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

[tap4154]

Again you offer up a solution where an individual can possibly improve his lot in life and assume it applies to the tens of millions of Americans who no longer earn enough to support themselves.
Tens of millions of workers cannot get second and third jobs. Tens of millions of workers cannot get more skills to move up the employment ladder
The problem is that low level workers do not earn enough to support their families.......the answer is not Get a second job

Maybe they should have thought about that before having ten kids?

In any case, it's not a franchise owner's responsibility or duty to just pay them more than their labor is worth to make up for their lack of education, ambition, skills, or poor decision making.

Again you offer up a single worker solution to a problem affecting tens of millions of workers

The population of MW workers is not static. Most work there for a short while and move up. Those that can't or won't are a relatively small percentage. But at least they're working, even if gov't has to subsidize the portion of their lives they can't or won't take responsibility for.

 

[Katzndogz]

Again you offer up a solution where an individual can possibly improve his lot in life and assume it applies to the tens of millions of Americans who no longer earn enough to support themselves.
Tens of millions of workers cannot get second and third jobs. Tens of millions of workers cannot get more skills to move up the employment ladder
The problem is that low level workers do not earn enough to support their families.......the answer is not Get a second job

If they cannot make enough money to support families, they should not have families they cannot support.

What if they had those families while they were serving in the military and now cannot get a job that can support their families on? It is happening to hundreds of thousand of vets
What if they had those children in a marriage and the scum bag husband skipped out?

Hundreds of thousands? Care to prove that.

What happens is that a lot of people in the military become drug users. When they get out, they are not capable of working. They are as addicted out of the military as they were in the military.

DrugFacts: Substance Abuse in the Military | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

Or maybe they are just those who think that their six years of service entitles them to lifetime support.

As far as women whose husband's skipped out, those would be a distinct minority. Women are far more likely to have their children from multiple fathers and never been married.

 

[depotoo]

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

artificially low?? When with the wages they are paying now they have a 6% profit margin BEFORE taxes! Let's get real here. Please.

Why is it invariably those willing to repeat the shrill cry of the unions don't take the time to find out what they are actually asking and whether it is truly feaible.

And you can totally turn it around. They are paying what they can afford for the price they can garner for their products and taking a burden off the tax payer as well as actually giving self esteem to those that value a work ethic rather than having to live off the govt.


And for those workers that can't live on the wage they have then they need to do more so they can move up rather than demand someone give them something more for nothing more from themselves.

 

[Spoonman]

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

here's a plan. lets just make a few million currently illegal aliens legal and add to the major portion of our population we need to support.

 

[007]

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.

Perhaps if you'd said something intelligent, there'd be a debate to be had here.

Unfortunately you didn't, which is typical of most leftards here on this board. Bitching because you're too fucking STUPID and LAZY to make more money, and somehow that's EVERYONE ELSE'S PROBLEM.

Go suck dog cock you impudent little mouth breathing jack off. Then crack open a book and see if you can LEARN something, fucking moron.

 

[tap4154]

about (5) percent of workers are low wage

then there is a subset of low wage earners with children

then there is a subset of low wage earners with children without other family member with income

it certainly is a low number most likely below 5 million

which of course when 5 million lose insurance in is insignificant according to the white house

and this not including the subset of minimum wage earners

in 2012 3.7 million Americans reported earning $7.25 or less per hour—just 2.9 percent of all workers in the United States

Is that all?

Then it should be no problem if we raise the minimum wage? It is only four million workers

If you owned that franchise and suddenly gov't forced you to double the wages of all your employees, what would you do? Keep in mind that doing that may well wipe out all the profits of that store, even put it in red ink.

Of course you would lay off workers AND raise prices of goods sold, or perhaps even close down and move into something else.

 

[NYcarbineer]

in 2012 3.7 million Americans reported earning $7.25 or less per hour—just 2.9 percent of all workers in the United States

Is that all?

Then it should be no problem if we raise the minimum wage? It is only four million workers

If you owned that franchise and suddenly gov't forced you to double the wages of all your employees, what would you do? Keep in mind that doing that may well wipe out all the profits of that store, even put it in red ink.

Of course you would lay off workers AND raise prices of goods sold, or perhaps even close down and move into something else.

