McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[danielpalos]

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

Then if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, society needs to pass legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between a worker's pay and whatever arbitrary (and infinitely increasing) value is deemed sufficient.

That is what we are doing now
The taxpayer makes up the difference in low pay and subsidizes rents, food and healthcare that an employer used to pay

Our society has changed. It used to be a low skilled worker could support a family on the wages being paid. They didn't live well, but could provide the basics
Employers no longer do that and keep the added profit while taxpayers support their workers

It's easy to solve. Stop having taxpayers make up the difference because some low skilled worker offers such low skills. If the worker with what they offer to an employer is getting paid an equivalent wage to those skills, they have two choice. Either step and improve those skills or do without.

the only reason we have unemployment, is underpayment.

 

[danielpalos]

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

All you offer is to hand those low wage workers who get that low wage because they are LOW SKILLED money someone else earned. That isn't a solution at all because it solves NOTHING. That's why I expect those of you that propose useless answers to use your own money. You expect those of us that know it won't work to support doing something that has failed. In the last 50 years the U.S. has done that to the tune of $22 trillion dollars. The result. The same percentage of Americans in poverty.

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. Our "job creators" are making record profits

Regardless of what you dream about, our labor pool has always contained a percentage of low skilled workers. It always will and those workers are needed in our economy. These workers are not deadbeats, most work very hard. They used to be able to perform low skilled jobs and a single wage earner could support a family on that wage. Now, they need to rely on the taxpayer to make up the difference

You blame the worker....I blame the employer

That's what people went into business to do. Make a profit.

No one said they don't work. I said they offer a skill set that isn't worth much since most people already know how to do what they do.

Since the worker is the one offering the skills, the low skilled worker is at fault because they don't bring much to the table. Why is the employer at fault for what the worker brings to the table and for which the employer has nothing to do with when that worker brings it? The only role the employer has is to pay that worker what the skills that worker brings is worth. If the worker brings little, the worker gets little.

we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour; capitalists can simply work harder for less, just to prove they still have a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

 

[ding]

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.

I'm calling bullshit on your bullshit. Of course it was in response to higher operating costs. It is called economics.

 

[danielpalos]

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

Then if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, society needs to pass legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between a worker's pay and whatever arbitrary (and infinitely increasing) value is deemed sufficient.

That is what we are doing now
The taxpayer makes up the difference in low pay and subsidizes rents, food and healthcare that an employer used to pay

Our society has changed. It used to be a low skilled worker could support a family on the wages being paid. They didn't live well, but could provide the basics
Employers no longer do that and keep the added profit while taxpayers support their workers

1. How long can a business stay open if it is forced to pay workers $15/hr for work that contributes $5/hr to the bottom line?

2. Why should a business subsidize society's responsibility? If society demands that every person receive a guaranteed income, then it should write legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between worker pay and the arbitrary level.

3. Those low skilled, high paying jobs simply are no longer. They have been replaced by automation that doesn't take sick time, doesn't work 8 hours then quit for 16, doesn't go on strike, never has a bad attitude, and does a better job.

1. There are many jobs that would be paid $15/hour under the bleeding heart Liberal plan that bring $0 to the bottom line.

2. Society shouldn't subsidize someone's PERSONAL responsibility. It's not an employer's place or the taxpayer's place to subsidize someone that brings a skill set one step above what a monkey could be trained to do.

3. Exactly. Automation is the best employee. It does the job, does it well, doesn't get pissed when you ask it to do something, and has a better work ethic than those constantly whining they should be paid a higher wage when they offer a lower skill set.

i think we simply need to end the capital gains preference if capitalists cannot create low unemployment through Jobs Booms.

 

[danielpalos]

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

All you offer is to hand those low wage workers who get that low wage because they are LOW SKILLED money someone else earned. That isn't a solution at all because it solves NOTHING. That's why I expect those of you that propose useless answers to use your own money. You expect those of us that know it won't work to support doing something that has failed. In the last 50 years the U.S. has done that to the tune of $22 trillion dollars. The result. The same percentage of Americans in poverty.

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. Our "job creators" are making record profits

Regardless of what you dream about, our labor pool has always contained a percentage of low skilled workers. It always will and those workers are needed in our economy. These workers are not deadbeats, most work very hard. They used to be able to perform low skilled jobs and a single wage earner could support a family on that wage. Now, they need to rely on the taxpayer to make up the difference

You blame the worker....I blame the employer

should we drug test employers and deny them steak and lobster privileges, whenever there is any unemployment?

Why would you drug test someone using their own money?

because they get a capital gains preference instead of paying regular income taxes, like the rest of us.

