Post: #51

(05-19-2015 06:55 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 06:54 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  My female co-workers were bitching that they don’t think somebody who flips burgers deserves $15/hr.

I think I already know the answer to this, but how many of your female co-workers have ever flipped burgers?

Come on guys, females don't serve meat. . . they take it.

Interesting issue on the efficacy of the $15 minimum wage. Proponents have a point that we already subsidize the lives of those making a low minimum wage through social programs and food stamps. So pay the government taxes to have a program to give them money and food, or just require them to be paid more by business and pay more for some goods and services.

Post: #52

(05-20-2015 12:21 AM)eljeffster Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 06:55 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 06:54 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  My female co-workers were bitching that they don’t think somebody who flips burgers deserves $15/hr.

I think I already know the answer to this, but how many of your female co-workers have ever flipped burgers?

Come on guys, females don't serve meat. . . they take it.

Interesting issue on the efficacy of the $15 minimum wage. Proponents have a point that we already subsidize the lives of those making a low minimum wage through social programs and food stamps. So pay the government taxes to have a program to give them money and food, or just require them to be paid more by business and pay more for some goods and services.

They'll still get the government freebies too. The poverty level will just go up with the higher salary and even more people will qualify for handouts.

The level of government spending will never decline...

Post: #53

(05-19-2015 08:22 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  If minimum wage workers were worth $15, they'd get it.

By that logic, we'd still have people making $2.00/hr. Everytime the minimum wage is ranged, these same points come up. We'll have mass employment, these workers aren't worth that much, etc etc. Have any of these dire predictions ever come true when the minimum wage has been raised in the past?

I think another serious flaw in people's thinking here is that they aren't accounting for the true rate of inflation. The official inflation numbers are cooked. According to the government, the cost of living has been flat for the past 20 years, lol. Of course they simply discard everything that's increasing from the cpi basket and declare the inflation is nill.

The minimum wage when taking the true inflation cost of living into factor may be lower than it was 30 years ago. So bringing it to $15 may just realigning it with historical norms. Though I'm not sure if $15 is the right number. That sound even a bit high to me. I'd say the minimum wage should be no lower than $11/hr.

(05-19-2015 07:25 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Most fast food restaurants are going to switch over to machines with maybe 1 or 2 full time staff running the show.

What about restaurant and wait staff? Are tips deducted out?

No such machines exists. And imagine the enormous expense of purchasing such machines and maintaining them for thousands of fast food restaurants.

I know Inn N Out pays it's employees well above the minimum wage. Not sure if it's $15/hr but it's way above what other places pay. Yet the cost of their meals are the same as any other fast food restaurant.

(05-19-2015 07:17 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I think it's a good idea. Even low-skilled, low IQ, or whatever designation the elite have for them people deserve a decent wage. Yes, even the people flipping burgers.

To the guys saying $15 is "way too much", how does Costco afford it then? I think the manosphere just hates poor people and considers them all a bunch of lazy-asses. I want the guy who makes my burger or dish to be able to afford food and rent. Then he is at least less likely to mug you or me for it.

Yeah. Little known fact is that most people on food stamps and public assistance actually work. They just don't make enough from their jobs to survive on. When places like Walmart and McDonalds don't pay a living wage, the taxpayer ends up subsidizing their workers through welfare. It's a great deal for the business owners. They get to keep wages low and make more profit and the taxpayer picks up the slack. Raising wages would allow these people to get off the dole and make their employers responsible for their well-being.

(05-19-2015 08:54 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  A few issues:

1. Why is $15 the magic wage? Why not $20 or $50?

2. People are paid based on their productivity. If the going rate for a certain skillset is $8/hr, mandating everyone pay $15/hr for that $8/hr production isn't going to end well. Employers are either going to start automating much more, or they're just going to fire those workers.

3. If an $8/hr skillset all of a sudden pays $15, the people who can only produce $8/hr are going to be all of a sudden competing with people who are capable of producing way more than that. An employer is going to have all kinds of options and will probably go with the person with the best 'credentials.' I can see a scenario where a bunch of college students and/or graduates start taking over a lot of jobs that were once populated by immigrants trying to hustle. The new wage is simply going to price them out because they're less likely to compete on 'intangibles.' Also that will be grounds for a lot of lawsuits methinks.

