Post: #26

(02-28-2017 02:17 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Meh, personally I don't think it would hurt to pay these people a bit more. And this isn't coming from a political/economic standpoint, just being objective here. I don't know the first thing about economics.

More pay = happier employees. Happier employees provide a better service and product.

You're looking at the Surface Level.

- These policies are attempts by Socialists to negatively-impact Capitalist Businesses.

- The Businesses take a severe financial hit, and are forced to reduce Labour Costs to survive.

- These newly-discarded, low-skill employees are unlikely to find other jobs, so are now forced to rely on Government Handouts to survive.

- If they're relying on Handouts, and the bigger Government that entails, they'll then vote for more Socialism.

The appearance of 'Caring' about the welfare of 'The People' is all smoke an mirrors. 'The People' constitute a murky, shifting class depending on whom Socialists best think at that point in time will give them the Political Social Upheaval that is their eventual goal.

It's not about making things better, it's about making things bad enough that Communism is decided upon by the masses as the solution.

Post: #27

I like them when you are in a foreign country and can't understand a fucking thing on the menu or what they are saying and you can use things and just change the language to English, walk up and just give them a receipt.

Post: #28

(02-28-2017 05:37 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 02:17 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Meh, personally I don't think it would hurt to pay these people a bit more. And this isn't coming from a political/economic standpoint, just being objective here. I don't know the first thing about economics.

More pay = happier employees. Happier employees provide a better service and product.

You're looking at the Surface Level.

- These policies are attempts by Socialists to negatively-impact Capitalist Businesses.

- The Businesses take a severe financial hit, and are forced to reduce Labour Costs to survive.

- These newly-discarded, low-skill employees are unlikely to find other jobs, so are now forced to rely on Government Handouts to survive.

- If they're relying on Handouts, and the bigger Government that entails, they'll then vote for more Socialism.

The appearance of 'Caring' about the welfare of 'The People' is all smoke an mirrors. 'The People' constitute a murky, shifting class depending on whom Socialists best think at that point in time will give them the Political Social Upheaval that is their eventual goal.

It's not about making things better, it's about making things bad enough that Communism is decided upon by the masses as the solution.

I'd agree with you, but the fact that we've sent billions of dollars to the banks once they failed. . .I'd say we're halfway there already.(to communism in the west er. . . .[California] that is) Also, with this social engineering with "everyone I dont agree with is a Nazi" going on, the attack of white men, and men in general, the using of Blacks and minorities as puppets and useful idiots (this includes feminists) and the seemingly deliberate debilitation of blacks and minorities in their communities, I'd say were about 80% communist, all we need now is universal basic income, and the leftist politics to win out, and we're suddenly soviet russia.

If Trump lost, or if he loses to the media in the future, this is what we'll have.

People in the U.S. have no idea how bad communism is so they need to experience it first hand for a generation or two. If I were in the states, I'd focus on getting myself other skills to make me marketable in other non-retarded countries, JUST IN CASE Trump fails at this.

Post: #29

(02-28-2017 03:36 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 03:10 PM)jj90 Wrote:  Yes if you take the position that the average fast food worker will say "now I'm getting more, I have more incentive to work harder" then sure.

Perspective.

Yes, and I have faith that most employees would in fact work harder given a higher wage. Fact is, they already work hard. It may not be mentally stressful, but it is repetitive and physical work. As the richest country in the world, surely we can afford a pay raise for these people.

Manosphere loses its shit because Wendy's employees ask for a pay raise yet not a peep about Gary Cohn walking away from Goldman Sachs with $300 million

If you hate poor people, just say so.

If you don't mind me asking, what is your experience with minimum wage workers? Have you held a minimum wage job yourself?

Post: #30

Post: #31

(02-28-2017 01:43 PM)ascotpudding Wrote:  The real purpose of the minimum wage is to increase union member wages.

Most union contracts are written with hourly wages calculated at some multiple of the current minimum wage.

Increase the minimum wage and you increase the union hourly wage, too.

Given the true motivation behind the minimum wage, you can see why the powers that be don't care how many entry level jobs it destroys.

THIS. Notice in the picture, the fattie sitting at the table is wearing an SEIU jersey - Service Employees International Union. Those people and others like them are exactly why so many jobs are turning into kiosks,

Even the Obama administration published are report (since taken down with the change of administration) predicting: "There is an 83% chance that workers who earn $20 an hour or less could have their jobs replaced by robots in the next five years. Those in the $40 an hour pay range face a 31% chance of having their jobs taken over by the machines.”

