The destruction of the $15 an hour burger Flipper has arrived.

[Renae]

CEO wages are disproportionate. That is a problem.

Why? Seriously.

 

[eohrnberger]

Because some of the displaced burger flippers will turn to crime. Others will end up on street corners and others homeless.
At the present time, the population of Earth is on the rise...not decline.
Many of those humans will need some way to earn a living.

Fewer jobs for humans means more humans with no means to support and feed themselves.
And that leads to social unrest.

So the conclusion here is that it's better to have no job at all rather than a minimal wage job for which minimal skills and knowledge are traded?

What of the young kids who need that first job in their beginning job careers, perhaps after school or on the weekends? Where are they going to get their start to their work careers? Not fast food anymore.

Yes, this demand for $15 / hr for no skills and little training is sure having more damage than it's proponents ever thought.

Odd though, others clearly saw this damage coming at the very onset, and warned against exactly this reaction from the fast food industry, the automation replacing the human workforce, and idling that human workforce.

I guess those human workers that will now be redundant will be comforted in the knowledge that their idling was self-inflicted.

 

[Helix]

But you know what? Some of us, probably you as well, prefer locally owned restaurants. Chain restaurants are crap. There's nothing better for breakfast than a local squat and gobble where real cooks cook real food that caters to local tastes.

Lunch is often the same preference. Give me locally owned food vendors with family and extended family working hard to provide good food to their neighbors and friends who have been customers for years.

Screw chain restaurants and screw a bunch of robots. Gimme real food and real restaurants.

Tech world can push all that crap to us all day but in the end I believe patrons are already going back to real food in real restaurants served by real people. The robot food in robot chain restaurants will be a flash in the pan. Pun intended.

i prefer independent local restaurants. the GF and i ate at one tonight, and it was awesome. however, i do still dig McDonalds, and i expect it will be automated as soon as it's economically feasible.

as for minimum wage, i support having one, and i also support tying it to inflation. at this point, it's not going to be fifteen bucks an hour, though. we'd be better off guaranteeing debt free access to college / post secondary job training as we do with high school. we could make completion of the degree a condition. that would do more to help the kiddos than a high minimum wage, IMO.

 

[eohrnberger]

That's a reason why we should provide more social support, not less.

Why should we provide even less social support because poor people have even more working against them ? How does that approach make any sense ?

Sure more social support. Who's going to pay for it?

I mean now that those that were gainfully employed at a fair market rate for what the workforce was contributing are out of work? Which magic money tree are you going to shake down next?

Wouldn't it have been better to have not demanded a pay rate more than what minimal contribution worth?

The truth is, and will ever be the case, that some jobs are going to be worth more than other jobs, and that the job market determines the compensation for all jobs.

So which magic money tree are you going to shake down next?

 

[eohrnberger]

CEO wages are disproportionate. That is a problem.

Based on what? You opinion? Or based on the real world marketplace which determines these compensation packages?

And even if it's true, that CEO wages are disproportionate (a point I've not yet conceded). How do you plan to address this transgression against your ideology?

Would you support the heavy hand of government to take from some and give to others? To determine winners and losers? And even if this is possible, would not the market circumvent this heavy hand of government and find away around it?

Historically that's exactly what has already occurred. Recall back in WW II where FDR's government instituted wage freezes, what did the companies do to compete for workers when they couldn't offer higher wages for the workers they competed for, and what was born? Company provided healthcare, pensions, education, and other benefits. The market circumvented the government imposed wage freezes.

What makes you think that essentially CEO wage freezes are going to be any more effective?

 

[eohrnberger]

i prefer independent local restaurants. the GF and i ate at one tonight, and it was awesome. however, i do still dig McDonalds, and i expect it will be automated as soon as it's economically feasible.

as for minimum wage, i support having one, and i also support tying it to inflation. at this point, it's not going to be fifteen bucks an hour, though. we'd be better off guaranteeing debt free access to college / post secondary job training as we do with high school. we could make completion of the degree a condition. that would do more to help the kiddos than a high minimum wage, IMO.

