Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

??? frazz, the 90's had computers and radios/order printers that went from tills to the cooking line and so on.

thats stuffs been there since the 70's, and even earlier in some cases.

In fact, when I was a suez chef way back when, we used lots of old order printers from the 70's... before then the mc'ds that was my first job ever still had the cash registers sending the orders to the cooking line instantly via electronic screen.

only difference now is its a touch screen register instead of a push button one, so it doesnt actually make the guy operating the till able to process more customers per hour then it did 30+ years ago.

I stand corrected.

 Frazzled wrote:


IAs are generally extremely hard working (except for the criminals who are also hard working but in ways we don't like).

Eh, but hard working doesn't mean much when you have unskilled, non-licensed workers illegally using a contractors licence doing work of questionable quality and then when post-job you find issues, or fail your permit or whatever, the people are effectively 'ghosts' and can't be held responsible or even located.

You get what you pay for. I have more than once thrown contractors out of my house and voided contracts because they agreed that every one who worked on the job was a licensed, legal contractor. And when people don't do that in the MD/DC area, there are loads of horror stories of people doing a shoddy work, lacking the actual skill int he trade, leaving the job taking the money and finding out the contractor license was done fraudulently and it costing twice the amount to repair. They even have been defrauding the government with this as they win contracts and then do crap work and blame a phantom contractor. And most times they simply pay the guy TWICE to do the same work and bring in a new crew.

It is a huge epidemic in my area how people are using illegal labor to defraud consumers. It is like a ponzi scheme, they generate a bunch of leads, then hire illegal labor who do the different jobs ad variable levels of competency, and you hope a bulk of them are 'good enough' and the ones who fail, you claim that the workers illegally used your licensed ID and take it up with the 'workers'. These companies actually claim 'you didn't contract us' when a job goes south, and often the consumer has almost no proof due to them assuming everything is ok. Cash deal? too good to be true? roll the dice on if your dude actually knows electrical code or not. Have fun with that. Making a light fixture work and making it work so it doesn't burn your house down in 5 years are two different things.

I don't care about their immigration status, but a poorly skilled tradesman who needs to be held accountable legally for the outcome of his work, especially for multi-thousand-dollar jobs damn well needs to have legal contracting IDs and identification. Lots of people assume these 'hard working' immigrants are skilled, and they really are not. Most of them have no more skill than the average DIY dude at home depot, they simply have the will to do the work for money. Watch a renovation or construction project fail enough permiting audits or fall apart/leak 2 weeks later and you can begin to see when someone is a professional tradesman or a handyman hack.

Be Careful Criticising IA, You might get labeled a racist or heartless rich person.
The more and more I become a moderate, the more Im hating my sociolgy class, Atleast I have my teacher who is backing me up when I say things like raising Minimum wage is a bad thing.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Be Careful Criticising IA, You might get labeled a racist or heartless rich person.
The more and more I become a moderate, the more Im hating my sociolgy class, Atleast I have my teacher who is backing me up when I say things like raising Minimum wage is a bad thing.

yeah, its the curse of sociology, and some other courses, that the majority opinion generally is accepted as correct.

Keep speaking up for yourself though, in my experience, people who grow the confidence to speak against the grain end up with a much better ability to suceed in life, however they define sucess.

I really wish the focus was on creating more good paying careers, and ensuring everyone has the opportunity to become qualified for the skill sets needed, then on making minimum wage/skill less jobs into somthing unsustainable.

This is from my perspective as both someone who has worked plenty of years in min wage jobs, as well as owned/run businesses and hired/employed min wage and even medium wage people , as well as worked at high end education/skill type jobs.

 easysauce wrote:

I really wish the focus was on creating more good paying careers, and ensuring everyone has the opportunity to become qualified for the skill sets needed, then on making minimum wage/skill less jobs into somthing unsustainable.

This is from my perspective as both someone who has worked plenty of years in min wage jobs, as well as owned/run businesses and hired/employed min wage and even medium wage people , as well as worked at high end education/skill type jobs.