 

[danielpalos]

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

All you offer is to hand those low wage workers who get that low wage because they are LOW SKILLED money someone else earned. That isn't a solution at all because it solves NOTHING. That's why I expect those of you that propose useless answers to use your own money. You expect those of us that know it won't work to support doing something that has failed. In the last 50 years the U.S. has done that to the tune of $22 trillion dollars. The result. The same percentage of Americans in poverty.

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. Our "job creators" are making record profits

Regardless of what you dream about, our labor pool has always contained a percentage of low skilled workers. It always will and those workers are needed in our economy. These workers are not deadbeats, most work very hard. They used to be able to perform low skilled jobs and a single wage earner could support a family on that wage. Now, they need to rely on the taxpayer to make up the difference

You blame the worker....I blame the employer

Blame advances in technology. Low skilled, high paying jobs are no more. How can they be, when you can get that same job done cheaper and better by an automated system?

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, solves that capital dilemma.

What solves that dilemma is those wanting $15/hour providing skills worth that much.

Henry Ford knew how to be a Capitalist; You do not.

 

[danielpalos]

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

All you offer is to hand those low wage workers who get that low wage because they are LOW SKILLED money someone else earned. That isn't a solution at all because it solves NOTHING. That's why I expect those of you that propose useless answers to use your own money. You expect those of us that know it won't work to support doing something that has failed. In the last 50 years the U.S. has done that to the tune of $22 trillion dollars. The result. The same percentage of Americans in poverty.

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. Our "job creators" are making record profits

Regardless of what you dream about, our labor pool has always contained a percentage of low skilled workers. It always will and those workers are needed in our economy. These workers are not deadbeats, most work very hard. They used to be able to perform low skilled jobs and a single wage earner could support a family on that wage. Now, they need to rely on the taxpayer to make up the difference

You blame the worker....I blame the employer

Blame advances in technology. Low skilled, high paying jobs are no more. How can they be, when you can get that same job done cheaper and better by an automated system?

We have had advances in technology for the last 100 years, yet we managed to still pay low skilled workers a wage that they could live on

What is the matter with todays society?

What is the matter with today's low skilled workers. Constantly demanding more pay yet never saying what they will offer in return. They demand $15/hour pay but have yet to mention what they'll do to EARN it.

Too many in society today think all they should have to do is demand something and it should be given to them. Spoiled brat mentality of not thinking no should ever be an answer.

the right wing, never gets it; social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.

 

[danielpalos]

Then if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, society needs to pass legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between a worker's pay and whatever arbitrary (and infinitely increasing) value is deemed sufficient.

That is what we are doing now
The taxpayer makes up the difference in low pay and subsidizes rents, food and healthcare that an employer used to pay

Our society has changed. It used to be a low skilled worker could support a family on the wages being paid. They didn't live well, but could provide the basics
Employers no longer do that and keep the added profit while taxpayers support their workers

1. How long can a business stay open if it is forced to pay workers $15/hr for work that contributes $5/hr to the bottom line?

2. Why should a business subsidize society's responsibility? If society demands that every person receive a guaranteed income, then it should write legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between worker pay and the arbitrary level.

3. Those low skilled, high paying jobs simply are no longer. They have been replaced by automation that doesn't take sick time, doesn't work 8 hours then quit for 16, doesn't go on strike, never has a bad attitude, and does a better job.

Business seems to be doing quite well. They have made over $10 trillion in the last eight years, yet still claim poverty when it comes to paying their workers
They can afford new corporate offices, monster executive compensation, increases in the cost of supplies
Yet, if it comes to raising the salary of their lowest paid workers...they claim it will bankrupt them

Government should step in and say....either support your workers or contribute to a fund that will

If society demands a guaranteed income, then society should step up, write legislation, raise taxes, and distribute the welfare. If you make companies into welfare distribution centers, they will distribute that welfare to a smaller number of employees than before, because they will not pay a worker more than what his work contributes to the bottom line.

That is what we are doing now
The taxpayer makes up the difference in low pay and subsidizes rents, food and healthcare that an employer used to pay

Our society has changed. It used to be a low skilled worker could support a family on the wages being paid. They didn't live well, but could provide the basics
Employers no longer do that and keep the added profit while taxpayers support their workers

1. How long can a business stay open if it is forced to pay workers $15/hr for work that contributes $5/hr to the bottom line?

2. Why should a business subsidize society's responsibility? If society demands that every person receive a guaranteed income, then it should write legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between worker pay and the arbitrary level.

