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

[Synthaholic]

No, it's not. They create jobs by doing what SAYIT said, pursuing profit.

Government creates no jobs ever because it creates no value. The people government hires are paid through money taken out of the economy and for every government job created, more than one private sector job is destroyed.

This may be USMB's dumbest statement of the year.

Every military base in the world has an economy built up outside it's gates.

Contractors are primarily private companies, creating jobs through that government contract.

I could go on and on, but I suspect I would be wasting my time.

You went to government schools, didn't you? Personally, I think economics should be a core class in high school.

Whether the job creation is direct or indirect is irrelevant.

 

[kaz]

There is something very wrong with deducting expenses when tens of thousands of Americans will be left without jobs

Actually offshoring creates jobs. It lowers prices for consumers who have more to spend, it helps US companies compete better with international competitors and it creates more international markets for our products. You're just wrong. Flat out. Your driving the companies under entirely solution is what costs jobs.

And let's not forget that this off-shoring is a direct result of Gates, Ellison, etc... claim that all Americans are stupid and lazy, thus virtually eliminating their chances of ever getting another job.

That's just stupid, none of us thought that.

Plus, Indians in IT are grossly incompetent and that's why a lot of their recent projects have failed.

Your bigotry aside, the projects that have succeeded have taken Indian culture and strengths into account. The ones who fail are the ones who think that you just take a US job and move it to India for a third the cost. You actually have to go in and design entirely different processes. Every function we set up in India was a project to design a new process, not just move jobs.

So IBM takes US tax dollars and then complains that the very automation they developed is stifling their ability to make money.

I don't know what IBM does, but the free market solves that. The ones who do it right win, the losers die. Well, until you step in with another TARP and save them.

And no, you are NOT a great American.
You simply took advantage do an opportunity and no one can blame you.

I believe in America, you live in fear. I embrace the future, you fight it. It's your way that DC is using and it's caused the longest, deepest recession since the Great Depression. Way to go.

 

[kaz]

This may be USMB's dumbest statement of the year.

Every military base in the world has an economy built up outside it's gates.

Contractors are primarily private companies, creating jobs through that government contract.

I could go on and on, but I suspect I would be wasting my time.

You went to government schools, didn't you? Personally, I think economics should be a core class in high school.

Whether the job creation is direct or indirect is irrelevant.

You still don't grasp the point. What you just said doesn't contradict me. That rw thanked you should give you a hint that your point was clueless.

You are arguing that government spending money has indirect benefits. Let's call those benefits "A."

What I am pointing out to you is that if business who earned the money still had it, they would have in the pursuit of profit still generated all those benefits. They would have also generated a profit themselves. Let's call that "B."

Your way you have only "A"

My way you have A + B.

Government doesn't create value. Your point didn't change that.

 

[Againsheila]

It takes a skewed personality type to campaign for office.
And representatives spend most of their time in office running for office again.

See, I think there should be a law against running for any type of office while you are already in an elected position. It takes your focus off of the job the tax payers are paying you for and puts it on getting money so you can get more votes for the next time. You get elected to do the job, not to campaign for the next one.

I agree but the unfortunate reality, even in the Internet world of today, is that money buys recognition.
Most people vote based on Party and name recognition, not achievment.

Hence the need for the law.

 

[Synthaholic]

You went to government schools, didn't you? Personally, I think economics should be a core class in high school.

Whether the job creation is direct or indirect is irrelevant.

You still don't grasp the point. What you just said doesn't contradict me. That rw thanked you should give you a hint that your point was clueless.

You are arguing that government spending money has indirect benefits. Let's call those benefits "A."

What I am pointing out to you is that if business who earned the money still had it,

Uh...whut? Which business doesn't have the money they earned? And why?

they would have in the pursuit of profit still generated all those benefits. They would have also generated a profit themselves. Let's call that "B."

How?

 

[Synthaholic]

The economy that grows up around military bases is purely the American entreprenourial spirit at work. The government doesn't do it. When the base goes away, the economy suffers because so much of it was built around the ready customers provided by the government employees. That is why closing bases is so painful and difficult to do for the elected representatives of those areas. How much healthier is a community that is created and grows through private sector initiatives alone? Such a community is much more likely to be self sustaining and will be hurt less by changes in government policy and initiatives.

As for those private contractors, yes, they are 'private companies' even though some exist purely to serve and service government installations, processes, and projects. Those are just as draining on the economy as all government operations are. The money still has to be drawn out of the private sector, with a goodly portion of it swallowed up by government bureaucracy, before the private contractor can be paid.

Halliburton, KBR, etc. have plenty of work that's not U.S. government connected. It may be work with other gov'ts but not ours. They are also involved in private, domestic business.