My arguement that was if everyone just got a 50% increase in income, but im a renter and that is how I make my money, I have to increase rent by 50% because now I have to pay for goods that went up because employers now have to pay for 50% more money(If he doesnt fire more) That throwing money at poor people will not solve anything and if we want to actually solve poverty reasonably is that we should put money into programs that HELP poor people get the skills to succeed. My teacher said my argument was well thought out at the end and devoid of all the emotion the the rest of the class seems to rely on.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Spoiler:

 easysauce wrote:

I really wish the focus was on creating more good paying careers, and ensuring everyone has the opportunity to become qualified for the skill sets needed, then on making minimum wage/skill less jobs into somthing unsustainable.

This is from my perspective as both someone who has worked plenty of years in min wage jobs, as well as owned/run businesses and hired/employed min wage and even medium wage people , as well as worked at high end education/skill type jobs.

My arguement that was if everyone just got a 50% increase in income, but im a renter and that is how I make my money, I have to increase rent by 50% because now I have to pay for goods that went up because employers now have to pay for 50% more money(If he doesnt fire more) That throwing money at poor people will not solve anything and if we want to actually solve poverty reasonably is that we should put money into programs that HELP poor people get the skills to succeed. My teacher said my argument was well thought out at the end and devoid of all the emotion the the rest of the class seems to rely on.

yeah thats pretty much how it goes, you are thinking outside of the box most people get stuck in.

Most people have never had a job that wasnt based on hourly wages, let alone run their own business and gone to work for free, or even worked 40 hours a week only to lose money. Thats on top of investing your life savings, or 100's of thousands, if not millions of your own money(or going into debt) in the hopes of generating some stable income streams that will pay off your principal in 5-10 years with a bit of luck.

after that, it should be gravy, but then you have to deal with renovations, modernization, advertising, competition, lack of labour, rising labour costs, and so on.

I have done both... and its pretty common to lose money for the first little bit as you are dealing with start up costs, growing pains, and overhead ect

I made a lot more $ when I ran my own business, but it was proportionally more work-pay then now with no security, I dont think I would ever go back.

plus my boss was a real hard @$$

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

I really wish the focus was on creating more good paying careers, and ensuring everyone has the opportunity to become qualified for the skill sets needed, then on making minimum wage/skill less jobs into somthing unsustainable.

This is from my perspective as both someone who has worked plenty of years in min wage jobs, as well as owned/run businesses and hired/employed min wage and even medium wage people , as well as worked at high end education/skill type jobs.

My arguement that was if everyone just got a 50% increase in income, but im a renter and that is how I make my money, I have to increase rent by 50% because now I have to pay for goods that went up because employers now have to pay for 50% more money(If he doesnt fire more) That throwing money at poor people will not solve anything and if we want to actually solve poverty reasonably is that we should put money into programs that HELP poor people get the skills to succeed. My teacher said my argument was well thought out at the end and devoid of all the emotion the the rest of the class seems to rely on.

It isn't a 'raise' if everyone gets it... that is inflation. The only way you earn more is if your wage goes up and everyone else doesn't.

The system is broken because money makes money. Those who have money, easily earn more money, those who don't go deeper in to debt and can't get more.

Minimum wage debate is usually base pandering and not actually about addressing the issues. Throwing more money at people who are held in stasis in a broken system is a short term 'voter friendly' way to not fix the problem, keep those people in stasis and make them happy about it when they don't realize they don't actually have more money and are not at all better off.

Also, National minimum wage flies in the face that we have a country where a 1250sq foot 3 bedroom can range from 75k to 1 million depending where in the country you are. And the issue with state minimum wage laws is you can have the same disparity in the same state. You can be paying someone a living wage in one part of the state and be starving and homeless in another part of the state. And regardless since the government doesn't mandate personal budgets or spending, someone can be making more than a livable wage and still be broke and or destitute due to other reasons. A living wage for one single person who manages their money may not be enough for a single parent with 3 kids and 60k of college debt. Are we going to begin paying salaries based upon personal need and who 'needs' more money to live? There is never going to be a one-size fit all living wage even with supposedly evening it out with tax deductions and AMT and such.

The answer is we hand over all of our lodging, food and health income to the government who then doles it out arbitrarily as needed and wages are 100% discretionary income. I am sure that will work out just fine right?

No one seems to have the answers and the implementations are 'what keep the rich in control and keeps the poor 'satisfied' so they don't rise up and murder us... It is called 'minimum wage increases'.

nkelsch wrote:


It isn't a 'raise' if everyone gets it... that is inflation. The only way you earn more is if your wage goes up and everyone else doesn't.