Yet with the reduced need for people to do even white collar jobs, we still see the fallaciously reasoned push by the globalists for even more refugees, illegal aliens, dreamers, etc. supposedly because "we need people to do the jobs Americans won't do; are not qualified for, etc." This is abject horse shit as demonstrated by their own messiah's white house.

The last thing we need right now is more people, especially those with zero marketable skills who already only stand to pile onto the benefit wagon. Here's a preview of where we're headed:

Post: #32

I know it's fun to laugh at the poor people for wanting too much money, but I don't think the minimum wage increase has anything to do with this. It's just a cover for Wendys to swap out employees with much cheaper terminals. By blaming it on the minimum wage increase, their image goes from "heartless employer replacing struggling workers with machines" to "put upon corporation forced to automate just to survive."

The minimum wage could be abolished tomorrow, and there would be no way a human could compete with one of these machines. Here's the math that shows why:

According to the article, one of those kiosks is 15k. We'll assume it costs about a thousand a year to service it, too. Let's assume a 3 year lifespan for the thing, which is being very generous: it's likely closer to 5. Obviously, the terminal works all day, and doesn't take breaks, since it's just a computer. We'll assume the average Wendys is open 14 hours a day, from say 11:00 AM to 1:00 AM. Most Wendys follow a similar schedule. Wendys are a fast food chain, so they're open 365 days a year. (We'll omit the days with reduced hours, like Christmas, to simplify the numbers. It won't affect the final calculation much.)

So the operating cost over this thing's lifespan is (1000*3)+15000, or 18000 dollars. The number of hours worked is 14*365*3., or 15330. To get the operating cost, you divide 18000/15330... and the hourly operating cost is 1.17$ per hour.

There is no way a human can compete with a machine that costs 1.17$ an hour. Not even close. And this cheap, easy calculation I did is actually more favorable for the human, because I didn't include overhead costs (Like the time a manager would spend doing their scheduling, or the time the legal department spends making sure their paperwork is in order, or the slip and fall insurance the company has to pay, etc...) and I assumed a very short lifespan for the machine. Fiddle with the numbers a bit and I bet you the cost for one of these terminals might very well be below 1$ an hour.

Automation is about to take a giant scythe to life as we know it. What you're seeing with Wendys is going to be happening in almost every industry, from commercial driving to programming. As our tools and computers get better and better, society is simply going to need less people. Hell, in most industries, it's already happened! (How many travel agents have you seen in the past 10 years? That used to be a big career.)

This is a problem that society needs to confront with its eyes wide open. If we just stick to tired discussions about how bad the minimum wage is, we're going to get blindsided by an oncoming truck.

Post: #33

I want to get one of these machines installed in my house asap.

Aloha!

Post: #34

I almost want to underbid and say I can do a better job at $10/hr than these lazy fucks can supposedly do at $15/hr.
I'm not usually this cocky until some deadweights make some empty claim about their labor worth, when I busted ass (regardless of wage) back in my 20's, and thus began ascending the proverbial career ladder.

Post: #35

(02-28-2017 08:35 PM)Sombro Wrote:  I almost want to underbid and say I can do a better job at $10/hr than these lazy fucks can supposedly do at $15/hr.
I'm not usually this cocky until some deadweights make some empty claim about their labor worth, when I busted ass (regardless of wage) back in my 20's, and thus began ascending the proverbial career ladder.

You gonna underbid that terminal at 1 buck an hour? 'cause that's what it costs.

Post: #36

(02-28-2017 08:06 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I know it's fun to laugh at the poor people for wanting too much money, but I don't think the minimum wage increase has anything to do with this. It's just a cover for Wendys to swap out employees with much cheaper terminals. By blaming it on the minimum wage increase, their image goes from "heartless employer replacing struggling workers with machines" to "put upon corporation forced to automate just to survive."

The minimum wage could be abolished tomorrow, and there would be no way a human could compete with one of these machines. Here's the math that shows why:

According to the article, one of those kiosks is 15k. We'll assume it costs about a thousand a year to service it, too. Let's assume a 3 year lifespan for the thing, which is being very generous: it's likely closer to 5. Obviously, the terminal works all day, and doesn't take breaks, since it's just a computer. We'll assume the average Wendys is open 14 hours a day, from say 11:00 AM to 1:00 AM. Most Wendys follow a similar schedule. Wendys are a fast food chain, so they're open 365 days a year. (We'll omit the days with reduced hours, like Christmas, to simplify the numbers. It won't affect the final calculation much.)