4. If it's such a great idea, why not implement it tomorrow? Instead they are phasing it in over 5 years. Im sure they know that if they did it tomorrow, the disruption that would follow would ruin their political careers, so they spread it out over 5 years so as to play the crash in slow motion.

5. Prices for final goods are going to have to rise dramatically.

1) Good round number I guess.
2) People aren't paid on their productivity. Productivity has increased dramatically in the last 15 years but wages have not. People are paid as little as an employer can get away with. Wages only start to rise when unemployment numbers fall. But our unemployment figures don't include people who gave up looking. Or account for many who are underemployed or working part-time or as freelancers who are seeking full-time w/ benefits.

This is a good relevant read: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense...get-ahead/

Corporate profits are great. Incomes for workers are not. Part of that has to do with the undermining of overtime laws which means more workers are being forced to work way over the 40 hour work week. This means employers can get more work out of each person without having to pay for it. This reduces the number of employees needed and causes unemployment rates to be higher than they otherwise would be. The higher unemployment rate then makes employees scared to complain about being overburdened because they don't want to lose their jobs.

3) It will help shift payscales upward. This is really something Los Angeles needs one way or another. L.A. is the the most expensive city in the country if you look at incomes relative to cost of living. More expensive than SF or NYC.

4) Because an adjustment period is necessary. Of course it's a disruption. But so was getting rid of child labor and sweatshops.

5) Not necessarily, by that logic, Inn N Out should cost $12 a meal, but they pay high wages and their meals are the same as they cost at Burger King. Wages can rise and prices can stay the same if the company concedes some profit and that's fine with me. Companies have been doing fine for some time. Let the workers have their turn. They can't raise prices beyond what the market will bear.

Post: #54

I used to earn $23 AUD an hour stacking shelves in a supermarket in Australia. Most of the dudes I worked with were Indian. Back when I was getting paid, the exchange rate made this around $20-21 USD on average but at one point AUD > USD. On Sunday I was paid $28-31

Unemployment was low, 5%. I was always got money back at tax return as first $18,000 tax free.

Rent was $530 AUD a month. I could pay rent after 22 hours work. No public transport costs, biked. I could save around $700 a month ($8k+ per year).

Travelled Asia / Europe on those savings every year.

London most service workers get paid less than £8.80 livable wage - they get £6.50-7.00. I don't know how they do it. It's like half the pay, double the expense from where came from.

Post: #55

(05-19-2015 07:31 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 07:17 PM)eradicator Wrote:  I think we will see a huge number of people go unemployed now in Los Angeles because none of the employers will have the money to hire more workers. A $15/hour minimum wage might sound good, but if it means 30% of the workforce becomes unemployed, it can't be a good idea, we are looking at the creation of another Depression with laws like this(not trying to sound like chicken little, but this is that bad of an idea).

Even during the depression the unemployment rate was only 25%.

You do the maths mister tuthmosis: if you double the minimum wage, the number of minimum wage jobs will be cut in half and that will leave a lot of workers out of work. A lot of small businesses that rely on low wage employees will go out of business.

I am not being alarmist, but essentially doubling the minimum wage from $8/hr just a few years ago, to $15/hr with a few years from now will be apocalyptic for the Los Angeles economy. The number of jobs will not stay the same and business owners will just make less money, the business owners will just fire half their low wage employees because they will not be able to keep them and stay in business.

Post: #56

Speakeasy makes a good point concerning the subsidization of big business that is far more insidious than the welfare system.

A point that is completely missed and that has been completely outlawed for discussion by the media is the role that moving off the gold standard has played in increasing inequality, depressing wages, hurting wage owners, and enriching the political class and banking class at the expense of everyone else.

The players change, but the game remains the same. When money is politicized and run by bankers for bankers, inequality widens and no matter who you elect, the system remains rigged. It's not to say hard work and smarts can't make you more money, but that the players at the top have barricaded themselves in power and use their control over money to loot from the most vulnerable, all the while talking like their biggest concern is the most vulnerable. Pretty sick.

