• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ok, now let's see what happens to fast food restaurants in Commiefornia

it really is not that complicated. Say a 40 hour employee making $10 per hour cost a store $31,200 a year.
That same employee, at $20 per hour would cost ~$52,000 a year, a delta of $20,000.
Let's say that person and one other can be replaced with a robot(automation device) but it costs $40,000 and $4,000 a year for maintaining the machine. With the employee costs going up, the robot looks a lot more finically viable.
So what?
Easy calculations, although you should have added higher wages for overtime over 40hrs, paid holidays, and vacation time
Is also very doubtful that robots costs for production in a restaurant will cost only $40,000
Still, robots are obviously not cost effective, as the fast food industry has made no rush to purchase them, and have indicated to plans to do so
 
Small business in CA is already DOA thanks to laws that let people walk in and steal "if they need it."
Theft has been problematic in Cali, not in restaurants m, but dry goods stores
And the targets have been larger publicly owned businesses, not small businesses, that carry more expensive merchandise
 
So what?
Easy calculations, although you should have added higher wages for overtime over 40hrs, paid holidays, and vacation time
Is also very doubtful that robots costs for production in a restaurant will cost only $40,000
Still, robots are obviously not cost effective, as the fast food industry has made no rush to purchase them, and have indicated to plans to do so
Generally 1.5 times the base pay covers all the benefits, but to be fair it has been a few years since I worried about such things.
The thing that stuck with me is that an employee on overtime cost about the same per hour as regular time,
the only real difference is that they are taking the extra money home.
In fast food think about the things that have gone away, I think the fryers are basically
I will stand on my principles and shop where I can interact with humans instead of a machine.
until you no longer have a choice!
 
Generally 1.5 times the base pay covers all the benefits, but to be fair it has been a few years since I worried about such things.
The thing that stuck with me is that an employee on overtime cost about the same per hour as regular time,
the only real difference is that they are taking the extra money home.
In fast food think about the things that have gone away, I think the fryers are basically

until you no longer have a choice!
I agree with using 1.5 for pay and benefits
Overtime is usually 1.5 base rate, equaling +50%
The ‘extra money’ they receive is from the employer - take home is less due to withholding
 
Generally 1.5 times the base pay covers all the benefits, but to be fair it has been a few years since I worried about such things.
The thing that stuck with me is that an employee on overtime cost about the same per hour as regular time,
the only real difference is that they are taking the extra money home.
In fast food think about the things that have gone away, I think the fryers are basically

until you no longer have a choice!
I doubt that day will ever come. At my age I need food, which I can get at an independent grocer (mom and pop) who haven't the resources or the desire
to go robot. I go to my local big box store for hardware which again, I could get from a mom and pop hardware. We could go back and forth over this subject for days, but I will refuse to shop at stores where self checkout, or kiosks are my only option. Example- when I lived in Phoenix I walked out of Home Depot, leaving a cart full of supplies when the manager told me I had to use self checkout because he didn't have a cashier on duty. I went a few blocks to Lowes, got everything I needed and payed for my purchase at a cashier lane.
 
I doubt that day will ever come. At my age I need food, which I can get at an independent grocer (mom and pop) who haven't the resources or the desire
to go robot. I go to my local big box store for hardware which again, I could get from a mom and pop hardware. We could go back and forth over this subject for days, but I will refuse to shop at stores where self checkout, or kiosks are my only option. Example- when I lived in Phoenix I walked out of Home Depot, leaving a cart full of supplies when the manager told me I had to use self checkout because he didn't have a cashier on duty. I went a few blocks to Lowes, got everything I needed and payed for my purchase at a cashier lane.
I hope you have that option for a long time!
 
If the increase the cost of labor, they make robots look at lot more attractive.

That's probably where this is going to end up: more automation, as the worker is now less productive in purely economic terms. I think that was inevitable anyway, but these kinds of well-intended but questionable policies only add to the incentive. For the record, I'm not really taking a position on the legislation as I don't know much about it, but the last few years of full employment have really pushed businesses to double down on automation. Short term, sure, labor has the edge, but it won't forever.

I'd rather government start preparing for that moment when automation becomes so powerful and ubiquitous that it threatens the low- to mid-wage working class. We'll need to have some policies in place to deal with that, be it rent control targets, education/training assistance, or whatever. But the definition of labor and laborer will change in the fairly near future.
 
That's probably where this is going to end up: more automation, as the worker is now less productive in purely economic terms. I think that was inevitable anyway, but these kinds of well-intended but questionable policies only add to the incentive. For the record, I'm not really taking a position on the legislation as I don't know much about it, but the last few years of full employment have really pushed businesses to double down on automation. Short term, sure, labor has the edge, but it won't forever.

I'd rather government start preparing for that moment when automation becomes so powerful and ubiquitous that it threatens the low- to mid-wage working class. We'll need to have some policies in place to deal with that, be it rent control targets, education/training assistance, or whatever. But the definition of labor and laborer will change in the fairly near future.
Strangely, I think there may still be a demand for wait staff, as people like that at restaurants.
 
Companies should be required to pay their employees enough that they do not qualify for welfare.

Any company whose full time employees are so poor that they qualify for tax payers funded assistance should be fined to recoup the cost to the taxpayers of subsidizing a private company's proffits.
What happens is when wages get inflated by politicians who have never signed the front side of a paycheck workers request fewer hours so their benefits don't get cut.
 
You can make a pretty good burger at home for a buck.
 
What happens is when wages get inflated by politicians who have never signed the front side of a paycheck workers request fewer hours so their benefits don't get cut.