When the Bushies hired them to do contract work in Iraq, that was definitely a case of government creating employment in the private sector.

McDonalds, no matter how much it is despised and maligned, contributes to the economy and helps grow it. It does not depend on others to hand over money without receiving products and services of value in return.

I would argue that they are a net cost to society, if not also economically. On an almost daily basis I see obese people eating McDonalds for lunch. Their risks for greater obesity, diabetes, amputation, higher blood pressure, cardiac problems, vitamin deficiency, etc. are through the roof from eating this cap. And these folks are the ones who have no insurance, and use the emergency room for their basic care. That means taxpayers pay for their bad decisions.

What does a McDonalds contribute? Low wage jobs?

There are two companies in the world that can do what Halliburton does, so if Halliburton never netted another U.S. government contract, it would prosper quite nicely.

We don't need a company. We have the military.

To get those critical and specialized services

What critical and specialized services?

, the U.S. government has to use Halliburton

It doesn't. It can go back to doing things the way we did before the Republican privatization of our Armed Forces.

There isn't a thing that Halliburton can do for the U.S. military that the military couldn't do for themselves, if so tasked.

, incorporated in America and who pays taxes in America or it would have to use a French company with no hope of any return on the money spent. Which is why every administration uses Halliburton. Further, the likelihood doesn't exist that government would EVER be as competent and qualified as Halliburton to do what Halliburton does. Without Halliburton, we would all be paying a lot more at the pump than we currently pay.

You have cerainly drank the Kool-Aid, young lady. Administrative costs for most government is around 6%. In the private sector it's 25%-30% and rising. Most of that is executive pay.

I don't want my tax dollars going toward a $25 million CEO salary. And $250,000 per year mercenaries from Blackwater.

And what does McDonald's contribute? It buys its infrastructure, supplies, and products from the private sector using money it earned to do so. It does not require the rest of us to finance that and therefore 100% boosts the economy instead of draining resources from it. It pays local, country, state, and federal taxes. Almost all McDonalds sponsor sports teams and give to charitable contributions in their respective communities. They provide a product people are willing to buy without coercing or requiring anybody to do so and without creating an artificial monopoly in order to sell their product. And they provide a lot of jobs to local people who want those jobs and they do so again without drainng a penny from the economy or requiring anybody else to finance that.

Yeah, but their product is crap and is undeniably sickening Americans. I know, their choice. But we are the ones who end up paying.

Another reason to support the ACA: makes dumbass 300-pounders take responsibility for their health costs and their daily junk food diet.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Demand that your pay doubles, you are going to lose your job instead.


Didn't think of that, now did ya?


Idiots.

What's sad is that the workers aren't making these demands. It's greedy union goons who don't work for McDonalds and just want to loot the industry.

 

[Againsheila]

Most politicians are patsy and many invest in the Free Market legislation they vote for.

You still don't understand the difference between corporatism and free markets. They are not only not the same, they are the opposite. Corporatism is a variation of socialism. Free markets are where consumers, businesses and employees make their own decisions. Socialism is where government picks the winners. They aren't the same at all.

I agree that Corporatism is a form of Socialism; and it doesn't work well for most people.

More like fascism or communism. In socialism, everybody shares equally. With the CEO's making 500 times what their workers are, that's definitely not socialism.

 

[Againsheila]

Demand that your pay doubles, you are going to lose your job instead.


Didn't think of that, now did ya?


Idiots.

What's sad is that the workers aren't making these demands. It's greedy union goons who don't work for McDonalds and just want to loot the industry.

And then there are the people who've lost their jobs and are just trying to get a job that makes ends meet. Minimum wage has the lowest spending power in history. If the spending power for the top 1% went up more than 200%, why shouldn't it have gone up at least 200% for the minimum wage workers?

 

[Foxfyre]

Halliburton, KBR, etc. have plenty of work that's not U.S. government connected. It may be work with other gov'ts but not ours. They are also involved in private, domestic business.

When the Bushies hired them to do contract work in Iraq, that was definitely a case of government creating employment in the private sector.


I would argue that they are a net cost to society, if not also economically. On an almost daily basis I see obese people eating McDonalds for lunch. Their risks for greater obesity, diabetes, amputation, higher blood pressure, cardiac problems, vitamin deficiency, etc. are through the roof from eating this cap. And these folks are the ones who have no insurance, and use the emergency room for their basic care. That means taxpayers pay for their bad decisions.

What does a McDonalds contribute? Low wage jobs?

There are two companies in the world that can do what Halliburton does, so if Halliburton never netted another U.S. government contract, it would prosper quite nicely.