From Forbes contributor Brian Domitrovic Link to article

Quote:One of the most shocking statistics of recent economic history is the change, since the 1960s, in the share of the economy taken up by the financial sector. That share has at least doubled, from 4% to probably about 10% today. People wonder what happened to manufacturing (and its generally high wages) in this country. One of the answers is alluded to in the subtitle of Judith Stein’s 2010 book, “How America traded factories for finance in the 1970s.”

The big switch to the foundation of the American financial structure at the advent of this period was the U.S. decision in 1971 to go off the gold standard. Before that time, it was basically clear that outside of wartime (when gold-standard conventions were often suspended), you could basically count on the dollar holding its value against major things like the consumer price level, foreign currencies, and commodities such as gold itself.

After 1971, in contrast, it became basically clear that you could count on no such thing. The CPI might go up 125% in one decade (as it did 1971-1981), the dollar could permanently lose 66% against major currencies (as it did against the yen in this period), and commodities could shoot up ten-to twenty-five fold (as was the case with oil and gold).

Therefore a new day in financial planning also arrived. Suddenly the importance of simply saving money diminished. Money that was saved also had to be hedged. If you simply saved money after 1971, you stood to get killed as the dollar lost value against things it was supposed to be able to procure in the future.

This is where the financial services industry began its long march upward in the share of U.S. economic output it gobbled up. People who had significant money—the rich—threw their money into the products offered by the financial sector, in that the worst thing to happen to a fortune diligently built up over the years would be to see it frittered away on account of currency depreciation.

But can the same be said for the working class and the poor? People of this station by definition have less experience, expertise, and access to financial services. Therefore, people of the lower classes are apt merely to save, as opposed to save and hedge, as has been necessary in the post-1971 world. The inevitable result is what we have seen: the stabilization and growth of the rich’s wealth stash, the diminution of that of the lower classes, and the aggrandizement of the financial sector. We can debate the statistics of the relative wealth of rich and poor—but the real zinger is the stubborn fact that finance’s share of GDP has gone up one and a half times since we went off gold.

What is to be done? Clearly, the income tax code is a highly inopportune place to start. At best, raising taxes on the rich would be to attack matters at the level of symptom rather than cause. At worst, and in all likelihood, higher taxes on the rich would cause a flight of capital out of this country or into inertness, the result being less investment and employment, and thus a worsening of the inequality problem.

As in medicine, the place to address things is at the cause, the root. In this case, the fiat money system. If the next presidency is to show true seriousness on reducing inequality as it has developed in recent generations in this country, a formal reform of the monetary system in the direction of permanent dollar stability will be required.

Post: #57

(05-20-2015 12:36 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:22 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  If minimum wage workers were worth $15, they'd get it.

By that logic, we'd still have people making $2.00/hr. Everytime the minimum wage is ranged, these same points come up. We'll have mass employment, these workers aren't worth that much, etc etc. Have any of these dire predictions ever come true when the minimum wage has been raised in the past?

Ever hear of American companies outsourcing overseas? Think that has anything to do with the price of labor state side? The thing you say didn't happen, did - and it's a national tragedy.

(05-20-2015 12:36 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  I think another serious flaw in people's thinking here is that they aren't accounting for the true rate of inflation. The official inflation numbers are cooked. According to the government, the cost of living has been flat for the past 20 years, lol. Of course they simply discard everything that's increasing from the cpi basket and declare the inflation is nill.

The minimum wage when taking the true inflation cost of living into factor may be lower than it was 30 years ago. So bringing it to $15 may just realigning it with historical norms. Though I'm not sure if $15 is the right number. That sound even a bit high to me. I'd say the minimum wage should be no lower than $11/hr.

And what do you base that on? $11/hr is still well into the poverty level for a family of 4. And, if an arbitrary number like 11 is fine, why not 20? Or 1000?

Post: #58

(05-20-2015 01:07 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 12:36 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:22 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  If minimum wage workers were worth $15, they'd get it.

By that logic, we'd still have people making $2.00/hr. Everytime the minimum wage is ranged, these same points come up. We'll have mass employment, these workers aren't worth that much, etc etc. Have any of these dire predictions ever come true when the minimum wage has been raised in the past?

Ever hear of American companies outsourcing overseas? Think that has anything to do with the price of labor state side? The thing you say didn't happen, did - and it's a national tragedy.

