McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[hadit]

Now you're back on that one again. Make up your mind, because you're running around in circles.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation; solves our dilemma.

It does not. Now you're injecting irrelevant ideas. Next you'll probably go off on legalizing pot.

Yes, it does; it is completely relevant since it is more cost effective, which means, we have a valid economic argument to eventually lower tax rates.

Ford could afford to double his workers' pay, and most companies cannot do that.
Unemployment compensation is only given under certain circumstances, and being paid to not work outside of those circumstances is welfare.

Got it?

in other words, not every capitalist can do what Henry Ford did; but, the right expects the poor to succeed better for free, merely through "hard work".

No, the right expects people to do their best, not to do less and expect society to make up the difference.

 

[hadit]

Now you're back on that one again. Make up your mind, because you're running around in circles.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation; solves our dilemma.

It does not. Now you're injecting irrelevant ideas. Next you'll probably go off on legalizing pot.

Yes, it does; it is completely relevant since it is more cost effective, which means, we have a valid economic argument to eventually lower tax rates.

Ford could afford to double his workers' pay, and most companies cannot do that.
Unemployment compensation is only given under certain circumstances, and being paid to not work outside of those circumstances is welfare.

Got it?

nope; equal protection of the law mean compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is just that.

Redefining words to mean different things doesn't change reality. Reality is that you only get paid for not working under certain circumstances.

 

[danielpalos]

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation; solves our dilemma.

It does not. Now you're injecting irrelevant ideas. Next you'll probably go off on legalizing pot.

Yes, it does; it is completely relevant since it is more cost effective, which means, we have a valid economic argument to eventually lower tax rates.

Ford could afford to double his workers' pay, and most companies cannot do that.
Unemployment compensation is only given under certain circumstances, and being paid to not work outside of those circumstances is welfare.

Got it?

in other words, not every capitalist can do what Henry Ford did; but, the right expects the poor to succeed better for free, merely through "hard work".

No, the right expects people to do their best, not to do less and expect society to make up the difference.

just right wing fantasy; promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation; solves our dilemma.

It does not. Now you're injecting irrelevant ideas. Next you'll probably go off on legalizing pot.

Yes, it does; it is completely relevant since it is more cost effective, which means, we have a valid economic argument to eventually lower tax rates.

Ford could afford to double his workers' pay, and most companies cannot do that.
Unemployment compensation is only given under certain circumstances, and being paid to not work outside of those circumstances is welfare.

Got it?

nope; equal protection of the law mean compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is just that.

Redefining words to mean different things doesn't change reality. Reality is that you only get paid for not working under certain circumstances.

not re-defining anything. it is simple, class warfare. the poor simply can't afford equal protection of the law, under our form of Capitalism.

 

[hadit]

It does not. Now you're injecting irrelevant ideas. Next you'll probably go off on legalizing pot.

Yes, it does; it is completely relevant since it is more cost effective, which means, we have a valid economic argument to eventually lower tax rates.

Ford could afford to double his workers' pay, and most companies cannot do that.
Unemployment compensation is only given under certain circumstances, and being paid to not work outside of those circumstances is welfare.

Got it?

in other words, not every capitalist can do what Henry Ford did; but, the right expects the poor to succeed better for free, merely through "hard work".

No, the right expects people to do their best, not to do less and expect society to make up the difference.

just right wing fantasy; promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution.

It is not promoting the general welfare to pay people who can work but choose not to.

 

[hadit]

It does not. Now you're injecting irrelevant ideas. Next you'll probably go off on legalizing pot.

Yes, it does; it is completely relevant since it is more cost effective, which means, we have a valid economic argument to eventually lower tax rates.

Ford could afford to double his workers' pay, and most companies cannot do that.
Unemployment compensation is only given under certain circumstances, and being paid to not work outside of those circumstances is welfare.

Got it?

nope; equal protection of the law mean compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is just that.

Redefining words to mean different things doesn't change reality. Reality is that you only get paid for not working under certain circumstances.

not re-defining anything. it is simple, class warfare. the poor simply can't afford equal protection of the law, under our form of Capitalism.

There are no legal experts who will agree with you.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, it does; it is completely relevant since it is more cost effective, which means, we have a valid economic argument to eventually lower tax rates.

Ford could afford to double his workers' pay, and most companies cannot do that.
Unemployment compensation is only given under certain circumstances, and being paid to not work outside of those circumstances is welfare.

Got it?

in other words, not every capitalist can do what Henry Ford did; but, the right expects the poor to succeed better for free, merely through "hard work".

No, the right expects people to do their best, not to do less and expect society to make up the difference.

just right wing fantasy; promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution.

It is not promoting the general welfare to pay people who can work but choose not to.

Nor to pay farmers not to plant

 

[Conservative65]

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.

If those that are poor have done things to cause them to be poor, whose fault is it?

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.

It's the explanation.

too lazy to make like Henry Ford; but, "blame the poor" anyway. i got it.

When the poor are the cause of their own bad situations, they deserve the blame. Got it?

 

[Conservative65]

Ford could afford to double his workers' pay, and most companies cannot do that.
Unemployment compensation is only given under certain circumstances, and being paid to not work outside of those circumstances is welfare.

Got it?

in other words, not every capitalist can do what Henry Ford did; but, the right expects the poor to succeed better for free, merely through "hard work".

