Springfield Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Someone will still have to be on duty to take care of these automatic machines. How many times have you seen a self check out machine malfunction or give out some sort of error when the customer screws something up. There has to be an employee there to manually operate these things when the machines inevitably fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I've made no such claim. I have, however, asked a question. You know. My response to your claim that I can't possibly know what the owner of a business who employs me, makes? I've asked it once, and you pretended to not read the question. (And attacked me). Now, if you'd like to continue to sling attitude, while refusing to discuss even the most obvious of reasoning, it's fine with me. It's not even any effort, for me to make you look stupid. You're doing it on your own. You don't know what your employer makes As to the OP where does it say an employers increase in prices of 10% with 2% going to employees means 8% is going in employer pockets or whatever ridiculous claim you are trying to make? I can't answer made up stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Tshile that's crazy, thanks, i hadn't seen it. I still say when it is financially prudent, wal mart will do it. Of course, wages can move that needle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Reports: Fast Food Companies Outsource $7 Billion In Annual Labor Costs To Taxpayers   Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley released a study on Tuesday showing that front-line fast food workers earning a median wage of $8.69 an hour are more than twice as likely to rely on public benefits programs as the rest of the workforce — 52% compared to 25%. Of that $7 billion, well over half — $3.9 billion — is spent on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for fast food workers and their families. UC Berkeley’s researchers found that 68% of these low-wage earners are the main breadwinners in their households, with over a quarter raising children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Someone will still have to be on duty to take care of these automatic machines. How many times have you seen a self check out machine malfunction or give out some sort of error when the customer screws something up. There has to be an employee there to manually operate these things when the machines inevitably fail. Â We're a ways away from any given task in a department store being fully run by autonomous devices. Â But we'll be losing staff as they're rolled out. The existing staffs focus will change, and there will be additions to staff to fix the robots; but they won't be the staff that was lost, and the numbers won't equal out either. Â I'm not trying to say that if you raise minimum wage by $3/hr today we'll have robots running an entire fast foot establishment in 5 months. I'm just saying the way some of you are talking about it implies you think that eventuality is laughable. Â We're already on track for that, whether we raise the minimum wage or not. Raising it may or may not increase the rate at which we move towards that level of automation, I can't say one way or the other. You'd have to find someone working directly in the field. But we're already on that path. Probably time to start acknowledging that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 We're a ways away from any given task in a department store being fully run by autonomous devices. But we'll be losing staff as they're rolled out. The existing staffs focus will change, and there will be additions to staff to fix the robots; but they won't be the staff that was lost, and the numbers won't equal out either. I'm not trying to say that if you raise minimum wage by $3/hr today we'll have robots running an entire fast foot establishment in 5 months. I'm just saying the way some of you are talking about it implies you think that eventuality is laughable. We're already on track for that, whether we raise the minimum wage or not. Raising it may or may not increase the rate at which we move towards that level of automation, I can't say one way or the other. You'd have to find someone working directly in the field. But we're already on that path. Probably time to start acknowledging that... Oh, I agree. We are moving towards automation in many fields. I don't think that has much to do with minimum wage and a lot to do with free labor. I do think we will shift in unskilled labor to fields that require a knowledge of these machines and the administration thereof. The automated jobs will never be replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 You don't know what your employer makes As to the OP where does it say an employers increase in prices of 10% with 2% going to employees means 8% is going in employer pockets or whatever ridiculous claim you are trying to make? I can't answer made up stuff  Yes, you can.  But keep running away. (While attacking.)  Tell ya what. As a courtesy to the rest of this thread, I'll make a deal with you. Run away from the glaringly obvious answer one more time, and I'll stop pointing out that you're running away from it.  I'll even let you get in one final "attack while running away".  You can tell yourself that you won.  Since you're still pretending the question is too complicated for you, I'll repeat it a fourth time.  