't virtually replaced humans has been local 'politics'.
But recent marketing studies have proven that the average person who eats at FF outlets doesn't give a fuck who or what is making their 'Whopper' as long as it's quick and cheap and what they ordered.
The $15 an hour movement put the final nail in the 'we must have humans flipping the burgers' coffin.

Just another greedy Corporation that doesn't care about America. Minimum Wage had nothing to do with this decision. McDonalds had this plan in the works years ago. It's just using the Minimum Wage issue to dupe folks like you. McDonalds has made untold $Billions of slave labor. It's a classic 'Evil Corporation.'

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!

Your anecdotal observations are just that.

• That's one form of socialism. Despite what you may think, there is not just one form of socialism. The reason for that is that the economic, social and political aspects of socialism are separable, though they need not be separated in any given implementation of socialism.

Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

That is indicative of nothing. It may be the consequence of state controlled/stipulated pho prices, but that the all the street vendors charge the same price does not in any way show that the state is controlling the prices. Showing a piece of legislation or a regulation that does stipulate such pricing would show your claim to be so.

For example:

• If you look here, every seller in the U.S. charges the exact same price for the items you'll see at the link. That being the case has nothing to do with state controls on prices.
• When one is in downtown D.C., one will find hotdog vendors all over the place. They all charge the same prices, and the state has nothing to do with it.
  
  
  

• Looking at the photo above, you'll see a taxicab. The prices the taxis charge are controlled by the taxicab commission. There are other goods/services in the U.S. that are stipulated by various governments: water, electricity, and home heating oil and gas.
• Go to Macy's, Bloomingdales, and Saks, and you'll find the price of a Ralph Lauren button down shirt is the same at all of them. The same is so for nearly perfume and cosmetic one might aim to buy. The government is not making that be so.

One need not consider the matter solely in terms of differentiated goods. Purchase any commodity on the commodities exchange and you'll find that at any given point in time, every sellers sells at the same price unless and until (1) a buyer offers a higher price or (2) a seller agrees to accept a lower price. That happens because commodity sellers are price takers.

As for Vietnam, I'm aware of their Law on Price, but I don't know that pho is included in its scope. A variety of food items appear to be outside its scope judging by the variability noted for certain items shown here. Now it may still be that the price of pho is controlled, but you've not shown that to be so, and I don't know it to be so. In light of that, I'd say that pho sellers offer a commoditized good -- pho -- and are thus price takers. Now, if you care to put forth something that shows Vietnam has indeed by governmental fiat set pho prices, I'll accept that as so.

....
There is still an unwritten rule that no one should be making more money than anyone else.
The concept is so ingrained now that no one would ever even question it.
So yes there are no longer any 'Government Officials' walking through the markets looking for 'Capitalists' because there is no need to. Everyone is on the same boat. And everyone likes it that way.
Any food vendor who would offer to sell their Pho for less than their neighbor would be considered 'unpatriotic' and be shunned by the community.
Self regulated economy based on Communist doctrine.
No one gets ahead of the others and no one falls behind unless they don't know how to make a great Pho. LOL

Um.... Let the merchants collude and use peer pressure to keep the prices consistent. That's all well and good, but:

• "Shunned by one's peers" does not socialism make.
• Unwritten rules do not make for socialism.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!
Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

Your claim is very clear in the quote just above, and what you've said now and what you said before -- "THATS [sic] SOCIALISM" -- are not the the same things.

It's worth noting that in economically socialist systems, what makes it socialist is that the government tends to nationalize essential monopolistic enterprises -- huge industries like banking, natural resource production, and other infrastructural concerns -- while leaving non-essential industries and businesses (like, but not limited to, sidewalk pho sellers, large and small scale discretionary retailing, etc.) to remain privately held.

Lastly, your remarks have focused on the prices end consumers pay. Socialism isn't about fixing the prices consumers see; it's about managing production. For example, the state would own the aquifer and sell water to various bottlers. What the bottlers charge the consumer is up to them. The thing is that the state will freely disclose its selling price to bottlers, so bottlers can only get away with charging so much. That is the result of there being more perfect information (less information asymmetry) about the prices of the item in question, not the result of the state saying, "Thou shalt only charge 40 shekels for a bottle of water."