So the operating cost over this thing's lifespan is (1000*3)+15000, or 18000 dollars. The number of hours worked is 14*365*3., or 15330. To get the operating cost, you divide 18000/15330... and the hourly operating cost is 1.17$ per hour.

There is no way a human can compete with a machine that costs 1.17$ an hour. Not even close. And this cheap, easy calculation I did is actually more favorable for the human, because I didn't include overhead costs (Like the time a manager would spend doing their scheduling, or the time the legal department spends making sure their paperwork is in order, or the slip and fall insurance the company has to pay, etc...) and I assumed a very short lifespan for the machine. Fiddle with the numbers a bit and I bet you the cost for one of these terminals might very well be below 1$ an hour.

Automation is about to take a giant scythe to life as we know it. What you're seeing with Wendys is going to be happening in almost every industry, from commercial driving to programming. As our tools and computers get better and better, society is simply going to need less people. Hell, in most industries, it's already happened! (How many travel agents have you seen in the past 10 years? That used to be a big career.)

This is a problem that society needs to confront with its eyes wide open. If we just stick to tired discussions about how bad the minimum wage is, we're going to get blindsided by an oncoming truck.

Well thought out... I'd submit that your argument is only strengthened because you're HEAVILY underestimating the true cost of workers comp insurance, social security, IRS, EDD, medicare as well as rare but potentially catastrophic costs like lawsuits.

I try not to delve into conspiracy theory, but it's hard not to see that this is a push by whatever powers that may be (globalists, communists, union members) to manipulate the least sophisticated members of the working class into a policy that's obviously detrimental to their own interests. They are only hastening their
redundancy and they don't even know it.

As big as this change is going to be, I'm much more concerned about what will happen when autonomous vehicles decimate the jobs of truckers across the US.

Post: #37

(02-28-2017 04:06 PM)Enoch Wrote:  Every male fast food worker could get an entry level job in construction that pays at least 50% more.

BUT

They would have to work really hard, get really dirty every single day. Cell phone DOES NOT come out while you are on the clock. Most people just won't do it.

Upside is when I worked construction i was in by far the best shape of my life. Swinging a sledge is great for core strength.

Right? Every summer during college I wouldn't be waiting tables or washing dishes, I'd be busting my ass at the local factory or working with a construction crew.

Post: #38

(02-28-2017 02:52 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Like I said, I don't know the first thing about economics man. I'm just coming at it from another angle. I don't mind if some Mcdonald's cashier is making $15/hr. Chances are it'll increase productivity and he'll be more inclined to provide better service. I also wouldn't mind paying more for a product if that's what it takes to pay these people more.

It's a win-win situation the way I look at it. Put away your silly notions of what people are "worth" to the side for a second.

I can respect where you are coming from because most of my family runs small businesses and for a time I was in charge of hiring and training minimum wage workers at a startup.

No owner worth his salt is going to think about his employees as pieces of shit, because as you hint at they are going to make the place run smoothly.

So in that sense it is worth it to offer more money and to keep people loyal by treating them with respect and appreciation.

But when you have to pay to keep the lights on, and it's your ass on the line, it is VERY easy to figure out what people are worth. If you haven't done hiring while being privy to the financials, then you can't offer a counterpoint to this.

In most cases, for entry level work, the employer offers as low a wage as he can get away with. But then, if the employee proves useful, the employer usually gives him/her a raise to keep them around.

Lots of moving parts, obviously.

"Cheaper" labor could come in and offer their services at a perpetually lower rate.

Poor organization could mean that there is no profit to be made unless the wages are kept low.

An employee could be too much of a wallflower and not ever ask for a raise.

But these all come with tons of trade-offs.

So it may sound mercenary to you, but there is no malice intended when an owner looks at an employee and figures out how their work in 8 hours relates to productivity which relates to gross income.

If you're not grossing more than say 5% on what you are paying the employee (to compare to a very safe investment vehicle where you could just park your money), and/or you don't see huge long term potential in building up an operation at a current loss for future gain... then you have to cut the person off.

Of course we would all love other people to make more money and be more successful and happy. But you also don't want to think of them as victims or charity cases... which is really not that kind or humane a way to look at other people.

