McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[hadit]

It's not a work force under socialism. It's just a bunch of people all getting paid and not working.

requiring a work ethic is Socialism, not Capitalism.

Only if you redefine work as getting paid whether you work or not.

Not at all; you can collect insurance without working.

Only if you were let go from a job for specific reasons. If you quit or are fired for cause, not so much.

EDD should have to discover for-cause employment and that for-cause employment conditions were in breach, to deny unemployment benefits.

California is an at-will employment State.

Them's the rules. You don't get paid to not work unless you were let go through no fault of your own.

 

[danielpalos]

Why don't all capitalists accumulate capital to do what Henry Ford did?

Because not all capitalists run a fantastically successful company producing a brand new product with incredible demand that is transforming daily lives. I know I've pointed this out to you before, but the same phenomenon happened in the dot com boom. Many companies sprang up and were wildly successful, turning their founders into overnight millionaires. Those are anomalies, however, and most companies are not in that situation. He was in the right place at the right time with the right product. You might as well ask why all the 60's rock bands aren't as successful as the Rolling Stones. Do you really live your life expecting everyone and everything to be as successful as the absolute best at everything? You must be very disappointed.

No; they are probably just lazy and should be drug tested, and denied steak and lobster until they get capital results.

You should hold your supplier to the same standard and refuse to buy anything but the absolute best in the world, every single time.

Only the finest should do in our fine and capital, Republic.

You do understand, though, that by definition, most are average, no matter how good that average is? Again, Ford and the dot coms were anomalies. Most companies are, again by definition, average, and thus cannot do what they were able to do.

why have a higher standard for the poor?

 

[danielpalos]

requiring a work ethic is Socialism, not Capitalism.

Only if you redefine work as getting paid whether you work or not.

Not at all; you can collect insurance without working.

Only if you were let go from a job for specific reasons. If you quit or are fired for cause, not so much.

EDD should have to discover for-cause employment and that for-cause employment conditions were in breach, to deny unemployment benefits.

California is an at-will employment State.

Them's the rules. You don't get paid to not work unless you were let go through no fault of your own.

the law is employment at will. why be illegal to the law?

 

[hadit]

Because not all capitalists run a fantastically successful company producing a brand new product with incredible demand that is transforming daily lives. I know I've pointed this out to you before, but the same phenomenon happened in the dot com boom. Many companies sprang up and were wildly successful, turning their founders into overnight millionaires. Those are anomalies, however, and most companies are not in that situation. He was in the right place at the right time with the right product. You might as well ask why all the 60's rock bands aren't as successful as the Rolling Stones. Do you really live your life expecting everyone and everything to be as successful as the absolute best at everything? You must be very disappointed.

No; they are probably just lazy and should be drug tested, and denied steak and lobster until they get capital results.

You should hold your supplier to the same standard and refuse to buy anything but the absolute best in the world, every single time.

Only the finest should do in our fine and capital, Republic.

You do understand, though, that by definition, most are average, no matter how good that average is? Again, Ford and the dot coms were anomalies. Most companies are, again by definition, average, and thus cannot do what they were able to do.

why have a higher standard for the poor?

It's the same standard for everyone. Look, I know your pattern when you paint yourself into a corner is to start spouting off pointless, bizarre questions in a vain effort to change the subject, but it's not working. What you insist companies should do is something very few of them can possibly do, and that remains a fact.

 

[hadit]

Only if you redefine work as getting paid whether you work or not.

Not at all; you can collect insurance without working.

Only if you were let go from a job for specific reasons. If you quit or are fired for cause, not so much.

EDD should have to discover for-cause employment and that for-cause employment conditions were in breach, to deny unemployment benefits.

California is an at-will employment State.

Them's the rules. You don't get paid to not work unless you were let go through no fault of your own.

the law is employment at will. why be illegal to the law?

You can be employed or unemployed at your own choice or at the choice of your employer, no one is stopping you or it. Unemployment compensation, however, is defined separately, which is something you steadfastly ignore. You don't get to change the terminology to pretend the law applies where it doesn't.

 

[danielpalos]

No; they are probably just lazy and should be drug tested, and denied steak and lobster until they get capital results.