We don't need a company. We have the military.




What critical and specialized services?





It doesn't. It can go back to doing things the way we did before the Republican privatization of our Armed Forces.

There isn't a thing that Halliburton can do for the U.S. military that the military couldn't do for themselves, if so tasked.

, incorporated in America and who pays taxes in America or it would have to use a French company with no hope of any return on the money spent. Which is why every administration uses Halliburton. Further, the likelihood doesn't exist that government would EVER be as competent and qualified as Halliburton to do what Halliburton does. Without Halliburton, we would all be paying a lot more at the pump than we currently pay.

You have cerainly drank the Kool-Aid, young lady. Administrative costs for most government is around 6%. In the private sector it's 25%-30% and rising. Most of that is executive pay.

I don't want my tax dollars going toward a $25 million CEO salary. And $250,000 per year mercenaries from Blackwater.

And what does McDonald's contribute? It buys its infrastructure, supplies, and products from the private sector using money it earned to do so. It does not require the rest of us to finance that and therefore 100% boosts the economy instead of draining resources from it. It pays local, country, state, and federal taxes. Almost all McDonalds sponsor sports teams and give to charitable contributions in their respective communities. They provide a product people are willing to buy without coercing or requiring anybody to do so and without creating an artificial monopoly in order to sell their product. And they provide a lot of jobs to local people who want those jobs and they do so again without drainng a penny from the economy or requiring anybody else to finance that.

Yeah, but their product is crap and is undeniably sickening Americans. I know, their choice. But we are the ones who end up paying.

Another reason to support the ACA: makes dumbass 300-pounders take responsibility for their health costs and their daily junk food diet.

I don't respond to chopped up posts. Sorry. I have a personal rule that posts deserve to be considered in their full context with any qualifications or logical progression included.

But, given the inability of the government to do much of anything as efficiently, effectively, or economically as what the private sector can do, God help us if the government took over the tasks that Halliburton has been doing.

And I don't recall any part of the ACA that rewards anybody other than insurance companies or folks who qualify for the free insurance courtesy of us tax payers, or that punishes anybody for bad behavior. Seems to me a huge component of the ACA was to cover those pre-existing conditions and it drew no distinction between those people could and could not control.

But I didn't expect you to read my comments with any kind of objectivity or even understand them. Sorry. You just gave me a reason to have a discussion with those who are able to consider something without partisan and ideological blinders.

 

[Againsheila]

Halliburton, KBR, etc. have plenty of work that's not U.S. government connected. It may be work with other gov'ts but not ours. They are also involved in private, domestic business.

When the Bushies hired them to do contract work in Iraq, that was definitely a case of government creating employment in the private sector.


I would argue that they are a net cost to society, if not also economically. On an almost daily basis I see obese people eating McDonalds for lunch. Their risks for greater obesity, diabetes, amputation, higher blood pressure, cardiac problems, vitamin deficiency, etc. are through the roof from eating this cap. And these folks are the ones who have no insurance, and use the emergency room for their basic care. That means taxpayers pay for their bad decisions.

What does a McDonalds contribute? Low wage jobs?

There are two companies in the world that can do what Halliburton does, so if Halliburton never netted another U.S. government contract, it would prosper quite nicely.

We don't need a company. We have the military.




What critical and specialized services?





It doesn't. It can go back to doing things the way we did before the Republican privatization of our Armed Forces.

There isn't a thing that Halliburton can do for the U.S. military that the military couldn't do for themselves, if so tasked.

, incorporated in America and who pays taxes in America or it would have to use a French company with no hope of any return on the money spent. Which is why every administration uses Halliburton. Further, the likelihood doesn't exist that government would EVER be as competent and qualified as Halliburton to do what Halliburton does. Without Halliburton, we would all be paying a lot more at the pump than we currently pay.

You have cerainly drank the Kool-Aid, young lady. Administrative costs for most government is around 6%. In the private sector it's 25%-30% and rising. Most of that is executive pay.

I don't want my tax dollars going toward a $25 million CEO salary. And $250,000 per year mercenaries from Blackwater.

And what does McDonald's contribute? It buys its infrastructure, supplies, and products from the private sector using money it earned to do so. It does not require the rest of us to finance that and therefore 100% boosts the economy instead of draining resources from it. It pays local, country, state, and federal taxes. Almost all McDonalds sponsor sports teams and give to charitable contributions in their respective communities. They provide a product people are willing to buy without coercing or requiring anybody to do so and without creating an artificial monopoly in order to sell their product. And they provide a lot of jobs to local people who want those jobs and they do so again without drainng a penny from the economy or requiring anybody else to finance that.