Outsourcing didn't happen because American labor is too expensive. Americans have to have higher wages than rural Chinese and Indians because it's cost much more to live here. It's not possible to compete with people who live off $2 a day, unless we want to accept 3rd world living conditions in the USA.

Quote:And what do you base that on? $11/hr is still well into the poverty level for a family of 4. And, if an arbitrary number like 11 is fine, why not 20? Or 1000?

I think it should be based on historical norms adjusted for inflation and enough to ensure that such people working full time don't have to have their income subsidized by the taxpayer through welfare.

Post: #59

(05-20-2015 01:22 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  I think it should be based on historical norms adjusted for inflation and enough to ensure that such people working full time don't have to have their income subsidized by the taxpayer through welfare.

Interesting, so you'd be in favor of eliminating all welfare programs if the minimum wage was $11?

Post: #60

^^

Wouldn't it just be easier to not have inflation by tying the currency to gold or a basket of commodities? When America went through its largest booms, 1870's-1900 (11% a year, and deflation) and the 1945 post-war boom, (not sure on the percentages for that boom, but a lot of growth and no or little inflation because we were tied to gold) we had a gold standard and inequality shrank.

Post: #61

(05-20-2015 01:26 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  ^^

Wouldn't it just be easier to not have inflation by tying the currency to gold or a basket of commodities? When America went through its largest booms, 1870's-1900 (11% a year, and deflation) and the 1945 post-war boom, (not sure on the percentages for that boom, but a lot of growth and no or little inflation because we were tied to gold) we had a gold standard and inequality shrank.

That is because when currency is tied to gold you can't print money at will.

Inflation has increased rapidly in the west because most countries are debasing their currencies through printing.

The problem is that most of the west has unsustainable debt loads and liabilities. If the interest rates were to raise a few percentage points, most western economies would be unable to pay the interest on their debts.

The only way out for the west is to inflate their debts away.

Post: #62

(05-20-2015 01:25 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 01:22 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  I think it should be based on historical norms adjusted for inflation and enough to ensure that such people working full time don't have to have their income subsidized by the taxpayer through welfare.

Interesting, so you'd be in favor of eliminating all welfare programs if the minimum wage was $11?

You couldn't completely eliminate assistance because not all people have access to work, sometimes through no fault of their own. I think if people have a full-time job, they should at least make enough to not have to be on public assistance to supplement cost of living.

Post: #63

Question to those in the ground in LA:

What percentage of employees in hospitality and low level employment actually go on the books?

Here in Australia our minimum is $20p/h or thereabouts. That's about $15USD, though with a much higher standard of living.

In our cities the majority of these jobs are slackers, immigrants, students, 'tourists' working for roughly $10-12p/h, no benefits, no superannuation and no insurance.

I'm Assuming LA has a much higher percentage of it's population in the 'undocumented' category. What this will probably do is divide the workforce and you will find more small business owners who traditionally went by the books going 'off' of the books because they can't afford a massive labor bill.

Post: #64

While it is a noble cause, I see the end result being the same as most every time the govt. interferes with the economic process...

The rich get richer, the poor remain poor, the middle class gets stuck with the bill.

To pay for the increase in labor costs companies will have to...

- Raise prices - hits the middle class, as they don't get a pay raise but the costs of goods and services goes up. The poor do get a pay raise, but the COL goes up along with it, so they remain poor.

- Cut workers - hits the lower class, less low class jobs. Hits the middle class as those on welfare will increase taking from the tax base. Add to it, the middle class children no longer can find the minimum wage jobs their parents enjoyed to help afford extras/save for college. I believe I heard some where that the % of teenagers with a job today has dropped in half over the last 20 years. More and more underemployed adults taking these low class jobs as nothing else is available.

- Eat the cost - Large companies, owned by the elites, can afford to do this. Small businesses, owned by the middle class, simply cannot. Eventually the small businesses will close up shop and the big boys win.

It will be more of the same we have seen for the last 20 years. The rich get richer, the poor remain poor, and the middle class gets stuck with the bill.

Post: #65

(05-19-2015 07:17 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I think it's a good idea. Even low-skilled, low IQ, or whatever designation the elite have for them people deserve a decent wage. Yes, even the people flipping burgers.