If a business's costs go up by 2%, and they raise their prices by 10%, where does the other 8% go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 There are a lot of people that manage to get by on minimum wage as it exists now and even have things to eat (and drink!). Â Maybe not in San Francisco, but most places are not SF. Â As the minimum wage rises, as has been noted in this thread, things get more expensive, which reduces the buying power of everyone, including people on the minimum wage. Â There are also impacts on the number of jobs created as labor costs increase, despite your assertions that they are "not that significant." Â So there are a lot of other things to consider "for the overall health of the United States." Â Of course it would be nice if everyone woke up tomorrow and had a great job. Â Economics is more complicated than that. Â It's like when WalMart raised their minimum wage. Â Who is that hurting the most? Â People that still make the minimum wage because they don't work at WalMart, but SHOP at WalMart (because they make the minimum wage). Â Â These are pretty much the Republican talking points. Â The Republicans can't even get together to pass a jobs bill let alone a creative one that will actually benefit human beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Yes, you can.  But keep running away. (While attacking.)  Tell ya what. As a courtesy to the rest of this thread, I'll make a deal with you. Run away from the glaringly obvious answer one more time, and I'll stop pointing out that you're running away from it.  I'll even let you get in one final "attack while running away".  You can tell yourself that you won.  Since you're still pretending the question is too complicated for you, I'll repeat it a fourth time. Ironically Larry. My poor farmin family went in different directions. The children that is. My dad went into IT. My cousin owns McDonalds franchises. Your question makes no sense in the context of owning and running a business. Especially as a cashier and assistant manager at a fast food joint. And that isnt a. Personal attack. Sorry you take it as such To answer your question the answer is I don't know and neither do you. But keep pulling out of your philly without facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Interesting note. McDonalds does not allow investor ownership. They only allow owner/operators, meaning you have to be involved in the day to day operations of every McDonalds that you own. Also, it costs at least $750,000 of personal, non borrowed, funds to open a Mickey D's. No wonder they are contracting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 To answer your question the answer is I don't know and neither do you. The answer to my question is you effing well do know, and won't admit it. The mathematical difference between a business's revenue, and it's costs, is called "profit". (If it's a negative number, it's called "a loss".) (Sometimes, there are what's called "dirty words", in front of the word "loss".) It goes to the "owner". (This is called "capitalism".)  Right? Interesting note. McDonalds does not allow investor ownership. They only allow owner/operators, meaning you have to be involved in the day to day operations of every McDonalds that you own. Also, it costs at least $750,000 of personal, non borrowed, funds to open a Mickey D's. No wonder they are contracting.  Wasn't aware of that. I had heard that there were "company stores": Non-franchised McDonalds. (Or, more specifically, I had heard that supposedly, McD will not allow a franchise to lose money. Supposedly, if a franchise loses money, and corporate can't help the owner get things back on track, then the company will buy out the owner, and take it over, to prevent the losing store from giving the company a bad name.)  (But I have no clue if that was true or just some "McUrban legend".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/franchising/FAQs.html That's where I got my info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 The answer to my question is you effing well do know, and won't admit it. The mathematical difference between a business's revenue, and it's costs, is called "profit". (If it's a negative number, it's called "a loss".) (Sometimes, there are what's called "dirty words", in front of the word "loss".) It goes to the "owner". (This is called "capitalism".)  (But I have no clue if that was true or just some "McUrban legend".) Well. Your implication is if wages increase for your employees that no other external costs will increase. If a suppliers payroll costs also increase they pass it on to you the business. You somehow assumed the only cost in increasing minimum wage is the payroll cost. Might work in a vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Well. Your implication is if wages increase for your employees that no other external costs will increase. If a suppliers payroll costs also increase they pass it on to you the business. You somehow assumed the only cost in increasing minimum wage is the payroll cost. Might work in a vacuum. I made no such assumption. I asked what happens IF a business' costs increase by 2%, and they raise prices by 10%. The word "if" is a clue. This is what's called the "given" portion of a question. That portion is true, because that's part of the question. Now that we have, after only two pages and probably a dozen posts, agreed to what we both already knew, when we started, we can now move on to your NEXT attempt at dodging what's been posted, trying to attack those givens. I made two such givens: a restaurant which raised prices by 10%, and whose costs went up by 2%. I ask you to contemplate the OP. In it, some statements are made. The OP examines the case of Chipotle restaurants, in San Francisco, following the raising of that city's minimum wage. Question: in the OP, how much did the restaurants raise their prices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Have any of these studies been conducted at the macro level? Because I'm pretty sure that if WalMart and McDonalds were to reduce their workforce by 85% it would have a significant impact to unemployment.  Yes they do.  http://www2.itif.org/2013-are-robots-taking-jobs.pdf  Now, this isn't hard.  What happens if your fantasy actually had some basis in reality?  WalMart and McDonalds cut 85% of their work force, but they do so in a manner that it doesn't hurt their profits.  