No, the right expects people to do their best, not to do less and expect society to make up the difference.

just right wing fantasy; promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution.

It is not promoting the general welfare to pay people who can work but choose not to.

Nor to pay farmers not to plant

You wouldn't last a day working on a farm. You have to actually do something and you want something for nothing.

 

[Conservative65]

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
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?

Here's the thing. When I was young, I did things to keep from being poor.

How well did that work during the Great Depression?

Great. I wasn't alive then.

too much work to acquire and posses a valid argument? why blame the poor for being lazy.

Because many that are poor are that way because they're lazy.

 

[Conservative65]

If those that are poor have done things to cause them to be poor, whose fault is it?

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.

Now you're back on that one again. Make up your mind, because you're running around in circles.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation; solves our dilemma.

It solves nothing. It keeps low life like you thinking you're owed something for nothing.

For people unwilling to do for themselves and thinking something is owed to them, I'd let them starve. Now that solves the dilemma. They no longer around to bitch about being handed something for nothing.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics because they Only seem to have moral arguments.

dears, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.

My morals don't allow me to enable lazy people to be lazy while demand something for nothing. I have no problem letting a lazy piece of shit do without and have no concern about the results their laziness produces.

 

[Conservative65]

My dad used to be a pin setter in a bowling alley
When they insisted on ten cents a game, they were replaced by automated pin setting machines

Only way to keep workers in line

It called letting them know who is the boss and who is the worker.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does; it is completely relevant since it is more cost effective, which means, we have a valid economic argument to eventually lower tax rates.

Ford could afford to double his workers' pay, and most companies cannot do that.
Unemployment compensation is only given under certain circumstances, and being paid to not work outside of those circumstances is welfare.

Got it?

in other words, not every capitalist can do what Henry Ford did; but, the right expects the poor to succeed better for free, merely through "hard work".

No, the right expects people to do their best, not to do less and expect society to make up the difference.

just right wing fantasy; promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution.

It is not promoting the general welfare to pay people who can work but choose not to.

equal protection of the law is promoting the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does; it is completely relevant since it is more cost effective, which means, we have a valid economic argument to eventually lower tax rates.

Ford could afford to double his workers' pay, and most companies cannot do that.
Unemployment compensation is only given under certain circumstances, and being paid to not work outside of those circumstances is welfare.

Got it?

nope; equal protection of the law mean compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is just that.

Redefining words to mean different things doesn't change reality. Reality is that you only get paid for not working under certain circumstances.

not re-defining anything. it is simple, class warfare. the poor simply can't afford equal protection of the law, under our form of Capitalism.

There are no legal experts who will agree with you.

you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[danielpalos]

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

If those that are poor have done things to cause them to be poor, whose fault is it?

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.

It's the explanation.

too lazy to make like Henry Ford; but, "blame the poor" anyway. i got it.

When the poor are the cause of their own bad situations, they deserve the blame. Got it?

how many capitalists can double wages and achieve gains from efficiency?

why blame the poor, for not doing any better.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Here's the thing. When I was young, I did things to keep from being poor.

How well did that work during the Great Depression?

Great. I wasn't alive then.

too much work to acquire and posses a valid argument? why blame the poor for being lazy.

Because many that are poor are that way because they're lazy.

you only have fallacy for your Cause; how lazy is that.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Now you're back on that one again. Make up your mind, because you're running around in circles.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation; solves our dilemma.

It solves nothing. It keeps low life like you thinking you're owed something for nothing.

For people unwilling to do for themselves and thinking something is owed to them, I'd let them starve. Now that solves the dilemma. They no longer around to bitch about being handed something for nothing.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics because they Only seem to have moral arguments.

dears, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.

My morals don't allow me to enable lazy people to be lazy while demand something for nothing. I have no problem letting a lazy piece of shit do without and have no concern about the results their laziness produces.

let me know,when you get some morals.

 

[Conservative65]

If those that are poor have done things to cause them to be poor, whose fault is it?

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.

It's the explanation.

too lazy to make like Henry Ford; but, "blame the poor" anyway. i got it.

When the poor are the cause of their own bad situations, they deserve the blame. Got it?

how many capitalists can double wages and achieve gains from efficiency?

why blame the poor, for not doing any better.

Why would someone double wages when he wagers they're already forced to pay for certain jobs is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it?

In most cases, the poor are poor because they choose not to do any better.

 

[Conservative65]

Here's the thing. When I was young, I did things to keep from being poor.

How well did that work during the Great Depression?

Great. I wasn't alive then.

too much work to acquire and posses a valid argument? why blame the poor for being lazy.

Because many that are poor are that way because they're lazy.

you only have fallacy for your Cause; how lazy is that.

I'm not poor because I'm not lazy. See how that works.

 

[Conservative65]

Now you're back on that one again. Make up your mind, because you're running around in circles.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation; solves our dilemma.

It solves nothing. It keeps low life like you thinking you're owed something for nothing.

For people unwilling to do for themselves and thinking something is owed to them, I'd let them starve. Now that solves the dilemma. They no longer around to bitch about being handed something for nothing.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics because they Only seem to have moral arguments.

dears, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.

My morals don't allow me to enable lazy people to be lazy while demand something for nothing. I have no problem letting a lazy piece of shit do without and have no concern about the results their laziness produces.

let me know,when you get some morals.

Since I don't promote laziness, sloth, and general freeloading, my morals are just fine.