To the guys saying $15 is "way too much", how does Costco afford it then? I think the manosphere just hates poor people and considers them all a bunch of lazy-asses. I want the guy who makes my burger or dish to be able to afford food and rent. Then he is at least less likely to mug you or me for it.

I doubt anyone really has a problem against it because they don't want to see low skilled workers stacking paper. Aside from a few bad characters.

Its a question of economics however, if you rise the minimum wage, a lot of businesses won't be able to cope. So they will either cut their staff, thus making more people unemployed. Or they will only hire those who have enough experience to justify earning $15 per hour. Meaning those who find it hard to find work due to lack of experience, will have it even harder.

Socialism and wealth distribution usually ends up killing off the competition for big businesses that won't really be effected by paying out $15 per hour. As someone said on this thread previously, they will probably just roll out self service machines in a few years time, like they have in the U.K.

Raising the minimum wage is just a populist movement, which cons those who don't understand the economy.

Post: #66

Minimum wage in the Netherlands, where quite some things are more expensive I think, is EUR 8,66 / hour. Before taxes, but this income category only pays for social securities.

Post: #67

The business that hire people for minimum wage in LA have their workforce subsidized by all the low income programs. WalMart for example exusts because its workers live off food stamps. I dont mind a min wage hike at all, especially in SF/LA

Post: #68

(05-20-2015 12:49 AM)Que enspastic Wrote:  I used to earn $23 AUD an hour stacking shelves in a supermarket in Australia. Most of the dudes I worked with were Indian. Back when I was getting paid, the exchange rate made this around $20-21 USD on average but at one point AUD > USD. On Sunday I was paid $28-31

Unemployment was low, 5%. I was always got money back at tax return as first $18,000 tax free.

Rent was $530 AUD a month. I could pay rent after 22 hours work. No public transport costs, biked. I could save around $700 a month ($8k+ per year).

Travelled Asia / Europe on those savings every year.

London most service workers get paid less than £8.80 livable wage - they get £6.50-7.00. I don't know how they do it. It's like half the pay, double the expense from where came from.

Australia has some of the highest costs of living in the world. You left out food which is pricey there, general goods are pricey also. A typical mid-meat meal (places just above Mcdees) that cost around $12-15 bucks in Canada cost $30.00 in OZ.

No way someone can live off 18K there and thrive. When OZs come to Canada they grin at how cheap things are here since are currencies are usually very close.

Post: #69

Minimum wage here in Australia is just over $16. And I was making $25 per hr for my first job at a call centre, no prior experience needed. We're more on the socialist side than America

But cost of living is also considerably higher, a trade off I guess.

Post: #70

I don't know how many of you have managed people before in a small to medium scale company. In the best of times, it can be a Game of Thrones type situation, where people come close to murdering each other over seating assignments, work shifts, parking spots, and small differences in pay/promotions.

In some companies, an average worker that currently gets paid 15 or 16 per hour, probably started out at around ten, and has busted his ass and learned a couple new things over the course of 4 or 5 years to get up to the 15 or 16 dollar an hour level and be worth it.

Now, what happens when the slacker employees or new ones with zero skills, suddenly are making the same as the guy who has put in his time and earned it? You can't give everyone a 6 dollar an hour raise.

It will be a goddamn nightmare for management and will cause huge disruption in the workplace.

Post: #71

(05-20-2015 08:21 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  I don't know how many of you have managed people before in a small to medium scale company. In the best of times, it can be a Game of Thrones type situation, where people come close to murdering each other over seating assignments, work shifts, parking spots, and small differences in pay/promotions.

In some companies, an average worker that currently gets paid 15 or 16 per hour, probably started out at around ten, and has busted his ass and learned a couple new things over the course of 4 or 5 years to get up to the 15 or 16 dollar an hour level and be worth it.

Now, what happens when the slacker employees or new ones with zero skills, suddenly are making the same as the guy who has put in his time and earned it? You can't give everyone a 6 dollar an hour raise.

It will be a goddamn nightmare for management and will cause huge disruption in the workplace.

You fire those employees because they might be worth 10 dollars an hour but they sure as shit aren't worth 15.