You should hold your supplier to the same standard and refuse to buy anything but the absolute best in the world, every single time.

Only the finest should do in our fine and capital, Republic.

You do understand, though, that by definition, most are average, no matter how good that average is? Again, Ford and the dot coms were anomalies. Most companies are, again by definition, average, and thus cannot do what they were able to do.

why have a higher standard for the poor?

It's the same standard for everyone. Look, I know your pattern when you paint yourself into a corner is to start spouting off pointless, bizarre questions in a vain effort to change the subject, but it's not working. What you insist companies should do is something very few of them can possibly do, and that remains a fact.

why insist the poor do something few of them can possibly do; but for a double standard?

 

[danielpalos]

Not at all; you can collect insurance without working.

Only if you were let go from a job for specific reasons. If you quit or are fired for cause, not so much.

EDD should have to discover for-cause employment and that for-cause employment conditions were in breach, to deny unemployment benefits.

California is an at-will employment State.

Them's the rules. You don't get paid to not work unless you were let go through no fault of your own.

the law is employment at will. why be illegal to the law?

You can be employed or unemployed at your own choice or at the choice of your employer, no one is stopping you or it. Unemployment compensation, however, is defined separately, which is something you steadfastly ignore. You don't get to change the terminology to pretend the law applies where it doesn't.

this is why no one takes the right seriously about the law, or economics. The Law, is, employment at the will of either party.

Why do You condone being illegal to the law?

 

[hadit]

You should hold your supplier to the same standard and refuse to buy anything but the absolute best in the world, every single time.

Only the finest should do in our fine and capital, Republic.

You do understand, though, that by definition, most are average, no matter how good that average is? Again, Ford and the dot coms were anomalies. Most companies are, again by definition, average, and thus cannot do what they were able to do.

why have a higher standard for the poor?

It's the same standard for everyone. Look, I know your pattern when you paint yourself into a corner is to start spouting off pointless, bizarre questions in a vain effort to change the subject, but it's not working. What you insist companies should do is something very few of them can possibly do, and that remains a fact.

why insist the poor do something few of them can possibly do; but for a double standard?

You're the one insisting that the non-wealthy must do what only the most wealthy can do. You're not addressing the fact that most companies cannot afford to double labor costs overnight.

 

[hadit]

Only if you were let go from a job for specific reasons. If you quit or are fired for cause, not so much.

EDD should have to discover for-cause employment and that for-cause employment conditions were in breach, to deny unemployment benefits.

California is an at-will employment State.

Them's the rules. You don't get paid to not work unless you were let go through no fault of your own.

the law is employment at will. why be illegal to the law?

You can be employed or unemployed at your own choice or at the choice of your employer, no one is stopping you or it. Unemployment compensation, however, is defined separately, which is something you steadfastly ignore. You don't get to change the terminology to pretend the law applies where it doesn't.

this is why no one takes the right seriously about the law, or economics. The Law, is, employment at the will of either party.

Why do You condone being illegal to the law?

Again, you're ignoring reality. The law says you can be employed or not employed, either by your employer's choice or your own choice. A different law also specifies that you can receive unemployment compensation under certain circumstances. You are apparently unable to understand that those are separate laws. You hear the words "at will" and think that they apply to UE. They don't.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the finest should do in our fine and capital, Republic.

You do understand, though, that by definition, most are average, no matter how good that average is? Again, Ford and the dot coms were anomalies. Most companies are, again by definition, average, and thus cannot do what they were able to do.

why have a higher standard for the poor?

It's the same standard for everyone. Look, I know your pattern when you paint yourself into a corner is to start spouting off pointless, bizarre questions in a vain effort to change the subject, but it's not working. What you insist companies should do is something very few of them can possibly do, and that remains a fact.

why insist the poor do something few of them can possibly do; but for a double standard?

You're the one insisting that the non-wealthy must do what only the most wealthy can do. You're not addressing the fact that most companies cannot afford to double labor costs overnight.

neither can the poor; yet, we have a "work or starve" regime coming from the fantastical, right wing, still stuck in the past.