Income gains are not a zero sum game. This is only true if the size of the economy is constant and unchanging, but it is not. Basically what's happened is that the size of the economic pie has increased over the last 50 years, but gains have largely been amongst management/shareholders/owners over the last 30, hence why wages amongst workers and middle class workers have gained much slower or in some cases decreased (taking inflation into account) even with a drastically larger GDP. Increasing the minimum wage would redistribute those gains downwards. The big argument against this is that it will impact the total number of those jobs, but that's another story. However effectively, if the economy has grown, increasing wages is not just inflation.

That said, it's a rather hamfisted response to a hugely complicated problem, as you noted.

Clearly, we should reduce the minimum wage and everything will become more affordable.

 Vaktathi wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


It isn't a 'raise' if everyone gets it... that is inflation. The only way you earn more is if your wage goes up and everyone else doesn't.

Income gains are not a zero sum game. This is only true if the size of the economy is constant and unchanging, but it is not. Basically what's happened is that the size of the economic pie has increased over the last 50 years, but gains have largely been amongst management/shareholders/owners over the last 30, hence why wages amongst workers and middle class workers have gained much slower or in some cases decreased (taking inflation into account) even with a drastically larger GDP. Increasing the minimum wage would redistribute those gains downwards. The big argument against this is that it will impact the total number of those jobs, but that's another story. However effectively, if the economy has grown, increasing wages is not just inflation.

That said, it's a rather hamfisted response to a hugely complicated problem, as you noted.

It is not 'Zero Sum' but the majority of those increases are going to go to paying for those increases. If a Restaurant has to pay employees more, it is not coming out of uncle scrooges moneybin even though that is the intended goal. Basically how do you legislate 'profit margins' reduce opposed to costs going up to consumers to give people with this new income more power and the people with the money bin less power? While it is not Zero sum, wages for the most part are highly decentralized and based upon direct revenues which for a lot of minimum wage jobs is directly influenced by consumer consumption of goods. That means local stores and restaurants are usually generating income off of local consumers. So when the wages go up locally, the consumers cost goes up locally.

Can a company like Wal-Mart decide to pay for it out of corporate assets and supplement branches to absorb the costs without impacting the local stores cost structure? Sure? Will they? nope. Can they write legislation to do it? Not really. Forcing them to pay people more is one thing but preventing them from directly charging the consumer for it (which in turn in the people with the increased wages) is not possible. If Wal-Mart has to pay employees more, it isn't coming out of shareholders pockets. margins will not decrease, prices will rise and the consumers pay for it in most situations which nullifies the increase in earning power.

That assumes you believe there is a problem with the current economic machine. When you boil it down, redistribution of wealth is redistribution of wealth. I simply argue that neither party actually wants to see a change in the current system, simply be the party who controls it and the party who is 'liked' for controlling it.

My favorite thing is when I hear people complain about the 'rich' and how unfair it all is... and then I am like "You are in the top 5% in the nation... The system is hardly stacked against you" and then they wail about how broke they are.

Interesting site, claiming census data, unsure how accurate.
http://www.whatsmypercent.com/

Money makes money... The more you have the easier it is to get more.

 Ouze wrote:
Except worker productivity has been increasing for decades with no corresponding wage increase.

 easysauce wrote:
citation needed...

(snip)


But I am sure you will keep arguing that somehow, magically, a guy with a shovel digs ditches way faster today then he did 50 years ago.

This thing that you do, where you preemptively dismiss any response someone might offer you? It's one of the lamest arguing techniques I've seen on these forums, ever. You want a citation, go google it.

It absolutely blows my mind that a local council could have control over wage laws. Honestly it's pretty messy when individual states can set their own minimum wages, it's absolutely flying rodent gak when a town council can do it. As squidhills said it has to be done nationally.


That said, most of the noise made about this is over the high final amount of $12.30. Note the move to that rate is happening over several years. Hiking the rate up to $12.30 tomorrow would have massive consequences, but slowly increasing it to $12.30 over three years is not such a big deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wouldn't a local entity actually know better what the cost of living is?

Yes, but what you get when individual areas set their own rates is a race to the bottom. See, $12 an hour won't cost you jobs when the surrounding areas are all $13 an hour. But then one of those surrounding areas want more jobs and economic activity, so they drop their minimum wage to $11 an hour. You don't want to lose competitiveness, so you drop your rate to $10, they drop there's to $9 and so on.