Tying minimum wage increases to inflation seems to be reasonable and seems it would be something to further explore.

 

[TheGoverness]

Tying minimum wage increases to inflation seems to be reasonable and seems it would be something to further explore.

Agreed.

 

[Absentglare]

Could you support that remark with some data? And...who gets to write the definition of the word "disproportionate?" Does that responsibility fall on your shoulders?

Why? Seriously.

The goal of capitalisms invisible hand is to make society better. The rich landowner, by the free market, uses his assets for the good of society, because money represents society's interests.

With severe inequality comes slower growth. If the poor are priced out of the articles of production, then less is produced.

"Widespread increases in income inequality have raised concerns about their potential impact on our societies and economies. New OECD research shows that when income inequality rises, economic growth falls. One reason is that poorer members of society are less able to invest in their education."

https://www.oecd.org/social/Focus-Inequality-and-Growth-2014.pdf

 

[Absentglare]

Sure more social support. Who's going to pay for it?

I mean now that those that were gainfully employed at a fair market rate for what the workforce was contributing are out of work? Which magic money tree are you going to shake down next?

Wouldn't it have been better to have not demanded a pay rate more than what minimal contribution worth?

The truth is, and will ever be the case, that some jobs are going to be worth more than other jobs, and that the job market determines the compensation for all jobs.

So which magic money tree are you going to shake down next?

Magic money tree ?

Minimal contribution ?

Do you have any points that aren't hysterical and rhetorical ?

I get it, you want to close your eyes to identified market failures because you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of their existence.

Based on what? You opinion? Or based on the real world marketplace which determines these compensation packages?

And even if it's true, that CEO wages are disproportionate (a point I've not yet conceded). How do you plan to address this transgression against your ideology?

Would you support the heavy hand of government to take from some and give to others? To determine winners and losers? And even if this is possible, would not the market circumvent this heavy hand of government and find away around it?

Historically that's exactly what has already occurred. Recall back in WW II where FDR's government instituted wage freezes, what did the companies do to compete for workers when they couldn't offer higher wages for the workers they competed for, and what was born? Company provided healthcare, pensions, education, and other benefits. The market circumvented the government imposed wage freezes.

What makes you think that essentially CEO wage freezes are going to be any more effective?

Is that all you can imagine- that it completely reduces to my sole opinion ?

Look at how much CEOs used to make, 40x the average worker. CEOs today have the same basic job and make 10 times that. Why do they make 10 times more for, essentially, the same work ?

Why is CEO pay uncorrelated to stock performance ?

These are market failures. This is not simply a matter of my opinion, Adam Smith knew that markets could be manipulated- that the market only works well in a just system.

Heavy hand of government ? What about the heavy hand of Walmart, Microsoft, Google, Comcast- what about those heavy hands ?

I think the only thing stopping some people from acknowledging the problem, itself, is a lack of the ability to imagine a better system.

 

[Quazimodo]

The goal of capitalisms invisible hand is to make society better. The rich landowner, by the free market, uses his assets for the good of society, because money represents society's interests.

With severe inequality comes slower growth. If the poor are priced out of the articles of production, then less is produced.

"Widespread increases in income inequality have raised concerns about their potential impact on our societies and economies. New OECD research shows that when income inequality rises, economic growth falls. One reason is that poorer members of society are less able to invest in their education."

https://www.oecd.org/social/Focus-Inequality-and-Growth-2014.pdf

With all due respect, your reply misses my request. It also sounds vaguely like the Communist Worker's Party Manifesto. On the last point regarding education, EDUCATION is free, up to and including the food in the cafeteria. Liberalism promotes victimhood because victims, particularly very young victims, are easily taught to be dependent on government. Liberalism wants to grow government so it can care for the victims. Thus, a merry-go-round of dependency grows a class of dependent people. Capitalism teaches that even the least of society can succeed and break the bonds of dependency. Not all CEOs were born with a silver spoon in their mouths. They were kids who were taught that they could achieve, and achieve they did. Often, a CEO of a large company is responsible for thousands and thousands of employees, and billions of dollars of product.

