See we told you.. Mcdonalds is ordering 7K touch screen to replace cashiers

[Esmeralda]

McDonald's orders 7,000 touchscreen kiosks to replace cashiers - Neowin


YOu wanna walk out on your job for more money. Guess what you now might lose your jobs all because of UNIONS who are greedy..

It's bad enough to have to eat McDonald's food without having to touch a screen that hundreds of other people have touched in order to get it. Ick. Dirty, dirty dirty. McDonald's use to brag about how clean they were. I don't know if they do that any more, but the touch screen to order food? Really dirty. I know money is dirty too, of course. But this seems at least as bad and maybe worse. I'd never do it.

But, AgainSheila is right: this type of automation had nothing to do with workers demanding more money or with unions: it is a sign of the times---everyone is going automatic. It is the progress involved with technology.

 

[jon_berzerk]

McDonald's orders 7,000 touchscreen kiosks to replace cashiers - Neowin


YOu wanna walk out on your job for more money. Guess what you now might lose your jobs all because of UNIONS who are greedy..

It's bad enough to have to eat McDonald's food without having to touch a screen that hundreds of other people have touched in order to get it. Ick. Dirty, dirty dirty. McDonald's use to brag about how clean they were. I don't know if they do that any more, but the touch screen to order food? Really dirty. I know money is dirty too, of course. But this seems at least as bad and maybe worse. I'd never do it.

But, AgainSheila is right: this type of automation had nothing to do with workers demanding more money or with unions: it is a sign of the times---everyone is going automatic. It is the progress involved with technology.

no one has to eat at mcdonalds

dont go there if you dont like it

 

[Mac1958]

If you don't want employers to provide a basic standard of living, then the taxpayers must

So what you're saying -- and this is a question, I don't want to put words in your mouth, er, keyboard -- is that it is the responsibility of a business to pay someone whatever it takes to support their family.

Is this correct?

.

 

[candycorn]

My problem with a living wage is that companies that don't pay one rely on the taxpayers to make up the difference

Why do we have to support your workers?

Would you rather tax payers support them fully or partially? To think they don't help with the economy is really absurd thinking. They actually take a burden off the tax payer by providing a job that otherwise would not be there.

Let's look at it this way. The taxpayer is subsidizing their profit margin by allowing them to pay an artificially low wage. A wage where their own workers could not afford to live in their community

Very well put.

 

[007]

I'd say dickdonald's has a full blown conundrum on it's hands, because they're a full blown leftist entity that supports the left and it's agenda, but it's the leftists that are attempting to bankrupt them with moronic wages for idiots.

What will dickdonald's ever do? Start supporting republicans? Hmmm...

Unions are behind this crap...and bolstered by Statists in government.

And the left supports unions. There's been a money laundering scheme between unions and democraps for decades, one depends on the other.

dickdonald's has a real problem. The left is beginning to eat their own with their never ending push for more for nothing.

 

[boedicca]

My problem with a living wage is that companies that don't pay one rely on the taxpayers to make up the difference

Why do we have to support your workers?

Would you rather tax payers support them fully or partially? To think they don't help with the economy is really absurd thinking. They actually take a burden off the tax payer by providing a job that otherwise would not be there.

Let's look at it this way. The taxpayer is subsidizing their profit margin by allowing them to pay an artificially low wage. A wage where their own workers could not afford to live in their community

Market based wages are not artificially low, bub.

 

[007]

If you don't want employers to provide a basic standard of living, then the taxpayers must

So what you're saying -- and this is a question, I don't want to put words in your mouth, er, keyboard -- is that it is the responsibility of a business to pay someone whatever it takes to support their family.

Is this correct?

.

Correct... and translated means: COMMUNISM... what the left has become.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The banks were way ahead of the curve...in 1982 they introduced ATMs because national healthcare was coming....

At the time it was primarily because they couldn't find teller candidates who had been taught in public indoctrination institutions ("schools") how to make correct change. To this day it's why so many stores close during power outages. Clerks can't make change without bankrupting the store or pissing off short-changed customers.

I have been known to wait until the cashier has totaled my sale on the register thenI'll give them the extra 'change' part of the sale to see if they can make change back to me. 99% are clueless. I even had one woman - she was in her forties - say to me 'oh, I can't do that, I usually work in the floral department'.

 

[Zoom-boing]

With technology comes change and jobs that once were abundant now no longer exist due to this technology. This trend will continue.

 

[rightwinger]

Would you rather tax payers support them fully or partially? To think they don't help with the economy is really absurd thinking. They actually take a burden off the tax payer by providing a job that otherwise would not be there.

Let's look at it this way. The taxpayer is subsidizing their profit margin by allowing them to pay an artificially low wage. A wage where their own workers could not afford to live in their community

Market based wages are not artificially low, bub.

Well toots...

They are artificially low when the taxpayer subsidizes the wage market by providing the employees substinance.

 

[007]

Let's look at it this way. The taxpayer is subsidizing their profit margin by allowing them to pay an artificially low wage. A wage where their own workers could not afford to live in their community

Market based wages are not artificially low, bub.

Well toots...

They are artificially low when the taxpayer subsidizes the wage market by providing the employees substinance.