Final thought. Economists I read have used this example to prove there is no discrimination against women in the workplace, but you could use it for any low wage earner as well:

If it were really true that all these employees were worth so much more, but it was only the evil capitalist exploiter that kept their wages low, then an equally greedy (but smarter) competitor could come along and offer them each 5 cents more an hour to work for him. He could poach all the best employees from the other companies, leaving them with a shortage of labor, and still make a huge profit for himself.

The fact that you don't see that happening very often means most people are being paid just about as much as businesses can bear.

Obviously you could say "well what's another 1% from the rich man's pocket to go to a guy who really needs it". But then I would say to you -- you put up your own money so we can see how much it really matters to you. It's easy to SAY it... but will you actually do it?

Post: #39

All these anecdotes about how fast food workers are lazy dregs, or good people just trying to earn a living, or whatever, are just emotional bullshit that have no relevance to a policy debate.

The fact is, any method of wealth distribution that directly prevents people from being able to find a job is inefficient and destructive. Imagine the scenario that would play out hundreds of thousands of times under a $15/hr minimum wage: You have a kid sitting on his ass all summer who wants to work for $10/hr, and you have employers who want to hire a kid for $10/hr, but they may not engage in this mutually agreed upon arrangement because the government says so. Let me repeat: The minimum wage is a ban on mutually beneficial transactions. It's an idiotic way to try and alleviate poverty.

If you believe the morality of wealth redistribution, it's better to just go full Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor, rather than try to accomplish the same outcome with a policy that would deactivate a large swath of the workforce.

Post: #40

It's all fun and schadenfreude until you are the one to lose your job, whether to a robot, offshoring, or some H1B Apoo.

Post: #41

A very big, scary, and complex problem that I will attempt to delve into.

What makes this a complex issue is that it is in a gray area when it comes to what’s good for society. We see this with illegal drugs as well. There are those who say “fuck it, just make all drugs legal and tax it” in an attempt to solve the many issues we have with the illegal drug trade. But laws against “mind altering substances” have existed for centuries and with good reason. The addictive nature of these substances would open up a whole host of new problems if unleashed on the general population that those who advocate its legalization clearly don’t consider. This concept is why I am opposed to marijuana legalization even though there’s really nothing wrong with it in of itself – it’s an attempt to shift the Overton Window.

This same concept applies to automation. With the way our economy is designed, there will end up being huge numbers of people who are unemployable. I look at the comments on this video, or what other people say regarding this issue – that this is good because with so many people unemployed it will result in natural shift to the economy to something like universal based income and allow people to “focus on things other than working to survive so they can be creative” blah blah. Give me a fucking break, not in a million years. Or if that does happen, it will be very temporary. Those at the top will never allow us underlings to do nothing that benefits them yet continue to eat and take up space. The guy in the video was subtle about it, but did you notice how he said the population of horses peaked in 1915 and afterwards went down, and right after that literally swapped humans for horses in a statement? Intentional or not, you get the idea.

Another concept that many people refuse to accept is the fallacy of the idea that anyone can do anything. “Those fast food workers are just lazy and could train themselves in a marketable skill if they just put their mind to it.” No. Not everyone is capable of being an engineer or scientist or programmer. This obviously contradicts the Leftist narrative which is why it can’t be discussed. With an economy in our present form, you will, simply put, always need jobs for stupid people. This is a simplified statement not intended to look down on these people, but to accept the reality and get it across.

But there is something interesting about the above issue that should be considered. Who is reproducing more nowadays? Higher IQ people or lower IQ people? Yep. But what’s interesting is that it was not always this way. Before 1900 let’s say, higher IQ people reproduced more, and there were relatively more high IQ people in the global population. For instance, the first world’s population used to be far greater than the third world’s population. That has flipped drastically over the last 100 years. Additionally, laws regarding welfare and taxation in first world countries have incentivized lower IQ people to reproduce more and higher IQ people to reproduce less, again, over the last 50-100 years. With the automation that’s coming, why on earth would we want to do that to ourselves? I believe the Industrial Revolution went as smoothly as it did partly because higher IQ people were reproducing more and humans were better able to adapt to the changes. I also believe that if higher IQ people were the ones reproducing more over the last 100 years that we would be far more prepared for what’s to come. Just food for thought.