In my humble opinion, people should strive to be a CEO. Of course, they could always strive to be tattooed, cracked out welfare losers that kill babies down at the Abortion Clinic, but that's just not the way I would want to live. But, like everything else in life, "you pay your nickel, you takes your chances." All decisions have consequences.

 

[eohrnberger]

Magic money tree ?

Well, where do you figure to get the money to pay to support everyone that is only qualified for a minimum wage job?

Minimal contribution ?

Minimal wage jobs are by definitions minimal contribution. Yes.

Do you have any points that aren't hysterical and rhetorical ?

These points are hysterical and rhetorical only in your view.
hysterical and rhetorical I get it, you want to close your eyes to identified market failures because you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of their existence.[/quote]

I see no market failures. What I see is envy that some do better while some do not, when it's really all up to the individual (as it should be), the value the market places on their contributions (also as it should be).

Is that all you can imagine- that it completely reduces to my sole opinion ?

What solutions do you propose to address these imagined transgressions of yours?

Look at how much CEOs used to make, 40x the average worker. CEOs today have the same basic job and make 10 times that. Why do they make 10 times more for, essentially, the same work ?

Why is CEO pay uncorrelated to stock performance ?

These are market failures. This is not simply a matter of my opinion, Adam Smith knew that markets could be manipulated- that the market only works well in a just system.

So the solution even greater manipulation of the market by some force that would set it all 'right' according to your ideology?

Heavy hand of government ? What about the heavy hand of Walmart, Microsoft, Google, Comcast- what about those heavy hands ?

I think the only thing stopping some people from acknowledging the problem, itself, is a lack of the ability to imagine a better system.

A better system?

To date, the capitalist system has the best track record for allocation resources to the best market advantage, the best exchanges, where as centrally managed economic systems have all fallen to utter failure, witness any number of socialistic systems that have fallen, such as Venezuela most recently, and communist Russia previously. Non-capitalistic systems have a well established track record of failure. Is this the failure that you wish the US to follow?

 

[Deuce]

It's a NEW MONTH! Your one reply, if you make it worth my time I'll extend it, but only for a short time.

Yes, it's obvious the person I was responding to sees the gains of investors and CEO's as bad. If ONLY some force could make that pay filter down to the "workers!" There are two forces that could cause that. One is a business decision by the shareholders and investors to reduce their own ROI and filter it to the workers. The other is Government regulation.

Now as there aren't a whole lot of "High paying line workers, low CEO and investor" pay companies out there...

This sort of economic view of the world is one that starts with "I'm a victim being exploited" Generally a very progressive POV as most Conservative's start life from a "How can I better myself" POV

I think you're reading more into that person's post than is warranted. They objected to "preferential capital gains tax treatment" and you responded with "lol communist."

You talk about POV while dramatically misrepresenting someone's POV.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Those minimum-wage workers brought this on themselves (except the under-21 crowd) by demanding more money than they're worth.

It's not hard to find a better paying job. Just have to meet a few requirements:

1) Stay out of trouble (meaning gangs, drugs, crime, etc.)
2) Stay in school and get at least a high-school diploma.
3) Keep your legs closed until #2 is finished, and/or you've actually gotten a decent job.

Yes there are exceptions, but if you're an adult over 25 and you're still in fast-food, chances are that you're there because of poor life choices. Responsibility called...it's for you.

 

[Renae]

I think you're reading more into that person's post than is warranted. They objected to "preferential capital gains tax treatment" and you responded with "lol communist."

You talk about POV while dramatically misrepresenting someone's POV.

He said NOTHING about capital gains taxes and everything about income inequality. Also, I didn't' say "lol Communist", it doesn't take communism to force companies to pay as those in political see fit, just bad government.