The government hasn't forced McDonald's to double wages.

 

[007]

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

here's a plan. lets just make a few million currently illegal aliens legal and add to the major portion of our population we need to support.

Oh they're working on it, but they're keeping the "we'll have to support them" part quiet, because they're just after a whole new voting block to keep them in power.

Won't be long now though, and the WHOLE DAMN HOUSE is going to come crashing down. We're on an unsustainable track here, and no one is doing a damn thing about it. We're in for a crash that will bring the rest of the world down with us... soon.

 

[tap4154]

Is that all?

Then it should be no problem if we raise the minimum wage? It is only four million workers

If you owned that franchise and suddenly gov't forced you to double the wages of all your employees, what would you do? Keep in mind that doing that may well wipe out all the profits of that store, even put it in red ink.

Of course you would lay off workers AND raise prices of goods sold, or perhaps even close down and move into something else.

The government hasn't forced McDonald's to double wages.

The unions are asking for a doubling of MW to $15/hour.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The 'market' has no morals. If you believe that the economic wellbeing of the people of this country should be subject to a dominant force that is without morality,

then you support 'free markets'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you owned that franchise and suddenly gov't forced you to double the wages of all your employees, what would you do? Keep in mind that doing that may well wipe out all the profits of that store, even put it in red ink.

Of course you would lay off workers AND raise prices of goods sold, or perhaps even close down and move into something else.

The government hasn't forced McDonald's to double wages.

The unions are asking for a doubling of MW to $15/hour.

So? What is wrong with you?

 

[Montrovant]

Just because it appears to bear repeating :

These touch screens are NOT in the US. In fact, the first line of the article states that McDonald's recently added 64,000 people to its payroll in the US. So any discussion about how this is due to US unions or the recent protests about fast food salary seems pretty asinine.

And to those people bringing up the self-checkouts at grocery stores, are those used often where you are? When I'm at the grocery store, I only occasionally see the self-checkouts being used. They seem more for the light shopper, someone who only has a few items, rather than a full cart's worth of food. I certainly don't see them replacing cashiers as they are currently set up.

 

[tap4154]

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.

The 'market' has no morals. If you believe that the economic wellbeing of the people of this country should be subject to a dominant force that is without morality,

then you support 'free markets'.

Dems/libs, usually never being business owners, have NO idea how it works. You pay your good employees what they're worth to keep them. You don't create and keep a profitable business by abusing your employees. However when it's a very low skill job, you're never going to pay them a head-of-household wage. That employee has to EARN a promotion to a more skilled job for that.

 

[bodecea]

If they cannot make enough money to support families, they should not have families they cannot support.

What if they had those families while they were serving in the military and now cannot get a job that can support their families on? It is happening to hundreds of thousand of vets
What if they had those children in a marriage and the scum bag husband skipped out?

Hundreds of thousands? Care to prove that.

What happens is that a lot of people in the military become drug users. When they get out, they are not capable of working. They are as addicted out of the military as they were in the military.

DrugFacts: Substance Abuse in the Military | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

Or maybe they are just those who think that their six years of service entitles them to lifetime support.

As far as women whose husband's skipped out, those would be a distinct minority. Women are far more likely to have their children from multiple fathers and never been married.

Fascinating.

 

[tap4154]

Just because it appears to bear repeating :

These touch screens are NOT in the US. In fact, the first line of the article states that McDonald's recently added 64,000 people to its payroll in the US. So any discussion about how this is due to US unions or the recent protests about fast food salary seems pretty asinine.

And to those people bringing up the self-checkouts at grocery stores, are those used often where you are? When I'm at the grocery store, I only occasionally see the self-checkouts being used. They seem more for the light shopper, someone who only has a few items, rather than a full cart's worth of food. I certainly don't see them replacing cashiers as they are currently set up.

I personally don't like or use the grocery self-checkouts, especially when buying produce. I like someone else to do that part, I already did my work for the day. HOWEVER I could see using a touchpad at a fast food drive-thru, or in the store. In fact I think I'd prefer that.

 

[depotoo]

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.

The 'market' has no morals. If you believe that the economic wellbeing of the people of this country should be subject to a dominant force that is without morality,

then you support 'free markets'.

