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

[Mac1958]

.

Four things I'd like to know.

1. How many people in this country are actually making the minimum wage?
2. How many of these people are actually trying to raise a family on a minimum wage?
3. Why have they put themselves in that position?
4. How, PRECISELY, do you create a "living wage" when the living expenses of employees will vary from "just needing some cash" to "I need to support a family on this"?

I'm not really against a minimum wage. I'm not really against some mechanism that would increase it annually. I'd just like to take a reasonable, educated, sober look at the actual situation and move away from the naive, simplistic emotionalism by which the "living wage" proponents are so consumed.

Can anyone answer my questions in a reasonable, civil manner, especially the last one?

.

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?

Good luck on getting a response to that very legitimate question.

Or better yet, let me answer from what I have learned right here; if that low wage worker doesn't like his job and the fact that he/she needs food stamps to eat, let the lazy motherfuckers get a better job.

That about sum it up Mac?

How'd I do Mac? I could be a rethug if I wanted to practice being an asshole.

I notice that Zeke continues to avoid my questions. That's okay, I wasn't expecting him to come up with any answers. What I was expecting was for him to do his traditional diversionary dance. You're good at that, Zeke, dancing around on the margins, buzzing around the edges, poking at those of us who are trying to have a mature conversation, avoiding any sober discourse. Not very confident, I suspect.

Now, unlike Zeke, I'm more than happy to answer the question.

Like you rightwinger, I hate seeing taxpayer money used in that way. We have people who are not making enough money at their jobs to support themselves, and they often ultimately turn to public assistance. Able-bodied people.

The obvious answer for this would be that they need to (a) improve their skills and get promoted at work for a higher income, (b) look around for other employment opportunities that would pay more for their skill set, (c) improve their skill set via the wide range of online and in-person training courses and then marketing themselves to employers who are looking for people in that area.

Unfortunately, we live in a culture in which many are willing to defend those who choose not to improve their own lives, and instead attack those who are. I would love to know how many people would be in their unfortunate situation if they practiced the same fundamental effort that millions of others do. Once we can identify those who are left, we can have a meaningful conversation about how to help them.

.

 

[The T]

Hey Mac, how is it that companies seem to be able to figure out what a "living wage" is when they hire executives?

But they can't figure it out for an hourly employee. They sure seem to know what they are not paying a "living wage". Isn't that why they have the HR department telling employees how to apply for government assistance? They know that don't pay enough for their employees to live on.

Don't they know what housing costs are in their market? Food, utilities, medical care. schooling etc.

How is it that these companies know that a manager in NYC has to make more than a manager in Bowling Green, Ohio.

Is corporate management so stupid today they can't figure this out for a hourly worker?

Do you know that the cost of living differs all over the country?

Your desire for an answer to your question is a little simplified isn't it.

Beside Mac, with you being a financial planner, seems like YOU should be able to answer this question.

Your wealth envy cries out, doesn't it?

 

[zeke]

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.

Why do you say conservatives are happy? What is pointed out is that how liberalism cost jobs. And as usual liberalism can't take the blame so somehow the lost of jobs is put upon conservatives. Interesting how that always works out that way.

Please tell me how hourly workers with a bigger paycheck cost jobs? Or are you one of those people that think the lower wage worker doesn't spend every single dime they earn. And that if they earned more they would spend more in the overall economy.

And that somehow, their increased consumption is going to cause a loss of jobs.

That is fucking crazy talk right there.

 

[jon_berzerk]

.

Four things I'd like to know.

1. How many people in this country are actually making the minimum wage?
2. How many of these people are actually trying to raise a family on a minimum wage?
3. Why have they put themselves in that position?
4. How, PRECISELY, do you create a "living wage" when the living expenses of employees will vary from "just needing some cash" to "I need to support a family on this"?

I'm not really against a minimum wage. I'm not really against some mechanism that would increase it annually. I'd just like to take a reasonable, educated, sober look at the actual situation and move away from the naive, simplistic emotionalism by which the "living wage" proponents are so consumed.

Can anyone answer my questions in a reasonable, civil manner, especially the last one?