 

[Deuce]

He said NOTHING about capital gains taxes and everything about income inequality.

I don't think the minimum wage is a ludicrous economic demand. If anything is a ludicrous economic demand, it's CEO pay and preferential capital gains tax treatment.

Also, I didn't' say "lol Communist", it doesn't take communism to force companies to pay as those in political see fit, just bad government.

But you did say

People who think profit is bad and government should make everything equal tend to not get real world economics.

Which most would suggest is a vaguely communist proposition.

You also mentioned "profit is bad" which the poster in question did not suggest.

When someone suggests that the gap between CEO pay and line worker pay is excessive, you shouldn't translate as them suggesting there shouldn't be a gap. It's also not an attack on the concept of profit, or capitalism, or any other fundamental part of our economic model.

Question, because I don't recall asking you about this specifically: Are you categorically against the existence of a minimum wage?

 

[Renae]

But you did say


Which most would suggest is a vaguely communist proposition.

You also mentioned "profit is bad" which the poster in question did not suggest.

When someone suggests that the gap between CEO pay and line worker pay is excessive, you shouldn't translate as them suggesting there shouldn't be a gap. It's also not an attack on the concept of profit, or capitalism, or any other fundamental part of our economic model.

Question, because I don't recall asking you about this specifically: Are you categorically against the existence of a minimum wage?

My mistake, he did in fact bring up that red herring, sorry I actually gave him more credit than he deserved. CGT and ways to reduce them are good in my eyes.

You could read that as "communist" you could aslo read it as over bearing government.

No the poster did, profit is bad, that's why CEO's make too much and they don't share it with the Government. CGTB...

Yes, I should, becuase that is the implied SJ message.

I would prefer the markets set the min wage,

 

[Moderate Right]

Do you really think that not passing $15/hr wages would somehow have prevented this? Automation is coming, and once in place is cheaper than paying freaking starvation wages.

This is liberals head in the sand go to line. Every time one of their ideas backfires and makes things worse the go to line is always, "well, it was going to happen anyway".

 

[Moderate Right]

CEO wages are disproportionate. That is a problem.

If people are so upset with CEO's wages then why don't they just boycott whatever company it is? There is plenty of competition in just about all industries where you can buy products from the little guy and stiff the ones who pay CEO's outrageously high wages?

 

[Moderate Right]

Sure more social support. Who's going to pay for it?

I mean now that those that were gainfully employed at a fair market rate for what the workforce was contributing are out of work? Which magic money tree are you going to shake down next?

Wouldn't it have been better to have not demanded a pay rate more than what minimal contribution worth?

The truth is, and will ever be the case, that some jobs are going to be worth more than other jobs, and that the job market determines the compensation for all jobs.

So which magic money tree are you going to shake down next?

They want millionaires to pay even more in taxes. Haven't you been paying attention?

 

[Moderate Right]

Tying minimum wage increases to inflation seems to be reasonable and seems it would be something to further explore.

Except for the fact that wage increases would be part of the cause of more inflation in the first place.

 

[eohrnberger]

They want millionaires to pay even more in taxes. Haven't you been paying attention?

Of course.

Except for the fact that wage increases would be part of the cause of more inflation in the first place.

That's true, and one could easily see a runaway feedback loop (financial bubble) forming from this.

 

[Absentglare]

With all due respect, your reply misses my request. It also sounds vaguely like the Communist Worker's Party Manifesto. On the last point regarding education, EDUCATION is free, up to and including the food in the cafeteria. Liberalism promotes victimhood because victims, particularly very young victims, are easily taught to be dependent on government. Liberalism wants to grow government so it can care for the victims. Thus, a merry-go-round of dependency grows a class of dependent people. Capitalism teaches that even the least of society can succeed and break the bonds of dependency. Not all CEOs were born with a silver spoon in their mouths. They were kids who were taught that they could achieve, and achieve they did. Often, a CEO of a large company is responsible for thousands and thousands of employees, and billions of dollars of product.