But back to where I started – why this is in a gray area with regard to what’s good for society. It’s good because we as humans are once again increasing our abundance of food and other resources, becoming more efficient, freeing up more time for ourselves, etc. It’s bad because of an age-old problem: the inherent lust for power by humans and the struggle between the common man and those who wish to consolidate that power. Self-driving cars, for example, could be great….until it’s used to limit your movement. Automation is great, and if we were acting with the common man’s interest in mind, this transition might be a lot easier. But with the way things have gone over the last 100 years, it’s clear that the world has not been going forward with the common man’s interest in mind. As a result, I think, were in for some tough times.

Post: #42

(03-01-2017 12:19 AM)Delta Wrote:  All these anecdotes about how fast food workers are lazy dregs, or good people just trying to earn a living, or whatever, are just emotional bullshit that have no relevance to a policy debate.

The fact is, any method of wealth distribution that directly prevents people from being able to find a job is inefficient and destructive. Imagine the scenario that would play out hundreds of thousands of times under a $15/hr minimum wage: You have a kid sitting on his ass all summer who wants to work for $10/hr, and you have employers who want to hire a kid for $10/hr, but they may not engage in this mutually agreed upon arrangement because the government says so. Let me repeat: The minimum wage is a ban on mutually beneficial transactions. It's an idiotic way to try and alleviate poverty.

If you believe the morality of wealth redistribution, it's better to just go full Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor, rather than try to accomplish the same outcome with a policy that would deactivate a large swath of the workforce.

Except most of these minimum wage workers are on welfare, whether they're working or not.

There is already wealth redistribution, it's just taxpayers funding it instead of these corporations.

I'm not saying $15/hr minimum wages are the answer, but neither is having me, you, and your parents foot the bill when Wendy's or Walmart don't pay a livable wage.

The market is never going to correct itself with that safety net there. Meaning there is currently no "free market", just like we don't have "free trade" with China.

Post: #43

(03-01-2017 12:59 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  It's all fun and schadenfreude until you are the one to lose your job, whether to a robot, offshoring, or some H1B Apoo.

Even if you aren't the one to lose your job, you are impacted whether you realize it or not. That's economics ... supply and demand. Adding supply of white collar workers through H1B, over time, has lowered white collar wages across the board due to supply/demand shifts. Adding illegals to the blue collar market does the same there. Automation is taking demand away from both inexorably over time.

That's part of what's really sick about the illegals and H1Bs being added to the job market ... we are all being squeezed by automation anyway, and people in the job market now are to some extent racing against time to "make hay while the sun shines" ... so crushing the job market with foreign labor is an insidious thing to add to the mix.

Post: #44

It's not just fast food:





Back in the '90s I had a job that took be through slaughterhouses. Though it had an assembly line, the actually boning, cutting, etc, was done by people. Lots of people.

I noticed the Americans were rapidly being replaced by foreigners. Most I am pretty sure were not in the country legally.

Post: #45

(03-01-2017 12:59 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  It's all fun and schadenfreude until you are the one to lose your job, whether to a robot, offshoring, or some H1B Apoo.

You aren't owed a job.

Nothing to do with fun; it's life. Every day you have to get up and hustle for your daily bread.

To a business owner, the robot or Apoo might actually be better. It's up to you (if it's your job) to prove otherwise, or head to greener pastures.

Why is this such a controversial concept on a forum dedicated to men improving so they can get more action with women?

Post: #46

Because at this forum we recognize that self-improvement suffers from diminishing returns as the plague of feminism inevitably increases the ratio of high quality men to women from 1:1 to 5:1, then to 15:1 and finally to 50:1. It's not sustainable.

At some point, you just have to stop and address the source of the problem.

Post: #47

Come on HCE, those fast food workers can just go out and get jobs as coders and startup CEOs.

If they weren't so lazy, they'd have higher I.Q.s.

Post: #48

^plenty of construction and other blue collar work is available. If they are so hard working, they wouldn't have any trouble working those jobs instead of cooking French fries for a living.

Post: #49

People who supported Trump for his promises to end illegal immigration and bring back jobs now claim that there are abundance of jobs with decent wages and that we should replace workers any time it's cost efficient.

Post: #50

(03-01-2017 11:44 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Because at this forum we recognize that self-improvement suffers from diminishing returns as the plague of feminism inevitably increases the ratio of high quality men to women from 1:1 to 5:1, then to 15:1 and finally to 50:1. It's not sustainable.

At some point, you just have to stop and address the source of the problem.

Then you may be misdiagnosing the source.

Do you really believe a third party is in the best position to decide what an employer should pay an employee?

Also, kiosks create jobs for: people who design them, people who assemble them, people who sell them, people who install them, people who service them, and various other marketing and admin positions.