Yeah, but their product is crap and is undeniably sickening Americans. I know, their choice. But we are the ones who end up paying.

Another reason to support the ACA: makes dumbass 300-pounders take responsibility for their health costs and their daily junk food diet.

How does ACA do that? It better not deny insurance to people who are overweight. This whole debacle was suppose to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

 

[kaz]

Whether the job creation is direct or indirect is irrelevant.

You still don't grasp the point. What you just said doesn't contradict me. That rw thanked you should give you a hint that your point was clueless.

You are arguing that government spending money has indirect benefits. Let's call those benefits "A."

What I am pointing out to you is that if business who earned the money still had it,

Uh...whut? Which business doesn't have the money they earned? And why?

Government takes pie, they don't create it. Money doesn't appear from nowhere. It is taken from someone else.

they would have in the pursuit of profit still generated all those benefits. They would have also generated a profit themselves. Let's call that "B."

How?

I just explained that. You're arguing that government spends money, and that creates jobs. Businesses would have spent the same amount of money, and created the same amount of jobs. In addition, they also made a profit, which creates more jobs. That profit will be invested (and put back in the economy), reinvested (and spent) or distributed to shareholders who will reinvest it or spend it. It's simple. And you are only a socialist because you don't understand it. If you did, you'd realize that freedom comes from capitalism, not government.

 

[Indeependent]

There is something very wrong with deducting expenses when tens of thousands of Americans will be left without jobs

Actually offshoring creates jobs. It lowers prices for consumers who have more to spend, it helps US companies compete better with international competitors and it creates more international markets for our products. You're just wrong. Flat out. Your driving the companies under entirely solution is what costs jobs.

And let's not forget that this off-shoring is a direct result of Gates, Ellison, etc... claim that all Americans are stupid and lazy, thus virtually eliminating their chances of ever getting another job.

That's just stupid, none of us thought that.


Your bigotry aside, the projects that have succeeded have taken Indian culture and strengths into account. The ones who fail are the ones who think that you just take a US job and move it to India for a third the cost. You actually have to go in and design entirely different processes. Every function we set up in India was a project to design a new process, not just move jobs.

So IBM takes US tax dollars and then complains that the very automation they developed is stifling their ability to make money.

I don't know what IBM does, but the free market solves that. The ones who do it right win, the losers die. Well, until you step in with another TARP and save them.

And no, you are NOT a great American.
You simply took advantage do an opportunity and no one can blame you.

I believe in America, you live in fear. I embrace the future, you fight it. It's your way that DC is using and it's caused the longest, deepest recession since the Great Depression. Way to go.

If you believe that the mass replacement of White Collar careers with jobs at Walmart and McDonald's is a good thing for the US, I whole-heartedly disagree.

If you watch the Asian Financial channels you know full well that India is simply becoming another US with the poor (far worse off the the American poor) far outnumbering the upwardly mobile.

I am not racist as I did not send home every European and Oriental software developer and replace them with cheap, compliant, incompetent (as in those who has been hired to develope HealthCare.gov) Indian labor.

Those who replaced these talented developers, which included many with advanced credentials were, and still are, the racists.
That's if the pure desire for a Quarterly Profit can be defined as racist.

I do not embrace Corporate Socialism.

 

[kaz]

You still don't understand the difference between corporatism and free markets. They are not only not the same, they are the opposite. Corporatism is a variation of socialism. Free markets are where consumers, businesses and employees make their own decisions. Socialism is where government picks the winners. They aren't the same at all.

I agree that Corporatism is a form of Socialism; and it doesn't work well for most people.

More like fascism or communism. In socialism, everybody shares equally. With the CEO's making 500 times what their workers are, that's definitely not socialism.

Corporatism, fascism and communism are all forms of socialism. Socialism is central planning. They are your gig. The only difference is who the dictators are. Your idea that lawyers doing it is OK but anyone else doing it is bad is ridiculous. There is capitalism, which just means economic freedom for all participants, or socialist dictatorship. And those dictators use force for their own power regardless of whether they are lawyers or MBAs.

 

[kaz]

If you believe that the mass replacement of White Collar careers with jobs at Walmart and McDonald's is a good thing for the US, I whole-heartedly disagree.

If you watch the Asian Financial channels you know full well that India is simply becoming another US with the poor (far worse off the the American poor) far outnumbering the upwardly mobile.

I am not racist as I did not send home every European and Oriental software developer and replace them with cheap, compliant, incompetent (as in those who has been hired to develope HealthCare.gov) Indian labor.

