If there’s a silver lining for McDonald’s in Tuesday’s dreadful earnings report, it is that perhaps union activists will begin to understand that the fast-food chain cannot solve the problems of the Obama economy. The world’s largest restaurant company reported a 30% decline in quarterly profits on a 5% drop in revenues. Problems under the golden arches were global—sales were weak in China, Europe and the United States.So even one of the world’s most ubiquitous consumer brands cannot print money at its pleasure. This may be news to liberal pressure groups that have lately been demanding that government order the chain known for cheap food to somehow pay higher wages.[. . .] The McDonald’s earnings report on Tuesday gave a hint at how the fast-food chain really plans to respond to its wage and profit pressure—automate. As many contributors to these pages have warned, forcing businesses to pay people out of proportion to the profits they generate will provide those businesses with a greater incentive to replace employees with machines.By the third quarter of next year, McDonald’s plans to introduce new technology in some markets “to make it easier for customers to order and pay for food digitally and to give people the ability to customize their orders,” reports the Journal. Mr. Thompson, the CEO, said Tuesday that customers “want to personalize their meals” and “to enjoy eating in a contemporary, inviting atmosphere. And they want choices in how they order, choices in what they order and how they’re served.”That is no doubt true, but it’s also a convenient way for Mr. Thompson to justify a reduction in the chain’s global workforce. It’s also a way to send a message to franchisees about the best way to reduce their costs amid slow sales growth. In any event, consumers better get used to the idea of ordering their Big Macs on a touchscreen.
Quote from: Mega Sceptile on October 23, 2014, 01:28:20 PMBecause in the entire history of the human race, we've managed to beat technological progress before, right? Don't be a luddite; this is ultimately for the better. The much better for that matter. The abolition of the minimum wage is merely a stepping-stone between here and there. It's happening, and I don't want it stopped either.
and then people are paid 5 dollars an hour, and poverty skyrockets. the greedy fags at the top get richer, and then a fracking civil war breaks out in the US. I don't know about you, but I don't wanna see a civil war, and the destruction of progress happen,
I'm sure meta could show examples from the real world too.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on October 23, 2014, 01:41:11 PMI'm sure meta could show examples from the real world too.The mechanisation of agriculture is probably the best example. Although, this time is difference because it's an alteration to the entire labour force, not just the labour engaged in a specific sector which can be moved.
Then McDonalds and everybody else would just change like $1 an hour.
Quote from: Kinder on October 23, 2014, 03:17:52 PMThen McDonalds and everybody else would just change like $1 an hour. I've already dealt with a similar accusation. People wouldn't pay wage-rates like that because there exists an equilibrium. After all, who would buy the capitalists' stuff if they were all paid $1 an hour?
Nations that don't get rid of their minimum wages will produce people who would buy those products. It's similar to how places like China, India, and Vietnam pay very low wages and all products created are exported to places that can afford them
Quote from: Kinder on October 23, 2014, 04:33:53 PMNations that don't get rid of their minimum wages will produce people who would buy those products. It's similar to how places like China, India, and Vietnam pay very low wages and all products created are exported to places that can afford themTo which I'd say the solution is a guaranteed minimum income.Not to mention, the world isn't simply a case of poor countries producing goods for the rich countries and then the rich countries filling the gaps in things like information technology and financial services. Firms which produce goods will often select first-world nations to operate in due to superior infrastructure and intra-national connections. So, I don't really see what point you're trying to make.
.....Isn't a guaranteed minimum income the same as having a minimum wage, something you don't think should exist?
People wouldn't pay wage-rates like that because there exists an equilibrium. After all, who would buy the capitalists' stuff if they were all paid $1 an hour?
The abolishment of the minimum wage would decrease public spending, at least initially, would it not?
Cut the hours of loyal employees who have been working there for years. I work no hours next week and have worked only 25 this week. And Walmart is STILL hiring temps. Why? Because they're cheap labor and Walmart could keep a huge amount of their own profits.
Quote from: Nick McIntyre on October 24, 2014, 06:34:11 AMCut the hours of loyal employees who have been working there for years. I work no hours next week and have worked only 25 this week. And Walmart is STILL hiring temps. Why? Because they're cheap labor and Walmart could keep a huge amount of their own profits.P.S. you should quit Walmart and go to Kroger. I had over four years of experience with them and they're a pretty good employer with lots of room for advancement.
So are you going to answer the question?
Poor people live paycheck to paycheck, so you can safely assume that their money goes directly back into the economy. If they have less money, then the businesses take a hit because they're not selling as much.
Eliminating minimum wage decreases everyone's wages though,
at least in the sense that if you raise minimum wage you have to raise everyone else's wage to keep a hierarchal order of one's wage according to their position in the company.
It's time for a reality check, the minimum wage should be abolished