By setting a standard minimum wage across the whole you avoid that issue. From there you can adjust individual sectors to account for really high cost areas that don't rely on easily transferable jobs (like manufacturing), such as the London increase SilverMK2 mentioned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
thats a pretty high min wage....

Note that $12.30 rate only comes in in 2017.

The CBO ran some numbers are while back, they were posted here on dakka by whembly I believe, and they found that while an $11 an hour min wage would have significant negative impact, a $10 rate had a very small impact (iirc correctly on the numbers...).

Anyhow, the immediate increases proposed here are not too far off the CBO's minimum impact forecasts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually automation has advanced quite a bit in the last 20 years in the form of communications between front of house and back of house.

Minimum wage skills improvement is difficult.

But you don't measure skills, you measure productivity. There was a hell of a lot more skill in driving a horse and cart across dirt roads 150 years ago than in driving a truck across interstate highways, but the modern worker carries more goods and faster. Less skilled but far more productive, and worth a much higher wage.

The individual isn't valued by his skill alone, but how his skills interact with the capital available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
citation needed...

also I dont think you understand the concept of production value. Your statement is somewhat true in different industries, where the workers have had to increase their skill level or education, but not in the minimum wage ones, where no education or special skills are required.

Your assumption that skills and skills alone drive productivity is simplistic. Where capital and technology stock increase even unskilled labour increases in value. Consider, for instance, a warehouse that brings in, records and preps for export a few hundred packing crates a day.

There was a time when that would have required quite a few unskilled workers to maintain a record of what was due each day, physically sight the contents of the box and record where each box was stored in the warehouse. Now with an RFID system that stuff is almost entirely automated, all that's needed is a physical sighting of the contents of each case to confirm its what the computer display says it contains.

There is, in fact, less skill required of the staff, on top of the job being handled by a couple of people compared to previously needing a half dozen or more. The same job done by a third as many people... that's a productivity increase of threefold.

Now, that doesn't mean pay should increase threefold, but it should be expected to increase somewhat. And at the very least it should make it clear that your argument about digging ditches with shovels is as fast as it always was is nonsense - obviously the point is that these days far more effective capital is likely to be used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The more and more I become a moderate, the more Im hating my sociolgy class, Atleast I have my teacher who is backing me up when I say things like raising Minimum wage is a bad thing.

Uurgh. First up, raising issues of economics like minimum wage in sociology is just silly, and will only produce politically motivated arguments.

Second up, when looked at from a foundation of economics knowledge, the issue of raising the minimum wage isn't always a good thing or a bad thing, but really dependent on the specifics of the case at hand. In many cases the negative impacts are minimal (in fact there are situations where economic growth can be stimulated by a higher minimum wage, though these cases are extremely rare), and it can be considered a good thing. In other cases, the loss of jobs or possibly even loss of whole industries are far greater than the benefit in increased income for the working poor, and so the proposed minimum wage is a bad thing. But it all depends on the proposed raise, the economic conditions and the economic modelling you do. So just talking about the issue in general in sociology class is pretty silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My arguement that was if everyone just got a 50% increase in income, but im a renter and that is how I make my money, I have to increase rent by 50% because now I have to pay for goods that went up because employers now have to pay for 50% more money(If he doesnt fire more) That throwing money at poor people will not solve anything and if we want to actually solve poverty reasonably is that we should put money into programs that HELP poor people get the skills to succeed. My teacher said my argument was well thought out at the end and devoid of all the emotion the the rest of the class seems to rely on.

To be perfectly blunt, it's a terrible argument. You don't charge rent based on what you need, you charge whatever you can get away with. Which means if your cost of living goes up 50% you don't get to just pass that on, you're still limited by what you can charge before your tenants will start looking for other accomodation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
I really wish the focus was on creating more good paying careers, and ensuring everyone has the opportunity to become qualified for the skill sets needed, then on making minimum wage/skill less jobs into somthing unsustainable.

You think there's a shortage of effort put in to creating high paying careers? Have you never noticed the massive reforms and scale increase in the tertiary education system, all geared towards producing more skilled workers? Or the massive investment and government support put in to tech industries and high skilled service sectors, all geared towards creating jobs with a high rate of pay?