In my humble opinion, people should strive to be a CEO. Of course, they could always strive to be tattooed, cracked out welfare losers that kill babies down at the Abortion Clinic, but that's just not the way I would want to live. But, like everything else in life, "you pay your nickel, you takes your chances." All decisions have consequences.

This is just incoherent, rhetorical rambling.

A college degree costs a considerable amount of money, so that's completely wrong.

Rambling about anti-liberal prejudice is boring.

The CEO is responsible to the shareholders and the shareholders are not holding them accountable for their salaries. As a grunt, the company does a great job trying to keep my salary low, but the CEO meets no such resistance. They are paid ludicrous amounts of money to basically drive companies into the ground on a routine basis.

How do i know they're paid too much ? Because they got a 10x pay raise for no reason while the rest of us have had flat wages :

Meanwhile, CEO pay is uncorrelated to CEO performance :

 

[Absentglare]

Well, where do you figure to get the money to pay to support everyone that is only qualified for a minimum wage job?
Minimal wage jobs are by definitions minimal contribution. Yes.


These points are hysterical and rhetorical only in your view.
hysterical and rhetorical I get it, you want to close your eyes to identified market failures because you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of their existence.

I see no market failures. What I see is envy that some do better while some do not, when it's really all up to the individual (as it should be), the value the market places on their contributions (also as it should be).



What solutions do you propose to address these imagined transgressions of yours?



So the solution even greater manipulation of the market by some force that would set it all 'right' according to your ideology?



A better system?

To date, the capitalist system has the best track record for allocation resources to the best market advantage, the best exchanges, where as centrally managed economic systems have all fallen to utter failure, witness any number of socialistic systems that have fallen, such as Venezuela most recently, and communist Russia previously. Non-capitalistic systems have a well established track record of failure. Is this the failure that you wish the US to follow?

Where are we going to get the money to ensure that Americans get a living wage ?

Are you telling me that it costs too much money to ... Basically only provide food and housing ... At our level of technological development in the wealthiest nation in the world ?

We can't afford to find a place for everybody in society ? What you're basically claiming is that we cannot raise the minimum wage OR raise taxes on the rich OR deficit spend. You are laughably wrong on all three points. We could do all of these things, if we had the political will to stop funneling such a huge lion's share of our resources to so few that some of us starve to death.

 

[Absentglare]

My mistake, he did in fact bring up that red herring, sorry I actually gave him more credit than he deserved. CGT and ways to reduce them are good in my eyes.

You could read that as "communist" you could aslo read it as over bearing government.

No the poster did, profit is bad, that's why CEO's make too much and they don't share it with the Government. CGTB...

Yes, I should, becuase that is the implied SJ message.

I would prefer the markets set the min wage,

That's because you are woefully ignorant of economics. The CGT is not a red herring, it is directly related to inequality. Things like CGT are why Romney, who makes two orders of magnitude more income than i do, pays a lower tax rate than i do. That kind of redistribution, giving the rich people a pay raise for sitting on their asses, is a destructive form of redistribution, and there's really no justification for it.

Wall street is not superior to the real economy that actually produces things, it is supposed to help support the profitable deployment of capital. Instead, it's become more important than actually working. What you do with a 15% CGT and 20-40% income tax rate is tell everybody who works 40+ hours a week for a living that their work is less valuable than some rich, lazy person whose sole contribution to the economy is plopping their economic weight in some stocks.

I never said profit is bad. You made that up.

You social justice message is your red herring. You are making things up and attributing them to me. Please address what i actually say.

 

[PeteEU]

Automation of Burger King and McD has been happening for decades. You know they use to fry the meat paddies right? Now they are mass fried in a machine and the only human interaction is them actually putting the paddy on the burger. Some places have automatic french fry machines and so on and so on. Here in Spain they have replaced the ordering with big tablets.. not a bad thing, but it does reduce the amount of workers needed.

First time I saw automation of a burger joint, was in Hong Kong McD in 1983, where the place was run like a factory.