3. Those low skilled, high paying jobs simply are no longer. They have been replaced by automation that doesn't take sick time, doesn't work 8 hours then quit for 16, doesn't go on strike, never has a bad attitude, and does a better job.

Business seems to be doing quite well. They have made over $10 trillion in the last eight years, yet still claim poverty when it comes to paying their workers
They can afford new corporate offices, monster executive compensation, increases in the cost of supplies
Yet, if it comes to raising the salary of their lowest paid workers...they claim it will bankrupt them

Government should step in and say....either support your workers or contribute to a fund that will

If society demands a guaranteed income, then society should step up, write legislation, raise taxes, and distribute the welfare. If you make companies into welfare distribution centers, they will distribute that welfare to a smaller number of employees than before, because they will not pay a worker more than what his work contributes to the bottom line.

Your business is making a profit off of low cost labor. If society has to step in and support your worker, than you should have to contribute some of that profit to that fund.
Otherwise, pay a decent wage

That's easy to solve. Stop having society support someone that brings such low skills to the table that, by fault of their own for doing so, can't cut it. It's not societies place to make up for an individual worker's low skill set. It's that worker's responsibility. In other words, society owes neither me, you, or anyone else a damn thing.

Up your skill set or do without.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, helps capitalists re-discover their work ethic, since they will have to more of the actual work, themselves.

 

[danielpalos]

Your business is making a profit off of low cost labor. If society has to step in and support your worker, than you should have to contribute some of that profit to that fund.
Otherwise, pay a decent wage

Do you understand basic economics? A business makes a profit when it earns more money than it spends, and labor costs are a part of the money a company spends. You simply cannot raise that labor cost significantly without impacting that profit, and a company that operates on a 3% profit margin cannot double its labor costs without significant changes.

If labor cost more, the business has these choices:

1. Reduce profit to absorb the increased cost. Not likely to happen because the profit margin is not going to be that big, except in rare cases. Double labor costs for most companies and they would start losing money.

2. Raise prices to cover the added cost. Likely. prices would go up and the poor would no longer be able to afford the cheap stuff they can now. Is it better to be able to buy a cheap TV at Walmart and have a low MW or to have a high MW and have the poor pay a good deal more for that TV?

3. Reduce the number of workers to bring costs back in line with revenue. Very likely to happen, and the workers laid off would not be cheering the MW hike that cost them their jobs.

You do understand the basic economics here, right? You just can't double most company's labor costs overnight and expect nothing to happen.

A business makes a profit off of every employee. Rising labor costs are no different than rising costs of supplies, taxes, rent, insurance or even executive pay. All have risen over the last eight years while minimum wage has remained frozen

Minimum wage has stayed the same because what's required to do minimum wage jobs hasn't risen. When the skill level required stays frozen, so do the wages. You mention 8 years. That's 8 years those low skilled people could have done something to raise their skill level. If they spent a quarter of the time bettering themselves as they did whining about wanting to be handed more, this wouldn't be a conversation.

You mention 8 years. The skills required to do a minimum wage job today are the same as they were 50 years ago. Pushing a broom, emptying trash, and cleaning a toilet require the same skill level today as they did when I was a kid and learned to do those things as chores around the house.

Used to be minimum wage was a true...starter wage
I started at $2 an hour in 1972. For $2 an hour, I could pay my entire college tuition working just the summer. I could buy a new car working six months. I could buy seven gallons of gas for that car.
It would take $15 an hour to do that today

Used to be those making minimum wage did things to improve those skills. The problem is those refusing to improve their skills only want their wage increased for refusing to do so.

just right wing fantasy; most jobs being created by capitalists wanting to get richer faster for less, only pay the minimum wage.

 

[danielpalos]

Do you understand basic economics? A business makes a profit when it earns more money than it spends, and labor costs are a part of the money a company spends. You simply cannot raise that labor cost significantly without impacting that profit, and a company that operates on a 3% profit margin cannot double its labor costs without significant changes.

If labor cost more, the business has these choices:

1. Reduce profit to absorb the increased cost. Not likely to happen because the profit margin is not going to be that big, except in rare cases. Double labor costs for most companies and they would start losing money.

2. Raise prices to cover the added cost. Likely. prices would go up and the poor would no longer be able to afford the cheap stuff they can now. Is it better to be able to buy a cheap TV at Walmart and have a low MW or to have a high MW and have the poor pay a good deal more for that TV?

3. Reduce the number of workers to bring costs back in line with revenue. Very likely to happen, and the workers laid off would not be cheering the MW hike that cost them their jobs.

You do understand the basic economics here, right? You just can't double most company's labor costs overnight and expect nothing to happen.