 

[danielpalos]

EDD should have to discover for-cause employment and that for-cause employment conditions were in breach, to deny unemployment benefits.

California is an at-will employment State.

Them's the rules. You don't get paid to not work unless you were let go through no fault of your own.

the law is employment at will. why be illegal to the law?

You can be employed or unemployed at your own choice or at the choice of your employer, no one is stopping you or it. Unemployment compensation, however, is defined separately, which is something you steadfastly ignore. You don't get to change the terminology to pretend the law applies where it doesn't.

this is why no one takes the right seriously about the law, or economics. The Law, is, employment at the will of either party.

Why do You condone being illegal to the law?

Again, you're ignoring reality. The law says you can be employed or not employed, either by your employer's choice or your own choice. A different law also specifies that you can receive unemployment compensation under certain circumstances. You are apparently unable to understand that those are separate laws. You hear the words "at will" and think that they apply to UE. They don't.

Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed. It really is that simple.

 

[hadit]

You do understand, though, that by definition, most are average, no matter how good that average is? Again, Ford and the dot coms were anomalies. Most companies are, again by definition, average, and thus cannot do what they were able to do.

why have a higher standard for the poor?

It's the same standard for everyone. Look, I know your pattern when you paint yourself into a corner is to start spouting off pointless, bizarre questions in a vain effort to change the subject, but it's not working. What you insist companies should do is something very few of them can possibly do, and that remains a fact.

why insist the poor do something few of them can possibly do; but for a double standard?

You're the one insisting that the non-wealthy must do what only the most wealthy can do. You're not addressing the fact that most companies cannot afford to double labor costs overnight.

neither can the poor; yet, we have a "work or starve" regime coming from the fantastical, right wing, still stuck in the past.

Are you abandoning your previous stance that every company can and should double their labor costs overnight?

 

[hadit]

Them's the rules. You don't get paid to not work unless you were let go through no fault of your own.

the law is employment at will. why be illegal to the law?

You can be employed or unemployed at your own choice or at the choice of your employer, no one is stopping you or it. Unemployment compensation, however, is defined separately, which is something you steadfastly ignore. You don't get to change the terminology to pretend the law applies where it doesn't.

this is why no one takes the right seriously about the law, or economics. The Law, is, employment at the will of either party.

Why do You condone being illegal to the law?

Again, you're ignoring reality. The law says you can be employed or not employed, either by your employer's choice or your own choice. A different law also specifies that you can receive unemployment compensation under certain circumstances. You are apparently unable to understand that those are separate laws. You hear the words "at will" and think that they apply to UE. They don't.

Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed. It really is that simple.

Only under defined circumstances. Not because you quit or refused to even find a job in the first place.

 

[danielpalos]

why have a higher standard for the poor?

It's the same standard for everyone. Look, I know your pattern when you paint yourself into a corner is to start spouting off pointless, bizarre questions in a vain effort to change the subject, but it's not working. What you insist companies should do is something very few of them can possibly do, and that remains a fact.

why insist the poor do something few of them can possibly do; but for a double standard?

You're the one insisting that the non-wealthy must do what only the most wealthy can do. You're not addressing the fact that most companies cannot afford to double labor costs overnight.

neither can the poor; yet, we have a "work or starve" regime coming from the fantastical, right wing, still stuck in the past.

Are you abandoning your previous stance that every company can and should double their labor costs overnight?

special pleading much? Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages.

are you claiming capitalists cannot save up to become more efficient?

 

[danielpalos]

the law is employment at will. why be illegal to the law?

You can be employed or unemployed at your own choice or at the choice of your employer, no one is stopping you or it. Unemployment compensation, however, is defined separately, which is something you steadfastly ignore. You don't get to change the terminology to pretend the law applies where it doesn't.

this is why no one takes the right seriously about the law, or economics. The Law, is, employment at the will of either party.

Why do You condone being illegal to the law?

Again, you're ignoring reality. The law says you can be employed or not employed, either by your employer's choice or your own choice. A different law also specifies that you can receive unemployment compensation under certain circumstances. You are apparently unable to understand that those are separate laws. You hear the words "at will" and think that they apply to UE. They don't.

Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed. It really is that simple.

Only under defined circumstances. Not because you quit or refused to even find a job in the first place.

The LAW is employment at the Will of either party.

 

[hadit]

It's the same standard for everyone. Look, I know your pattern when you paint yourself into a corner is to start spouting off pointless, bizarre questions in a vain effort to change the subject, but it's not working. What you insist companies should do is something very few of them can possibly do, and that remains a fact.

why insist the poor do something few of them can possibly do; but for a double standard?

You're the one insisting that the non-wealthy must do what only the most wealthy can do. You're not addressing the fact that most companies cannot afford to double labor costs overnight.

neither can the poor; yet, we have a "work or starve" regime coming from the fantastical, right wing, still stuck in the past.

Are you abandoning your previous stance that every company can and should double their labor costs overnight?

special pleading much? Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages.

are you claiming capitalists cannot save up to become more efficient?

Are you abandoning your previous stance that every company can and should double their labor costs overnight because you realize that your positions are contradictory?

 

[hadit]

You can be employed or unemployed at your own choice or at the choice of your employer, no one is stopping you or it. Unemployment compensation, however, is defined separately, which is something you steadfastly ignore. You don't get to change the terminology to pretend the law applies where it doesn't.

this is why no one takes the right seriously about the law, or economics. The Law, is, employment at the will of either party.

Why do You condone being illegal to the law?

Again, you're ignoring reality. The law says you can be employed or not employed, either by your employer's choice or your own choice. A different law also specifies that you can receive unemployment compensation under certain circumstances. You are apparently unable to understand that those are separate laws. You hear the words "at will" and think that they apply to UE. They don't.

Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed. It really is that simple.

Only under defined circumstances. Not because you quit or refused to even find a job in the first place.

The LAW is employment at the Will of either party.

And the LAW is you get UE under certain circumstances. Two different things.

 

[danielpalos]

why insist the poor do something few of them can possibly do; but for a double standard?

You're the one insisting that the non-wealthy must do what only the most wealthy can do. You're not addressing the fact that most companies cannot afford to double labor costs overnight.

neither can the poor; yet, we have a "work or starve" regime coming from the fantastical, right wing, still stuck in the past.

Are you abandoning your previous stance that every company can and should double their labor costs overnight?

special pleading much? Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages.

are you claiming capitalists cannot save up to become more efficient?

Are you abandoning your previous stance that every company can and should double their labor costs overnight because you realize that your positions are contradictory?

we are discussing the minimum wage. and, yes; social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison. there is no reason to socialize those costs.

 

[danielpalos]

this is why no one takes the right seriously about the law, or economics. The Law, is, employment at the will of either party.

Why do You condone being illegal to the law?

Again, you're ignoring reality. The law says you can be employed or not employed, either by your employer's choice or your own choice. A different law also specifies that you can receive unemployment compensation under certain circumstances. You are apparently unable to understand that those are separate laws. You hear the words "at will" and think that they apply to UE. They don't.

Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed. It really is that simple.

Only under defined circumstances. Not because you quit or refused to even find a job in the first place.

The LAW is employment at the Will of either party.

And the LAW is you get UE under certain circumstances. Two different things.

the point is about equal protection of the law.

 

[hadit]

You're the one insisting that the non-wealthy must do what only the most wealthy can do. You're not addressing the fact that most companies cannot afford to double labor costs overnight.

neither can the poor; yet, we have a "work or starve" regime coming from the fantastical, right wing, still stuck in the past.

Are you abandoning your previous stance that every company can and should double their labor costs overnight?

special pleading much? Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages.

are you claiming capitalists cannot save up to become more efficient?

Are you abandoning your previous stance that every company can and should double their labor costs overnight because you realize that your positions are contradictory?

we are discussing the minimum wage. and, yes; social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison. there is no reason to socialize those costs.

That's a diversion. Are you abandoning your previous stance that every company can and should double their labor costs overnight?

And while you're trying to find a banal nonsense question to duck out of that, consider as well that, if society wants a guaranteed income, it should come from welfare, not by turning companies into welfare distribution centers so you can pretend that we're not spending huge money on welfare.