Nah.

What happens is that large profitable companies Bilk the taxpayers by having the taxpayers subsidize their labor force.

They need to either pay their workers a living wage upfront or be fined to recoup every penny the taxpayers spend subsidizing them. Plus penalties.
 
Companies should be required to pay their employees enough that they do not qualify for welfare.

Any company whose full time employees are so poor that they qualify for tax payers funded assistance should be fined to recoup the cost to the taxpayers of subsidizing a private company's proffits.

Why? Why should private companies be responsible for ensuring that people don't qualify for welfare?

If people don't want to work for sub-welfare wages, they should get better jobs.
 
Why? Why should private companies be responsible for ensuring that people don't qualify for welfare?

Tax payers should not be subsidizing the profits of private companies by subsidizing their labor force.

Any company who fails to cover the costs of their own workforce should be fined so that taxpayers can recoup every penny they spend.
If people don't want to work for sub-welfare wages, they should get better jobs.
That arguement is nonsensical.

So, fast food and retail workers should all just get better jobs?

Like what?

And if that happened would fast food and Walmart and such just close down for lack of labor?

Where are you going to buy your stuff?
 
Tax payers should not be subsidizing the profits of private companies by subsidizing their labor force.

Any company who fails to cover the costs of their own workforce should be fined so that taxpayers can recoup every penny they spend.

Nonsense. Taxpayers aren't subsidizing private companies. They're subsidizing the lifestyles of unskilled workers who are living beyond their means.

That arguement is nonsensical.

So, fast food and retail workers should all just get better jobs?

Like what?

Like landscaping, tile setting, auto repair, house cleaning, nursing, etc. I can't find anyone to take care of my yard for less than $40/hour.

All those jobs pay a lot more than fast food jobs, and they are not hard to get into.

And if that happened would fast food and Walmart and such just close down for lack of labor?

No, they'd employ teenagers, like it was meant to be. Or they'd have have to pay more, because the market would demand it.

Where are you going to buy your stuff?

Amazon.
 
Nonsense. Taxpayers aren't subsidizing private companies.
Of course they are.
They're subsidizing the lifestyles of unskilled workers who are living beyond their means.
Lifestyles?

What the hell are you talking about?
Like landscaping, tile setting, auto repair, house cleaning, nursing, etc. I can't find anyone to take care of my yard for less than $40/hour.
Our economy requires way more retail and food service employees than the ones you mention.

the numbers dont add up. Think it through.
No, they'd employ teenagers, like it was meant to be.
Lol. An admission that you don't understand the economics here.

Get back to me when you know what you are talking about.

 
Tax payers should not be subsidizing the profits of private companies by subsidizing their labor force.

Any company who fails to cover the costs of their own workforce should be fined so that taxpayers can recoup every penny they spend.

That arguement is nonsensical.

So, fast food and retail workers should all just get better jobs?

Like what?

And if that happened would fast food and Walmart and such just close down for lack of labor?

Where are you going to buy your stuff?

Why would there be a lack of workers? There are always people graduating HS that need entry-level jobs and skills. Seniors and moms returning to the workforce or want to work part-time. People with mental/physical challenges that require less skilled work, etc.

People need to take these jobs, learn from them, and move on/up. Leaving their spots for others.

And if you're going to 'sit' in an unskilled service or labor position for years...and not develop anything from it and keep doing the same thing...why should you be paid more to do it over time?
 
Why would there be a lack of workers? There are always people graduating HS that need entry-level jobs and skills. Seniors and moms returning to the workforce or want to work part-time. People with mental/physical challenges that require less skilled work, etc.

People need to take these jobs, learn from them, and move on/up. Leaving their spots for others.

And if you're going to 'sit' in an unskilled service or labor position for years...and not develop anything from it and keep doing the same thing...why should you be paid more to do it over time?
There are way more workers in retail and food service than there are teenagers looking for work.

There are far more service and retail jobs than there are jobs for those employees to move into.

Why do you suppose so many adults work in retail and food service?

It is a fact that they do.

It is good advice to an individual to not get stuck there but that doesn't change the reality of our economy.

Seems to be a disconnect between "what should be" and what actual is.

We need to adress the reality
 
There are way more workers in retail and food service than there are teenagers looking for work.

I didnt say anything about teens altho coming out of HS you are, you're an adult but a teen. 🤷 I also mentioned other demographics.

There are far more service and retail jobs than there are jobs for those employees to move into.

PLease source your claims.

Why do you suppose so many adults work in retail and food service?

I have no idea. It baffles me and the speculation I have is not particularly flattering to those that stay in those entry-level and/or unskilled roles.

It is a fact that they do.

Fact? Explain.

It is good advice to an individual to not get stuck there but that doesn't change the reality of our economy.


What reality? That people have other support networks, like living at home, public assistance, unemployment programs, etc that enable them to get by without taking those jobs?
 
I didnt say anything about teens altho coming out of HS you are, you're an adult but a teen. 🤷 I also mentioned other demographics.



PLease source your claims.



I have no idea. It baffles me and the speculation I have is not particularly flattering to those that stay in those entry-level and/or unskilled roles.



Fact? Explain.




What reality? That people have other support networks, like living at home, public assistance, unemployment programs, etc that enable them to get by without taking those jobs?
Sorry. Something came up so I don't have much time but this addresses several of my points.

 
Sorry. Something came up so I don't have much time but this addresses several of my points.


When you have time, please articulate the argument or claims you want to support with it. It wasnt anything I hadnt read before.
 
Back
Top Bottom