.

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?

they dont have to rely on that

currently it is the law

why bother to look for better work when

the government will fill in the cracks for you

 

[zeke]

Hey Mac, how is it that companies seem to be able to figure out what a "living wage" is when they hire executives?

But they can't figure it out for an hourly employee. They sure seem to know what they are not paying a "living wage". Isn't that why they have the HR department telling employees how to apply for government assistance? They know that don't pay enough for their employees to live on.

Don't they know what housing costs are in their market? Food, utilities, medical care. schooling etc.

How is it that these companies know that a manager in NYC has to make more than a manager in Bowling Green, Ohio.

Is corporate management so stupid today they can't figure this out for a hourly worker?

Do you know that the cost of living differs all over the country?

Your desire for an answer to your question is a little simplified isn't it.

Beside Mac, with you being a financial planner, seems like YOU should be able to answer this question.[/quote]Your wealth envy cries out, doesn't it?

Is that all you got? Question to hard for your simple mind. Your lack of coherent thought has become your signature post. Don't you EVER say anything that makes sense? Even phrase a question that makes sense. Nah, I know you don't.

 

[Mac1958]

Hey Mac, how is it that companies seem to be able to figure out what a "living wage" is when they hire executives?

But they can't figure it out for an hourly employee. They sure seem to know what they are not paying a "living wage". Isn't that why they have the HR department telling employees how to apply for government assistance? They know that don't pay enough for their employees to live on.

Don't they know what housing costs are in their market? Food, utilities, medical care. schooling etc.

How is it that these companies know that a manager in NYC has to make more than a manager in Bowling Green, Ohio.

Is corporate management so stupid today they can't figure this out for a hourly worker?

Do you know that the cost of living differs all over the country?

Your desire for an answer to your question is a little simplified isn't it.

Beside Mac, with you being a financial planner, seems like YOU should be able to answer this question.

Easiest question I'll get all day.

I'll keep this as simple as I can for you.

First, corporations don't base their executive pay on a "living wage". What a strange thought.

Second, the law of Supply & Demand (let me help here: Law Of Supply And Demand Definition | Investopedia) applies to employees just as it applies to products and services. A company is going to pay what it feels it must to attract and retain the people it wants to attract and retain.

To your point, this will include everything from experience to geography.

If they feel they have to pay $9.00 an hour to attract and retain the french fry people they want to attract and retain, they will do so and include that figure in their fixed costs (here, let me help: Fixed Cost Definition | Investopedia).

If they feel they have to pay $5 million a year to attract and retain some executive, that is what they will pay.

In both cases, they don't want to pay more than they have to -- the reason for this is as I described above, the purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value.

I hope that all makes sense. Feel free to ask for clarification.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Why do you say conservatives are happy? What is pointed out is that how liberalism cost jobs. And as usual liberalism can't take the blame so somehow the lost of jobs is put upon conservatives. Interesting how that always works out that way.

MacDonald's is doing this NOW. To eliminate jobs that are paying the current minimum wage in all likelihood.

This not being done now to eliminate some mythical $15/hour job.

If you're claiming this is the fault of liberals that MacDonald's is trying to eliminate an $8 hour job,

you must believe that it's the liberals' fault that there is any minimum wage at all.

 

[The T]

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.

Why do you say conservatives are happy? What is pointed out is that how liberalism cost jobs. And as usual liberalism can't take the blame so somehow the lost of jobs is put upon conservatives. Interesting how that always works out that way.

Please tell me how hourly workers with a bigger paycheck cost jobs? Or are you one of those people that think the lower wage worker doesn't spend every single dime they earn. And that if they earned more they would spend more in the overall economy.

And that somehow, their increased consumption is going to cause a loss of jobs.

That is fucking crazy talk right there.

How are they supposed to stay in business, maintain profit margin AND employees without raising prices that will drive their customer base away?

Something's gonna give, and it usually means letting people go, or cutting hours to stay afloat.

Son? Companies don't exist just to give people jobs.

Learn it, Live it, KNOW IT.