Those who replaced these talented developers, which included many with advanced credentials were, and still are, the racists.
That's if the pure desire for a Quarterly Profit can be defined as racist.

I do not embrace Corporate Socialism.

Right, you embrace lawyer socialism. I embrace free markets. All economic theory and empirical data supports my solution. Embracing change is how every economic power was created. Embracing fear like you want to do and putting up walls does nothing but bring us down.

 

[RKMBrown]

[O]ffshoring creates jobs. It lowers prices for consumers who have more to spend, it helps US companies compete better with international competitors and it creates more international markets for our products.

I see, so if we offshore every job in America we'll be just dandy.

How about we start by offshoring your job first?

 

[HenryBHough]

People who are sincerely concerned about the money earned by servers at ANY restaurant can take direct action to improve their lot. Simply quadruple the amount of tip given. Difficult, though, as liberals generally skip-the-tip as "demeaning". But, then in lib-lex four times zero is a tremendous amount!

 

[SteadyMercury]

Difficult, though, as liberals generally skip-the-tip as "demeaning". But, then in lib-lex four times zero is a tremendous amount!

Sheesh where do you guys come up with this stuff? Like did you spend a couple decades listening to talk radio 24/7 or something to get to where you are are partisan to the point of full-on nonsensical retard?

 

[HenryBHough]

Difficult, though, as liberals generally skip-the-tip as "demeaning". But, then in lib-lex four times zero is a tremendous amount!

Sheesh where do you guys come up with this stuff? Like did you spend a couple decades listening to talk radio 24/7 or something to get to where you are are partisan to the point of full-on nonsensical retard?

Thank you for your insight into your listening habits. Do you receive a variety of stations there in the wilderness?

 

[Synthaholic]

There are two companies in the world that can do what Halliburton does, so if Halliburton never netted another U.S. government contract, it would prosper quite nicely.

We don't need a company. We have the military.




What critical and specialized services?





It doesn't. It can go back to doing things the way we did before the Republican privatization of our Armed Forces.

There isn't a thing that Halliburton can do for the U.S. military that the military couldn't do for themselves, if so tasked.




You have cerainly drank the Kool-Aid, young lady. Administrative costs for most government is around 6%. In the private sector it's 25%-30% and rising. Most of that is executive pay.

I don't want my tax dollars going toward a $25 million CEO salary. And $250,000 per year mercenaries from Blackwater.

And what does McDonald's contribute? It buys its infrastructure, supplies, and products from the private sector using money it earned to do so. It does not require the rest of us to finance that and therefore 100% boosts the economy instead of draining resources from it. It pays local, country, state, and federal taxes. Almost all McDonalds sponsor sports teams and give to charitable contributions in their respective communities. They provide a product people are willing to buy without coercing or requiring anybody to do so and without creating an artificial monopoly in order to sell their product. And they provide a lot of jobs to local people who want those jobs and they do so again without drainng a penny from the economy or requiring anybody else to finance that.

Yeah, but their product is crap and is undeniably sickening Americans. I know, their choice. But we are the ones who end up paying.

Another reason to support the ACA: makes dumbass 300-pounders take responsibility for their health costs and their daily junk food diet.

I don't respond to chopped up posts. Sorry. I have a personal rule that posts deserve to be considered in their full context with any qualifications or logical progression included.

It's necessary when there are so many errors in a post that need correcting with facts. I try to address each of your talking points individually. It's too easy to skip something otherwise. Or ignore it, if it leads to an uncomfortable conclusion.

But, given the inability of the government to do much of anything as efficiently, effectively, or economically as what the private sector can do, God help us if the government took over the tasks that Halliburton has been doing.

I don't know where you are getting these assumptions.

Do you have privy to Halliburton's books? Do you know how many times contractors have been caught overcharging the taxpayers, or doing substandard work (electrocuting soldiers), or generally failing their obligations?

Halliburton is a bloated corporation that pays it's executives obscene amounts for mediocre work.

I asked in the other post: what critical and specialized services do they offer that the military can't do, if tasked?

You probably didn't answer because you don't like to chop up posts.

And I don't recall any part of the ACA that rewards anybody other than insurance companies or folks who qualify for the free insurance courtesy of us tax payers, or that punishes anybody for bad behavior. Seems to me a huge component of the ACA was to cover those pre-existing conditions and it drew no distinction between those people could and could not control.

The ACA is going to make sure that people have insurance. That's good for taxpayers who have been footing the bill for these freeloaders.

But I didn't expect you to read my comments with any kind of objectivity or even understand them. Sorry. You just gave me a reason to have a discussion with those who are able to consider something without partisan and ideological blinders.

Well, why would I? You didn't make the comments objectively, now did you?