A business makes a profit off of every employee. Rising labor costs are no different than rising costs of supplies, taxes, rent, insurance or even executive pay. All have risen over the last eight years while minimum wage has remained frozen

Minimum wage has stayed the same because what's required to do minimum wage jobs hasn't risen. When the skill level required stays frozen, so do the wages. You mention 8 years. That's 8 years those low skilled people could have done something to raise their skill level. If they spent a quarter of the time bettering themselves as they did whining about wanting to be handed more, this wouldn't be a conversation.

You mention 8 years. The skills required to do a minimum wage job today are the same as they were 50 years ago. Pushing a broom, emptying trash, and cleaning a toilet require the same skill level today as they did when I was a kid and learned to do those things as chores around the house.

Used to be minimum wage was a true...starter wage
I started at $2 an hour in 1972. For $2 an hour, I could pay my entire college tuition working just the summer. I could buy a new car working six months. I could buy seven gallons of gas for that car.
It would take $15 an hour to do that today

When you had 30 million less illegals ..

When your piece of shit pinto couldn't pass the epa emissions test of today never mind the safety issue.

rightwinger fails to acknowledge that those demanding a higher wage still offer starter wage skills.

dear, it is about social services costing around fourteen dollars an hour. only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

Your business is making a profit off of low cost labor. If society has to step in and support your worker, than you should have to contribute some of that profit to that fund.
Otherwise, pay a decent wage

Do you understand basic economics? A business makes a profit when it earns more money than it spends, and labor costs are a part of the money a company spends. You simply cannot raise that labor cost significantly without impacting that profit, and a company that operates on a 3% profit margin cannot double its labor costs without significant changes.

If labor cost more, the business has these choices:

1. Reduce profit to absorb the increased cost. Not likely to happen because the profit margin is not going to be that big, except in rare cases. Double labor costs for most companies and they would start losing money.

2. Raise prices to cover the added cost. Likely. prices would go up and the poor would no longer be able to afford the cheap stuff they can now. Is it better to be able to buy a cheap TV at Walmart and have a low MW or to have a high MW and have the poor pay a good deal more for that TV?

3. Reduce the number of workers to bring costs back in line with revenue. Very likely to happen, and the workers laid off would not be cheering the MW hike that cost them their jobs.

You do understand the basic economics here, right? You just can't double most company's labor costs overnight and expect nothing to happen.

A business makes a profit off of every employee. Rising labor costs are no different than rising costs of supplies, taxes, rent, insurance or even executive pay. All have risen over the last eight years while minimum wage has remained frozen

Minimum wage has not remained the same states have risen it, which is the right thing to do - it's a regional thing not a national one.

It's why we call it a minimum

Some states would reimplement slavery if you let them

The problem with what you want is the skills required to do minimum wage jobs when you made $2/hour are the same skills required today to do those same jobs. Same skills, same pay.

same should go for CEOs.

 

[danielpalos]

Used to be minimum wage was a true...starter wage
I started at $2 an hour in 1972. For $2 an hour, I could pay my entire college tuition working just the summer. I could buy a new car working six months. I could buy seven gallons of gas for that car.
It would take $15 an hour to do that today

Used to be those making minimum wage did things to improve those skills. The problem is those refusing to improve their skills only want their wage increased for refusing to do so.

It's kind of the way it works......I earned minimum wage while I was trying to pay my way through college. I got a degree and demanded a higher salary.......someone else moved into that minimum wage job

You didn't demand shit, they saw your potential..

To bad you didn't give them your all..

Went right over your head, didn't it Goober?

People move on from minimum wage jobs and new people come in to take their place

Used to be minimum wage was a true...starter wage
I started at $2 an hour in 1972. For $2 an hour, I could pay my entire college tuition working just the summer. I could buy a new car working six months. I could buy seven gallons of gas for that car.
It would take $15 an hour to do that today

Used to be those making minimum wage did things to improve those skills. The problem is those refusing to improve their skills only want their wage increased for refusing to do so.

It's kind of the way it works......I earned minimum wage while I was trying to pay my way through college. I got a degree and demanded a higher salary.......someone else moved into that minimum wage job

You didn't demand shit, they saw your potential..

To bad you didn't give them your all..

Went right over your head, didn't it Goober?

People move on from minimum wage jobs and new people come in to take their place

Some people move on and many others continue to do them demanding they get more pay for doing nothing more.

time in service and experience merits pay increases.

 

[Conservative65]

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?