Who is it that doesn't care for the well being of people here? Who is pushing for these artificially high wages? The same ones that have brought retirees to their knees because companies and municipalities could not afford the so-called 'moral wages and pensions' the unions demanded.
Want an example? How much will Detroits pensioners receive versus what they planned on? How many layoffs have there been with GM? How many steel mills closed? How much did GM's pensioners get versus what they were told they would receive? How many municipalities are in trouble with unfunded/underfunded pensions?

 

[kaz]

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..

And I'm sure they never would have ordered those touchscreens had their workers not asked for more money. <she said, sarcastically>

The simple mind of a liberal. Few major business decisions are actually binary. That this isn't the only factor is true, that since you don't think it's the only factor means it's not a factor at all is just naive. And sadly typical, which is why liberal solutions are so inane.

 

[rightwinger]

Maybe they should have thought about that before having ten kids?

In any case, it's not a franchise owner's responsibility or duty to just pay them more than their labor is worth to make up for their lack of education, ambition, skills, or poor decision making.

Again you offer up a single worker solution to a problem affecting tens of millions of workers

The population of MW workers is not static. Most work there for a short while and move up. Those that can't or won't are a relatively small percentage. But at least they're working, even if gov't has to subsidize the portion of their lives they can't or won't take responsibility for.

They move up but move up to a job that may pay $10 an hour. $20k a year still does not pay the bills. The problem goes way beyond $7.25 minimum wage but our whole wage structure. Part of the wage pyramid is seeing major increases, part isn't.
Taxpayers make up the difference

 

[kaz]

Market based wages are not artificially low, bub.

The 'market' has no morals. If you believe that the economic wellbeing of the people of this country should be subject to a dominant force that is without morality,

then you support 'free markets'.

Who is it that doesn't care for the well being of people here? Who is pushing for these artificially high wages? The same ones that have brought retirees to their knees because companies and municipalities could not afford the so-called 'moral wages and pensions' the unions demanded.
Want an example? How much will Detroits pensioners receive versus what they planned on? How many layoffs have there been with GM? How many steel mills closed? How much did GM's pensioners get versus what they were told they would receive? How many municipalities are in trouble with unfunded/underfunded pensions?

Charity is never performed with other people's money, is it depotoo?

NYCarbineer doesn't suffer the consequence either of having to pay people with virtually no skills artificially high wages and she isn't the one who will lose her job when they don't do it. So she pays no price, and is of course smugly superior about her generosity....

 

[beagle9]

Pretty simple what's going on here folks... on the one hand we have conservatives that believe if you want to make a decent living wage, you have to further your education and work for it.

Then on the other hand we have the give me something for nothing liberals that believe they shouldn't have to do jack shit to get paid more money. They believe that they're entitled to something for nothing, this is what they've been taught. The obama-phone, SNAPS, welfare, sudsidized, afirmative action, ACORN, EBT card carrying leftist, who in this day and age aren't much different than the communists of China or Cuba. They want something, for nothing, and that's why their santa claus was elected for a second term.

We have half a nation full of fat ass, lazy, beholding, entitlement class people folks. They figure the rich OWE them JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE RICH. They don't believe they should have to do ANYTHING to DESERVE MORE MONEY. They just WANT IT.

Sick sons a bitches, and they are ruining this country with their LAZINESS and ILLITERATE ways. An entire segment of the population that is nothing more than LEACHES.

You are a sad human being for thinking like this, because you give no blame what so ever to the rich who had operated in ways in the past very badly also. They have helped to heap all of this onto the federal government for them to deal with, and then when the government tried to manage the situation, then you cry about that also ?

It is easy to create dependency when people are attempted to be helped in an environment where the balance has been broken, but you look into that dependency as if it had nothing to do with greed and the rich in the past, for whom had open the door wide open for this dependency to be created. Yes the government is also a complete idiot for incentivizing or in the raising up of the numbers of births to be found within the impoverished situation it had to deal with, but it is not all the governments fault in what we see in all of this today. Just be fair and quit trashing just one side of this equation, and I will play along in it all for the best solutions to come about from within it all. People need to use their heads instead of their emotions in order to solve these problems. Your post just made you look a fool whether you know it or not.