 

[Jroc]

Detroit Police officers start out at $14 per hour. McDonalds employees should make more?

No, that just proves that Detroit Cops are grossly underpaid for what they are asked to do.

agreement!! that's a first

 

[rdean]

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.

I thought democrats were all about science and technology and were always calling republicans anti science and anti education

I thought that too. It's true. I bet if you go to the deep south, the majority of those working at McDonald's and for minimum wage are Republicans. Especially in the rural areas.

Republicans think science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy. The Texas Republican Party Platform wants to ban the teaching of critical thinking skills because they want kids to listen and believe whatever their parents say. And they actually use the phrase "critical thinking".

 

[The T]

Detroit Police officers start out at $14 per hour. McDonalds employees should make more?

No, that just proves that Detroit Cops are grossly underpaid for what they are asked to do.

agreement!! that's a first

Yeah, I saw that one as well. But kinda hard to have a good police force when politicians and Unions have driven Detroit into bankruptcy, isn't it?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Hey Mac, how is it that companies seem to be able to figure out what a "living wage" is when they hire executives?

But they can't figure it out for an hourly employee. They sure seem to know what they are not paying a "living wage". Isn't that why they have the HR department telling employees how to apply for government assistance? They know that don't pay enough for their employees to live on.

Don't they know what housing costs are in their market? Food, utilities, medical care. schooling etc.

How is it that these companies know that a manager in NYC has to make more than a manager in Bowling Green, Ohio.

Is corporate management so stupid today they can't figure this out for a hourly worker?

Do you know that the cost of living differs all over the country?

Your desire for an answer to your question is a little simplified isn't it.

Beside Mac, with you being a financial planner, seems like YOU should be able to answer this question.

Exactly why are companies obligated to pay a "living wage" instead of offering what they want to pay for a position, and letting the potential employee decide if they want to work at that rate or not?

Be specific.

 

[Jroc]

this guy is a whack job

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8Hu2bbwHWc]Rep. Ellison calls for Obama Exec Order to Raise Minimum Wage - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mac1958]

Hey Mac, how is it that companies seem to be able to figure out what a "living wage" is when they hire executives?

But they can't figure it out for an hourly employee. They sure seem to know what they are not paying a "living wage". Isn't that why they have the HR department telling employees how to apply for government assistance? They know that don't pay enough for their employees to live on.

Don't they know what housing costs are in their market? Food, utilities, medical care. schooling etc.

How is it that these companies know that a manager in NYC has to make more than a manager in Bowling Green, Ohio.

Is corporate management so stupid today they can't figure this out for a hourly worker?

Do you know that the cost of living differs all over the country?

Your desire for an answer to your question is a little simplified isn't it.

Beside Mac, with you being a financial planner, seems like YOU should be able to answer this question.

Exactly why are companies obligated to pay a "living wage" instead of offering what they want to pay for a position, and letting the potential employee decide if they want to work at that rate or not?

Be specific.

Zeke generally avoids answering tough questions. He'd much rather play games. If you can figure out a way to get him to do so, please let me know, thanks.

.

 

[The T]

this guy is a whack job

Rep. Ellison calls for Obama Exec Order to Raise Minimum Wage - YouTube

Indeed. Circumvent the Constitution all the way for these lawless creeps.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny how conservatives have always said, when higher paying factory jobs were being eliminated,

that it was the fault of liberals, through unions, being too greedy.

Here, when MacDonald's is trying to eliminate MINIMUM WAGE jobs, it is still, according to conservatives,

the fault of liberals!!!!

I'm just curious, cons, when the 50 cents an hour job makes it to America again, THEN will you be happy?

Then will you possibly take the side of the worker, when the corporations try to push that wage down to a quarter?

I doubt it.

 

[Synthaholic]

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..

You're such an idiot.

 

[tap4154]

.

Four things I'd like to know.

1. How many people in this country are actually making the minimum wage?
2. How many of these people are actually trying to raise a family on a minimum wage?
3. Why have they put themselves in that position?
4. How, PRECISELY, do you create a "living wage" when the living expenses of employees will vary from "just needing some cash" to "I need to support a family on this"?