What? Would you mind rewriting your thought so that the sentence is coherent. I'd like to know what you've asked, but I have no idea what you mean that sentence to say. I can't even tell if the thought of it belongs in one sentence.

maybe the typo "he" instead of "the" helps.

danielpalos keeps bringing up Henry Ford and doubling wages and efficiency claiming it's what capitalist employers should do.

If I'm paying someone $7.25/hour because the government mandates that minimum, why would I double those wages if the $7.25 is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it? The only reason I pay $7.25 is because I have to not because the worker is doing a job worth that much.

The typo bit didn't help at all. The incoherence didn't derive from that.

The explanatory paragraph you provided does help, so much so that if you still can, it'd be worth replacing the original question with that paragraph.

Maybe the incoherence isn't the fault of what was said but the one reading it.

nope; just a lazy work ethic for writing.

That's two of you that couldn't understand it not for what it said rather because of your inability to comprehend.

 

[Conservative65]

Thanks to the left, now even high school kids can't get jobs.

Thanks To 'Fight For $15' Minimum Wage, McDonald's Unveils Job-Replacing Self-Service Kiosks Nationwide

Boycott them. If they want machines more money goes to welfare. See how that works. Call them at their own game. Its time to get money from the rich slobs who think 7.25 is a living wage.

It's time to educate idiots like you that for what skills are required to do those jobs, $7.25 is overpaid.

 

[Conservative65]

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

Then if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, society needs to pass legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between a worker's pay and whatever arbitrary (and infinitely increasing) value is deemed sufficient.

why not cost shift from our drug war?

Why not stop the war on poverty? It hasn't worked.

because the drug war costs more and does not promote the general welfare. only the right wing, never gets it.

Handing some piece of shit freeloader money for doing nothing doesn't promote it.

By the way, liar, the war on drugs does not spend near what the waste on poverty does.

 

[Conservative65]

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

All you offer is to hand those low wage workers who get that low wage because they are LOW SKILLED money someone else earned. That isn't a solution at all because it solves NOTHING. That's why I expect those of you that propose useless answers to use your own money. You expect those of us that know it won't work to support doing something that has failed. In the last 50 years the U.S. has done that to the tune of $22 trillion dollars. The result. The same percentage of Americans in poverty.

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison. that is why we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage; to privatize costs instead of socialize costs.

We shouldn't have a minimum wage nor social services. If you want to help someone you deem worthy, it would be privatized because you would have to use YOUR money.

it isn't Your money; money is printed by the government and belongs to the government; you can merely use it. money has already been taxed and labored over, why pay double.

I'm in possession of it. If you don't think it's mine, on behold of the government please come and try to take it. That is, if you have the guts.

 

[Penelope]

Thanks to the left, now even high school kids can't get jobs.

Thanks To 'Fight For $15' Minimum Wage, McDonald's Unveils Job-Replacing Self-Service Kiosks Nationwide

Boycott them. If they want machines more money goes to welfare. See how that works. Call them at their own game. Its time to get money from the rich slobs who think 7.25 is a living wage.

It's time to educate idiots like you that for what skills are required to do those jobs, $7.25 is overpaid.

Sometimes the most mundane jobs requires the most in pay, if you think these people are overpaid, then you really are.

 

[Conservative65]

Since I'm not poor, I can't be lazy.

only in right wing fantasy; we have a mixed market economy. you are simply too lazy to come up with valid arguments, slacker.

You are simply too lazy to do for yourself. That makes you a waste and worthless to society.

being too lazy to come up with a valid argument, is work ethic moral.

That's two ways I'm not lazy. I support myself and have provided a valid argument why others currently not doing so should do the same.

i have to wonder how you support yourself, since you Only have fallacies instead of good argument. crony capitalism, accounts for that.

Unlike you, I earn a living. Try it sometime you fucking piece of shit.

 

[Conservative65]

Thanks to the left, now even high school kids can't get jobs.

Thanks To 'Fight For $15' Minimum Wage, McDonald's Unveils Job-Replacing Self-Service Kiosks Nationwide

Boycott them. If they want machines more money goes to welfare. See how that works. Call them at their own game. Its time to get money from the rich slobs who think 7.25 is a living wage.

It's time to educate idiots like you that for what skills are required to do those jobs, $7.25 is overpaid.

Sometimes the most mundane jobs requires the most in pay, if you think these people are overpaid, then you really are.

My skill level is far higher than those doing a job that a monkey could be trained to do.

You mean jobs that require no thinking like emptying the trash, sweeping the floor, and cleaning a toilet?

 

[initforme]

Cmon conservative, call me some names cuz only hypocrites believe in the war against drugs. Wasted money...users will always use. Is it our business anyway?