They are still making about the same amount of money.  Where is the money going to go?  The people getting the money aren't going to burn it.  They aren't going to hide it under their mattresses.  Look at the lawn service industry today.  Tell people 150 years ago that a lot of people will pay people to come in and make grass grow in their yard and then pay those same people to cut the grass and then remove said grass clipping and dispose of them, and they'd laugh at you.  But as factory jobs went away that's what happened.  The labor from one industry (e.g. the textile industry) was shifted to another type of labor (e.g. the lawn care service industry) to another as people invested in the industry that underwent automation saved money.  The only way it doesn't happen is if the people that save the money either dispose of it somehow (e.g. burn it) or hoard it (and note investing isn't hoarding).  Now, as I alluded to and tshile stated explicitly, some times the transition is rough, but as we keep seeing automation take over in areas (e.g. textiles and now retail), we will find ways to use the excess labor.  We always have.  What people do with excess labor 100 years ago may seem odd to us today, but at the time it will seem completely reasonable.  And that's why longer term automation doesn't cause unemployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins3D Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share Posted July 8, 2015 I'll meet you halfway, but I've seen no evidence you're lucky, 3D.  Well, I've started a few business from the ground floor. If that isn't luck, you tell me what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Well, I've started a few business from the ground floor. If that isn't luck, you tell me what is. I'd hope it was good research, sweat, effort, and proper management of resources... not luck  Curious, reading the bits you reveal about yourself you have as complex a background as I do. I've worked in psychiatric labs, teaching, been a NYC playwright, documentary producer, reporter, radio host, artist, and a couple of other minor gigs.  I think you said that you are in mental health, business owner, and at least three or four other different hats. Good for you! Hope you have found where you are meant to be.  Me... I'm still somewhat adrift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Question: in the OP, how much did the restaurants raise their prices? Â In San Francisco, the price for the meat was increased by 10%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 In San Francisco, the price for the meat was increased by 10%. Been to a grocery store lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Been to a grocery store lately? Â You following my discussion with Larry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 In San Francisco, the price for the meat was increased by 10%.  Maybe it's me, but I think the article is trying to say that the price charged to customers went up by 10%. I assume that's the price for sandwiches or burritos or whatever it is that Chipotle sells. (Never been to one.)  I also get the impression that the author (and the poster) is trying to create the impression that this was a general price increase of this amount.  Yes, I did note the wording of the statements. When I see statements worded like that, my BS detector goes off, and I immediately suspect that the author is trying to use cherry picked data to imply a general trend (when such a trend does not exist.)  In short, I get the impression that the author is trying real hard to make readers think "the minimum wage going up caused 10% price increases", rather than trying to get the reader to think "the prices for these items that I picked went up by 10%"  Is that the way you read it? Is the author trying to say that the cost of eating at Chipotle went up by 10%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 You following my discussion with Larry? Sorry I was under the impression this was a public forum. Just pointing out that price increases on meat may just be impacted by something other than minimum wage increases. You guys carry on though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins3D Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share Posted July 8, 2015 I'd hope it was good research, sweat, effort, and proper management of resources... not luck  Curious, reading the bits you reveal about yourself you have as complex a background as I do. I've worked in psychiatric labs, teaching, been a NYC playwright, documentary producer, reporter, radio host, artist, and a couple of other minor gigs.  I think you said that you are in mental health, business owner, and at least three or four other different hats. Good for you! Hope you have found where you are meant to be.  Me... I'm still somewhat adrift.   There you go being serious on my tongue-in-cheek comment lol.  I've definitely got myself wrapped up in a lot of things over years, the military helped out with that.  Like everyone else, there have been the ups and downs.  These days it's my business (3D printing, go figure), and the private practice keeping me busy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 So the tacos went up 40 cents ? So. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Is that the way you read it? Is the author trying to say that the cost of eating at Chipotle went up by 10%?  It's unclear, at Chipotle you get charged based on your meat choice. But not everyone gets meat (vegetarian burrito, quesadillas) so it's unclear. Sorry I was under the impression this was a public forum. Just pointing out that price increases on meat may just be impacted by something other than minimum wage increases. You guys carry on though.  Sorry, I just didn't understand your point. Yeah I have seen the prices of meat but didn't understand the context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.