I'm not really against a minimum wage. I'm not really against some mechanism that would increase it annually. I'd just like to take a reasonable, educated, sober look at the actual situation and move away from the naive, simplistic emotionalism by which the "living wage" proponents are so consumed.

Can anyone answer my questions in a reasonable, civil manner, especially the last one?

.

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?

Good luck on getting a response to that very legitimate question.

Or better yet, let me answer from what I have learned right here; if that low wage worker doesn't like his job and the fact that he/she needs food stamps to eat, let the lazy motherfuckers get a better job.

That about sum it up Mac?

How'd I do Mac? I could be a rethug if I wanted to practice being an asshole.

Taking McD's kid meal orders or flipping burgers isn't a "head of household" job. It's an entry-level job, or extra income job for a multi-income household. If you're trying to be the "breadwinner" making Big Macs you're an idiot, or you'd better have another entry-level job or two.

The franchise owner doesn't OWE you a living wage for menial work. He/she has a very thin margin, invested a lot of cash to get the franchise, and only owes you what you're worth at the time. Best thing for you is to do your job well, learn work ethic, then move on to a real job, like most folks do. Not to remain a burger flipper or order-taker for 20 years whining for double your worth.

 

[zeke]

Hey Mac, how is it that companies seem to be able to figure out what a "living wage" is when they hire executives?

But they can't figure it out for an hourly employee. They sure seem to know what they are not paying a "living wage". Isn't that why they have the HR department telling employees how to apply for government assistance? They know that don't pay enough for their employees to live on.

Don't they know what housing costs are in their market? Food, utilities, medical care. schooling etc.

How is it that these companies know that a manager in NYC has to make more than a manager in Bowling Green, Ohio.

Is corporate management so stupid today they can't figure this out for a hourly worker?

Do you know that the cost of living differs all over the country?

Your desire for an answer to your question is a little simplified isn't it.

Beside Mac, with you being a financial planner, seems like YOU should be able to answer this question.

Easiest question I'll get all day.

I'll keep this as simple as I can for you.

First, corporations don't base their executive pay on a "living wage". What a strange thought.

Second, the law of Supply & Demand (let me help here: Law Of Supply And Demand Definition | Investopedia) applies to employees just as it applies to products and services. A company is going to pay what it feels it must to attract and retain the people it wants to attract and retain.

To your point, this will include everything from experience to geography.

If they feel they have to pay $9.00 an hour to attract and retain the french fry people they want to attract and retain, they will do so and include that figure in their fixed costs (here, let me help: Fixed Cost Definition | Investopedia).

If they feel they have to pay $5 million a year to attract and retain some executive, that is what they will pay.

In both cases, they don't want to pay more than they have to -- the reason for this is as I described above, the purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value.

I that all makes sense. Feel free to ask for clarification.

.

You are trying to tell me that when a major corporation is hiring a middle level manager, that the salary they offer is not based, to a degree, on the cost of living for the area the manager would have to live and work in.

Like you said Mac, they don't want to pay more than they have to. Why pay big bucks in a low cost of living area?



Hiring a CEO would be different. When the major corp hires a CEO and plans to pay them 5 million a year, the corporation is smart enough to know that ANYONE could afford to live on 5 million a year. Cost of living be damned.

But come on Mac, what is a living wage where you live? What wage allows a person to afford a home, pay for their living expenses and maybe even put a little savings away.

Or is the American Dream just for the more affluent these days?

 

[Vox]

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.

Why do you say conservatives are happy? What is pointed out is that how liberalism cost jobs. And as usual liberalism can't take the blame so somehow the lost of jobs is put upon conservatives. Interesting how that always works out that way.

Please tell me how hourly workers with a bigger paycheck cost jobs? Or are you one of those people that think the lower wage worker doesn't spend every single dime they earn. And that if they earned more they would spend more in the overall economy.

And that somehow, their increased consumption is going to cause a loss of jobs.

That is fucking crazy talk right there.

you are obtuse, aren't you? The OP is exactly showing HOW