And then compare that to minimum wage that's declined against inflation in the last couple of generations. And your conclusion is that there's too much focus on increasing the minimum wage?

fething christ on a cracker, you make no sense sometimes.

 easysauce wrote:
thats a pretty high min wage.... while I really hope it doesnt have negative consequences, I really doubt it wont.

employers are not going to magically get larger labour budgets,

raising the hourly by X means they have to cut that X from somthing else, likely other labour costs.

not to mention it makes some jobs unsustainable,

None of this actually happens, and the story of your 'friend' simply isn't true. If that restaurant was so poorly run that even with the increase in profits that would come from a higher minimum wage (because that portion of his customer base also have more money too), it's much more likely the owner simply used 'minimum wage' as an easy excuse to sack your friend.

I'll need to track down the research to back it, but when you have an across the board minimum wage increase, you see a matching rise in average consumer prices of 15-20% of the increase.

So yeah, prices go up, but the amount of money people are bringing home goes up more. Especially given the disgusting disparity between minimum wage and productivity increases over the past sixty years, this is not a bad thing.

 Bookwrack wrote:

None of this actually happens, and the story of your 'friend' simply isn't true. If that restaurant was so poorly run that even with the increase in profits that would come from a higher minimum wage (because that portion of his customer base also have more money too), it's much more likely the owner simply used 'minimum wage' as an easy excuse to sack your friend.

the problem with your statement is that, sure, most people are "bringing more in" however, because the restauranteur must pay his people more, he must get that money from somewhere. The smart business man doesn't mess with his bottom line. Therefore he has 3 options: cut overhead, cut staff (which could almost be considered overhead in a restaurant), or raise prices. Only in the world of the most deluded individuals do those "evil rich people" eat the difference in wage increases/ product costs.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
he must get that money from somewhere.

That was explained right in the post your quoted - his customers, some subset of which are also going to have more money to send because they're part of the minimum wage group who just got a raise. That's one of the proven benefits of a rise to the minimum wage, in that you see sudden stimulation in the local economy as the people who are now making more are willing to spend more.

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
he must get that money from somewhere.

That was explained right in the post your quoted - his customers, some subset of which are also going to have more money to send because they're part of the minimum wage group who just got a raise. That's one of the proven benefits of a rise to the minimum wage, in that you see sudden stimulation in the local economy as the people who are now making more are willing to spend more.

Except you are making the false assumption that everyone will benefit from a raise in minimum wage. Which is not true, not even close.

As of 2012, only 4.7% of people make minimum wage. http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130325.htm

This means that you are only benefiting workers who are currently making minimum wage or are making a wage between the current and the new minimum wage. Which is a very tiny % of the population.

That other 90ish% of the population who makes above the current and propose minimum wage sees no net increase in wages, yet they have to pay the higher prices at all the businesses who employ minimum wage earners.

The benefit minimum wage earners see from a raise is miniscule at best and it hurts everyone else.

You are depressing an overwhelming majority of the population to benefit a very tiny portion of the population.

Very curious if the labor union shops has contracts to "float" union wages based on any minimum wage increases.

We normally don't hear about that until after the increase is done.

So, consequently, union shop just got a little bit more expensive.

Richmond, CA bumping min wage to $12 an hour doesn't patch the problems they are having. Its a weak arse band aid. If your going to increase min wage then you need to lure employeers on your side to to make it work.

Texas has a dang good incentive to move/open a business there

New York following suit with a no tax for ten year version

Have to favor both sides of the line

 Bookwrack wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
thats a pretty high min wage.... while I really hope it doesnt have negative consequences, I really doubt it wont.

employers are not going to magically get larger labour budgets,

raising the hourly by X means they have to cut that X from somthing else, likely other labour costs.

not to mention it makes some jobs unsustainable,

None of this actually happens, and the story of your 'friend' simply isn't true. If that restaurant was so poorly run that even with the increase in profits that would come from a higher minimum wage (because that portion of his customer base also have more money too), it's much more likely the owner simply used 'minimum wage' as an easy excuse to sack your friend.

I'll need to track down the research to back it, but when you have an across the board minimum wage increase, you see a matching rise in average consumer prices of 15-20% of the increase.

So yeah, prices go up, but the amount of money people are bringing home goes up more. Especially given the disgusting disparity between minimum wage and productivity increases over the past sixty years, this is not a bad thing.