 

[Winston]

Economics says that minimum wage workers won't be the first to be replaced by automation, they will be the last. Come on, who is going to develop a machine to take the place of a worker making $7.25 an hour when they can develop a machine to take the place of the $20.00 an hour worker.

 

[danielpalos]

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

When are those advocates of increased pay for the lower workers going to advocate those workers increase their skill level?

Are you advocating they should all become CEO's to get a pay increase?

yes, that is the right wing solution. never mind that all capitalists cannot make like Henry Ford and double wages to realize gains from efficiency.

The last time you owned a large corporation and doubled your labor costs overnight was when?

Yet, the fantastical right wing claims being poor, is the fault of Only the poor.

 

[danielpalos]

Economics says that minimum wage workers won't be the first to be replaced by automation, they will be the last. Come on, who is going to develop a machine to take the place of a worker making $7.25 an hour when they can develop a machine to take the place of the $20.00 an hour worker.

it is subjective to any given, bottom line.

 

[hadit]

I hope Trump kicks some McDonalds ass. Another Corporation that doesn't care about America. It's consumed with evil greed.

Dude, every company is in business for one purpose, to make money. Government is in business to acquire more power over your life. There are very few altruistic organizations around. Want corporations to care about America? Make it more attractive to keep operations in American than to move them somewhere cheap

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

When are those advocates of increased pay for the lower workers going to advocate those workers increase their skill level?

Are you advocating they should all become CEO's to get a pay increase?

yes, that is the right wing solution. never mind that all capitalists cannot make like Henry Ford and double wages to realize gains from efficiency.

The last time you owned a large corporation and doubled your labor costs overnight was when?

Yet, the fantastical right wing claims being poor, is the fault of Only the poor.

What a remarkably stupid thing to say. Again, when did you last run a large corporation and double your labor costs overnight?

 

[danielpalos]

I hope Trump kicks some McDonalds ass. Another Corporation that doesn't care about America. It's consumed with evil greed.

Dude, every company is in business for one purpose, to make money. Government is in business to acquire more power over your life. There are very few altruistic organizations around. Want corporations to care about America? Make it more attractive to keep operations in American than to move them somewhere cheap

When are those advocates of increased pay for the lower workers going to advocate those workers increase their skill level?

Are you advocating they should all become CEO's to get a pay increase?

yes, that is the right wing solution. never mind that all capitalists cannot make like Henry Ford and double wages to realize gains from efficiency.

The last time you owned a large corporation and doubled your labor costs overnight was when?

Yet, the fantastical right wing claims being poor, is the fault of Only the poor.

What a remarkably stupid thing to say. Again, when did you last run a large corporation and double your labor costs overnight?

when was the last time you were poor and doubled your income overnight?

 

[dannyboys]

Keep in mind, McDonalds was gonna implement these kiosks no matter what the Minimum Wage was. It's a Corporation that doesn't care about Americans or America. It only cares about the money. But who knows? Maybe this move has put it on Trump's shitlist. I hope so.

ALL FF outlet franchise owners have been aware of the robotics sitting in Chinese warehouses for a decade just waiting to be but into their FF outlets.
It's NEVER been about the cost of the equipment.
A grade ten student with a calculator can figure out the massive cost benefits to installing robotic fry makers compared to having to deal with semiliterate dummies/dirty/late/thieving/dopers/drunks/'activists in the workplace' losers.
The ONLY reason the robots haven't virtually replaced humans has been local 'politics'.
But recent marketing studies have proven that the average person who eats at FF outlets doesn't give a fuck who or what is making their 'Whopper' as long as it's quick and cheap and what they ordered.
The $15 an hour movement put the final nail in the 'we must have humans flipping the burgers' coffin.

Just another greedy Corporation that doesn't care about America. Minimum Wage had nothing to do with this decision. McDonalds had this plan in the works years ago. It's just using the Minimum Wage issue to dupe folks like you. McDonalds has made untold $Billions of slave labor. It's a classic 'Evil Corporation.'

Then stop buying their fucking Big Macs three times a week! Asshole.
Here's an idea. Why don't you figure out a way to close down every "evil" FF corporation in the country. You know. So that the 'poor' don't have anywhere to get something to eat that doesn't cost the same as their rent.
YOU tell the 'poor' to start shopping at 'Wholefoods'.
Fucking IDIOT!