Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And the government doesn't require that all touchscreens join Obamacare.
Good luck unionizing the touch screens
Simple solution.Well toots...
They are artificially low when the taxpayer subsidizes the wage market by providing the employees substinance.
Stop providing welfare to them.
It amazes me that so many liberals think the government (tax payers like me) are expected to financially support low wage or no wage people. I didn't bring them into this world, let them earn their own keep.
Now we are getting somewhere
Republican plan seems to be:
Keep wages low and allow unfettered corporate profits
Allow workers to continue working at wages they cannot support their families on
Cut the working poor off from all taxpayer assistance
Encourage slums, inadequate food, cut off educational opportunities and healthcare
Isn't that called Third world USA?
No, that would be liberals. They love it when more and more people are totally dependent on government.As an employer, McDonald has every right, indeed, every obligation to increase profits for its shareholders.
If McDonald invests in automating its procedures, it is McDonald's money, with no contributions from those who are sitting around like despicable vultures, waiting to try too cash on somebody else's risks and investments.
Those who have no stake in the investments have no right to demand benefits from its success.
Those who are unhappy with the wages McDonald's pays, should educate themselves or go away peacefully and hope to get a better job.
MacDonalds will get rid of a job if they can whether it's a $15/hour job or an $8/hour job.
It' truly amazing how conservatives are so happy at the prospect of fewer and fewer jobs in a country with an ever increasing population.
It just means more votes they can buy with taxpayer money.
Oh, for the love of GOD!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..
No, that would be liberals. They love it when more and more people are totally dependent on government.MacDonalds will get rid of a job if they can whether it's a $15/hour job or an $8/hour job.
It' truly amazing how conservatives are so happy at the prospect of fewer and fewer jobs in a country with an ever increasing population.
It just means more votes they can buy with taxpayer money.
Says the guy who's dependent on a government check.
lol, I couldn't make this shit up!!!!
FWIW--
No one forces McDonalds to offer whatever benefits they do offer or Wal Mart or Target, or Dicks or Carl's Jr. I used McDonalds corporate information since they are a publicly traded company....
Their dividend--what they pay you for owning their stock--rose from about 22 cents a quarter 10 years ago to over 80 cents a quarter today. With about a billion shares outstanding, they pay out $3B to people who have done nothing other than own their stock. In that same 10 years, those of us who consume McDonalds food would argue the food has gotten worse if anything.
I would argue that if they cut that dividend by something like 25, that would save $1B or so (one dollar less) and found a way to raise wages, they'd have a better restaurant serving better products.
But again, nobody forces them to offer what they do offer. It could be much worse.
How can the government lower taxes, when the corporations or big businesses of America, are using it for a dumping ground of people who need help because they (companies who can afford to) refuse to do what is right and helpful to America on this front themselves ?
^^^The heartbreak of economic illiteracy on parade^^^
It doesn't help anyone to be turned into a government dependent. And the government's eternal quest to do this is what is suppressing economic growth and job creation.
Why don't you pose that question to all those who lost there houses in the bubble burst or lost their jobs in the bubble burst ? I would love to see you addressing them at that time in their lives in this wayyou still haven't backed that figure up. It has always been my responsibility for my lot in life - noone elses. I found my way away from the starting pay job I had when I was younger. Why can't you? Why can't they? And without a college dgree. Why can't you find your way to work harder so you are recognized and given more, better yourself, whether through self education or otherwise. Or do you not have enough self esteem to see past your own plight probably self driven? And once again you are relegating responsibility away from the worker. Why does that not surprise me?And many of us that think companies such as McD's should not be subsidizing them for their crappy decisions once made crappy decisions ourselves but learned to move past them because we realized we must become sufficient for ourselves rather than demand others to provide for us. It is called learning to be responsible for ones own life decisions.
We are looking at 60 million crappy decisions to accept jobs at McDonalds, WalMart, manufacturing, menial labor, service jobs
Do you have 60 million better paying jobs that these workers can move in to?
FWIW--
No one forces McDonalds to offer whatever benefits they do offer or Wal Mart or Target, or Dicks or Carl's Jr. I used McDonalds corporate information since they are a publicly traded company....
Their dividend--what they pay you for owning their stock--rose from about 22 cents a quarter 10 years ago to over 80 cents a quarter today. With about a billion shares outstanding, they pay out $3B to people who have done nothing other than own their stock. In that same 10 years, those of us who consume McDonalds food would argue the food has gotten worse if anything.
I would argue that if they cut that dividend by something like 25, that would save $1B or so (one dollar less) and found a way to raise wages, they'd have a better restaurant serving better products.
But again, nobody forces them to offer what they do offer. It could be much worse.
Good gawd, this just gets worse, and more troubling.
The purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. THAT'S IT. Shareholders including young families planning for the future and seniors depending on dividend income for their needs. Any corporation is going to do what it thinks is best to accomplish that goal. Some do it better than....
Oh, fuck it.
I'm not going to explain the most fundamental business economics to American adults who simply don't understand.
I can't believe we have people graduating from high school without this most basic knowledge.
Never mind.
.
No, that would be liberals. They love it when more and more people are totally dependent on government.
It just means more votes they can buy with taxpayer money.
Says the guy who's dependent on a government check.
lol, I couldn't make this shit up!!!!
you left out a very important qualifier there, NY, no surprise - an earned government check through employment.
Conservatives always resort to this.....offering an individual solution to a problem with a population. Yes, an individual can improve his lot in life.....a population can't. Supply and demand apply.
All societies require a certain percentage of low level labor. They cannot all be executives. The question remains....what standard of living should this part of our population have and who should pay for it?
If you don't want employers to provide a basic standard of living, then the taxpayers must
I beg to differ.
As a taxpayer it is not my responsibility to provide a standard of living to some other person. If they want the comforts of life such as housing, clothes and food, let them earn it for themselves and their family. Again, it's not my responsibility to support them, that is their own personal responsibility.
Yes
And those Americans who want a country resembling Calcutta agree with you
Why don't you pose that question to all those who lost there houses in the bubble burst or lost their jobs in the bubble burst ? I would love to see you addressing them at that time in their lives in this wayyou still haven't backed that figure up. It has always been my responsibility for my lot in life - noone elses. I found my way away from the starting pay job I had when I was younger. Why can't you? Why can't they? And without a college dgree. Why can't you find your way to work harder so you are recognized and given more, better yourself, whether through self education or otherwise. Or do you not have enough self esteem to see past your own plight probably self driven? And once again you are relegating responsibility away from the worker. Why does that not surprise me?We are looking at 60 million crappy decisions to accept jobs at McDonalds, WalMart, manufacturing, menial labor, service jobs
Do you have 60 million better paying jobs that these workers can move in to?
In fact you may be addressing some of them in this way, because they may have had to take what they could get in life at some point, but that doesn't warrant them being abused by their limited choice in the harsh decision making that they had to make in such dire circumstances. All people want in life, is to be treated fairly and not to be taken advantage of when they are engaged, and so is that a problem with you ?
[ Why do you think it is my responsibility to support somebody that I had no involvement in bringing into this world?
Says the guy who's dependent on a government check.
lol, I couldn't make this shit up!!!!
you left out a very important qualifier there, NY, no surprise - an earned government check through employment.
Ah, so you acknowledge that the retired Detroit municipal workers EARNED their retirement checks.
Yep. Forced servitude/acceptance by government fiat is NOT what we are as Americans.Simple solution.
Stop providing welfare to them.
It amazes me that so many liberals think the government (tax payers like me) are expected to financially support low wage or no wage people. I didn't bring them into this world, let them earn their own keep.
Now we are getting somewhere
Republican plan seems to be:
Keep wages low and allow unfettered corporate profits
Allow workers to continue working at wages they cannot support their families on
Cut the working poor off from all taxpayer assistance
Encourage slums, inadequate food, cut off educational opportunities and healthcare
Isn't that called Third world USA?
First of all, I'm not a Republican. Republicans are too liberal for me.
As I said, it's not my responsibility to provide for some other person. Your insistence that I should is naught but you using government to force me into slavery to that other person. I am against slavery in any manner, government sanctioned or not.
I encourage people to rise up, support themselves and their family, enjoy the success that allows them to leave the slum or trailer park, feed themselves and get the education and healthcare they want. Not to force me into providing that for them.
I also think that if you want to freely give the fruits of your labor to the poor in whatever manner you choose, then you be allowed to do so. Buy them food or clothes if you want, give a homeless person a room in your house, pay for the college education of a young person. Do what you will, it's your choice. DO NOT tell me I am supposed to do what you think is right for the poor.
Notice how my decisions for you allow your freedom, but your decisions for me restrict my freedoms?
I already posted this once before, but I'll post it again for your benefit.FWIW--
No one forces McDonalds to offer whatever benefits they do offer or Wal Mart or Target, or Dicks or Carl's Jr. I used McDonalds corporate information since they are a publicly traded company....
Their dividend--what they pay you for owning their stock--rose from about 22 cents a quarter 10 years ago to over 80 cents a quarter today. With about a billion shares outstanding, they pay out $3B to people who have done nothing other than own their stock. In that same 10 years, those of us who consume McDonalds food would argue the food has gotten worse if anything.
I would argue that if they cut that dividend by something like 25, that would save $1B or so (one dollar less) and found a way to raise wages, they'd have a better restaurant serving better products.
But again, nobody forces them to offer what they do offer. It could be much worse.