No, that's called "income redistribution"... toots... and it's a tenet of you leftist/commies.

You want more money? Get an education.

 

[The T]

With technology comes change and jobs that once were abundant now no longer exist due to this technology. This trend will continue.

Word to the wise is keep up with it.

 

[zeke]

If you don't want employers to provide a basic standard of living, then the taxpayers must

So what you're saying -- and this is a question, I don't want to put words in your mouth, er, keyboard -- is that it is the responsibility of a business to pay someone whatever it takes to support their family.

Is this correct?

.

No mac, according to you, it is the responsibility of the corporations to fuck their employees any way possible so that the CEO's and other high level executives can "earn" their multi million salaries and bonuses.

Is that correct? Oh and don't forget the shareholders. They want the employees fucked over as well so they can receive their dividend checks.

Capitalism in America is broke. Cause of people like you Mac.

 

[tap4154]

Would you rather tax payers support them fully or partially? To think they don't help with the economy is really absurd thinking. They actually take a burden off the tax payer by providing a job that otherwise would not be there.

Let's look at it this way. The taxpayer is subsidizing their profit margin by allowing them to pay an artificially low wage. A wage where their own workers could not afford to live in their community

Very well put.

No, the taxpayers are subsidizing a person who hasn't the skills or ambition to get a job that pays enough for their needs, or to get a second or third part time MW job. The MW job is not a head-of-household job. It's meant for a teen living with their parents, or older adult wishing to supplement the household income.

 

[Mac1958]

If you don't want employers to provide a basic standard of living, then the taxpayers must

So what you're saying -- and this is a question, I don't want to put words in your mouth, er, keyboard -- is that it is the responsibility of a business to pay someone whatever it takes to support their family.

Is this correct?

.

Correct... and translated means: COMMUNISM... what the left has become.

Well, whatever you want to call it, it would represent a fundamental shift in responsibility from the individual to business, with enforcement by the government.

Yikes, fundamental change, indeed.

.

 

[rightwinger]

If you don't want employers to provide a basic standard of living, then the taxpayers must

So what you're saying -- and this is a question, I don't want to put words in your mouth, er, keyboard -- is that it is the responsibility of a business to pay someone whatever it takes to support their family.

Is this correct?

.

It is hard to respond in an absolute context. We have a major portion of our population that does not earn sufficient wages to support a family. The answer is not that those tens of millions of workers need to hunker down and work harder.
We are not just talking McDonalds workers who earn $7.25 an hour but single mothers struggling in a factory at $10 an hour.
If the answer was.....everyone is taking a hit in this economy. Then there is not much more we can ask a business to do
But business is making money, profits are up, Executive compensation is through the roof. Prosperity of our corporations is not trickling down to the workers at all levels
So the answer is .....Yes, we should demand that our employers pay more and the taxpayers should pay less

 

[Mac1958]

If you don't want employers to provide a basic standard of living, then the taxpayers must

So what you're saying -- and this is a question, I don't want to put words in your mouth, er, keyboard -- is that it is the responsibility of a business to pay someone whatever it takes to support their family.

Is this correct?

.

It is hard to respond in an absolute context. We have a major portion of our population that does not earn sufficient wages to support a family. The answer is not that those tens of millions of workers need to hunker down and work harder.
We are not just talking McDonalds workers who earn $7.25 an hour but single mothers struggling in a factory at $10 an hour.
If the answer was.....everyone is taking a hit in this economy. Then there is not much more we can ask a business to do
But business is making money, profits are up, Executive compensation is through the roof. Prosperity of our corporations is not trickling down to the workers at all levels
So the answer is .....Yes, we should demand that our employers pay more and the taxpayers should pay less

I have so many questions, but I'll ask this one:

What happens to those businesses that aren't making any profits, or when a business that is currently making a profit does not in the future?

.

 

[zeke]

Market based wages are not artificially low, bub.

Well toots...

They are artificially low when the taxpayer subsidizes the wage market by providing the employees substinance.

No, that's called "income redistribution"... toots... and it's a tenet of you leftist/commies.

You want more money? Get an education.

Low enough wages that allow the low wage earner to qualify for government assistance is "income redistribution".

Yea, it's MY income paying taxes so that Walmart can hire dirt cheap labor. Why hell, IF you have a job, it is YOUR income being re distributed to Wal Mart as well. IF you have a job that is.

You are a fucking idiot.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you don't want employers to provide a basic standard of living, then the taxpayers must

So what you're saying -- and this is a question, I don't want to put words in your mouth, er, keyboard -- is that it is the responsibility of a business to pay someone whatever it takes to support their family.

Is this correct?

.

Correct... and translated means: COMMUNISM... what the left has become.

Communism ends in forced labor. Always. Give the people the option of working or having the same standard of living by not working and they will choose not to work. Then the government must take steps to force them to work.

 

[Ava]

With technology comes change and jobs that once were abundant now no longer exist due to this technology. This trend will continue.

Word to the wise is keep up with it.

Another word to the wise: Work your arse off, so you might stay with the company to operate the new technology. Or grab the bad back excuse and go on disability until free money runs out and you have to learn a new language .....Mandarin.