So your argument, is "you are wrong, and a liar. Your life experience through many raises to the min rage, and those of people you know, didnt actually happen. When labour costs go up due to min wage increases, that money magically comes in because suddenly all the customers will spend more money, because the 4% of them that could have been on min wage are enough of your business that it could mater, assuming of course the first thing they will do with their raise is start spending more on your restaurant."

fact is, weather you believe it or not, some jobs only generate a certain amount of profit, and you cannot pay the laborer more then that amount and make money.

You sound like someone who has never, ever, run a business if you hand-wave away increasing labour costs with pixie dust fantasies about how if 4% of the population gets a raise, it somehow makes specific businesses able to absorb 30-50% increase in labour costs from going from 7-8$ an hour to 12.

Most businesses (retail/fast food) that would be affected have minimum wage labor being a small portion of the expenses.

Personally instead of increasing the minimum wage, I`d be in favor of capping executive salary at a multiple (say 50 or 100) times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Tie in profit in a similar way. (100% taxation on any profit exceeding a level set by the lowest paid worker)

 skyth wrote:
Most businesses (retail/fast food) that would be affected have minimum wage labor being a small portion of the expenses.

Personally instead of increasing the minimum wage, I`d be in favor of capping executive salary at a multiple (say 50 or 100) times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Tie in profit in a similar way. (100% taxation on any profit exceeding a level set by the lowest paid worker)

That's just so wrong its not even funny.

"Yeah, I know you had a really good year. Now we'll just take all that excess profit you got there, don't worry we're the Government. We know whats best."

That penalizes success, which is just wrong.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Most businesses (retail/fast food) that would be affected have minimum wage labor being a small portion of the expenses.

Personally instead of increasing the minimum wage, I`d be in favor of capping executive salary at a multiple (say 50 or 100) times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Tie in profit in a similar way. (100% taxation on any profit exceeding a level set by the lowest paid worker)

That's just so wrong its not even funny.

"Yeah, I know you had a really good year. Now we'll just take all that excess profit you got there, don't worry we're the Government. We know whats best."

That penalizes success, which is just wrong.

Because... you didn't build that. That's why.

Well not on your own at least.

Well damn... it's like we didn't see this before...

Panera CEO Supports Raising Minimum Wage, Replacing Cashiers with Computers

Panera Bread CEO Rob Shaich, a Democratic donor and minimum wage supporter, recently announced that he will be replacing cashiers with computers.

Shaich, who donated $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund, said he wanted the minimum wage raised as long as it applied equally to all, according to Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner.

My question: Will Shaich pay $10.10 an hour to the kiosks he plans to install in every Panera in America? Businessweek tells that at the coffee and sandwich shop, you’ll soon be ordering through a touch-screen kiosk. Shaich insists this won’t lead to downsizing: Panera will have fewer cashiers but more employees running the food to customers’ tables. We’ll see.

I’ve written before about companies like Costco and Walmart supporting hikes in the minimum wage, knowing this will adversely affect their smaller competitors.

P.S. One angle Shaich may not be considering: When the computers rise up against the capitalists, then we’re really in trouble.

That's hilarious. It's like Wal-Mart and other big box stores focusing on self-checkout so they don't have to have more than a couple cashiers on duty.

I LOATHE self-checkouts.

 whembly wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Most businesses (retail/fast food) that would be affected have minimum wage labor being a small portion of the expenses.

Personally instead of increasing the minimum wage, I`d be in favor of capping executive salary at a multiple (say 50 or 100) times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Tie in profit in a similar way. (100% taxation on any profit exceeding a level set by the lowest paid worker)

That's just so wrong its not even funny.

"Yeah, I know you had a really good year. Now we'll just take all that excess profit you got there, don't worry we're the Government. We know whats best."

That penalizes success, which is just wrong.

Because... you didn't build that. That's why.

My go-to Liqour Store has a sign with the whole "I DID build that" logo behind the counter.

Makes me facepalm every time, especially since they just turned every single road leading to the intersection into a 4 lane road and city development has turned this area of the county from dead to thriving suburb and drive by traffic has increased like crazy in just the 5 years that we have lived there.

But hey, props for getting angry about something that was never said .

I wish ordering was automated for most things.

Couldn't tell you the last time we used a non-self serve checkout at the grocery store.

They're nice when they work. But half the time something I'm buying isn't in the system or the machine has the weight sensor calibrated wrong and it freaks out.