Post: #72

(05-20-2015 12:56 AM)eradicator Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 07:31 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 07:17 PM)eradicator Wrote:  I think we will see a huge number of people go unemployed now in Los Angeles because none of the employers will have the money to hire more workers. A $15/hour minimum wage might sound good, but if it means 30% of the workforce becomes unemployed, it can't be a good idea, we are looking at the creation of another Depression with laws like this(not trying to sound like chicken little, but this is that bad of an idea).

Even during the depression the unemployment rate was only 25%.

You do the maths mister tuthmosis: if you double the minimum wage, the number of minimum wage jobs will be cut in half and that will leave a lot of workers out of work. A lot of small businesses that rely on low wage employees will go out of business.

I am not being alarmist, but essentially doubling the minimum wage from $8/hr just a few years ago, to $15/hr with a few years from now will be apocalyptic for the Los Angeles economy. The number of jobs will not stay the same and business owners will just make less money, the business owners will just fire half their low wage employees because they will not be able to keep them and stay in business.

That's not actually how it works.

You're assuming that labour is these employer's only cost.

In reality, they also pay rent / property expenses, ingredients, supplies, licensing, insurance, electricity, gas, maintenance etc.

I'm just guessing, but let's say that cost of paying staff at Burger King for 1 hour (during a period where they sell 100 burgers) is $100 before the wage increase and then $150 after.

However, when you factor in property costs and other costs, the real cost of running the Burger King for one hour (while selling 100 burgers) is $300 before the minimum wage increase and $350 after.

Your per burger cost has gone up from $3 before the wage increase to $3.50 after the wage increase.

The result of the legal minimum wage increase will result in every burger on the meaning costing about 50cents more to the customer.

Employers would maintain the same margins after the slight increase, which customers wouldn't make a big deal about, because 50cents doesn't seem like much and it could be phased in gradually at a rate where they don't even notice that they are paying more.

The real problem is that with everyone who was making $10 an hour now getting $15 an hour, is that demand would increase for various products on the marketplace and when demand increases where supply remains stable, the price that sellers can get away with charging increases.

So, a little ways down the road, everyone is earning $5 more per hour, but due to the inflation that has occurred, they can't actually buy more with their money than before the minimum wage increase.

Post: #73

(05-19-2015 06:59 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 06:55 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 06:54 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  My female co-workers were bitching that they don’t think somebody who flips burgers deserves $15/hr.

I think I already know the answer to this, but how many of your female co-workers have ever flipped burgers?

Zero!

One of them used to live in Kansas City, where she said she earned $23/hr before she came to LA. She was horrified at the fact that somebody with no education could make almost as much as her, who has a CPA and spent 4 years at college. I said “Well the burger flipper’s smarter than you, they have no student loans to pay back!”

Great come back!

Post: #74

(05-19-2015 07:37 PM)netguy68 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 07:17 PM)eradicator Wrote:  Well shit, I'm about to take a mcjob and start stacking paper.

On a serious note, it will be interesting to see how long it takes for fast food and other businesses to switch over to machines that can do the same work as the burger flippers, and how much they cut their staff by. $15/hour is an extremely good wage. I think we will see a huge number of people go unemployed now in Los Angeles because none of the employers will have the money to hire more workers. A $15/hour minimum wage might sound good, but if it means 30% of the workforce becomes unemployed, it can't be a good idea, we are looking at the creation of another Depression with laws like this(not trying to sound like chicken little, but this is that bad of an idea).

I remember several years ago...ok...maybe it was a couple decades ago...Taco Bell actually demo'd a machine in a store that could make tacos to order. I'm pretty sure that they can roll that out, and it's got to be way more complicated than a machine that makes burgers.

In that case, why even bother having a restaurant building? One could have Taco Bell vending machines if one of these machines doesn't take up too much space.

Post: #75

(05-19-2015 08:34 PM)kbell Wrote:  Won't the cost of the food have to simply go up to afford the help? And would people be willing to pay much higher costs for the same food?

Either that or the quality will have to be diminished to meet a certain price point.

A Big Mac will now consist of:

Two All ??? Patties
Spoiled Sauce
Wilted Lettuce
Fake Cheese
Sour Pickles
on a Stale Bun!