McDonalds Hires 62,000, Turns Away Over 938,000 Applicants...

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by rashi


I think its a shame that McDonald's could hire that amount of people, considering that McDonald's is a very low skilled job where technology does 90% of the actual production of their products, but people are being paid almost $8.00 and hour to put fries in a frier, and put burgers in a microwave?

It's ridiculous. Minimum Wage laws have played a significant role in the unemployment in this country.

So you don't believe that there should be any lower limit on the wages at McDonald's?  Who cares whether they just put fries in a frier and burgers in a microwave, they still are working, standing on their feet all day, and have to deal with customers. 

The elitist attitude of some of you guys disgusts me.  Am I the only one who thinks that the American dream is for anyone, no matter the education level, to be able to go out and get a job and work hard and make a wage that at least allows you to afford the McDonald's value meals that you prepare?

 

[Original Playa Records]

I stay away from management in corporate america. They aren't your friend. You're a liability in their eyes. We haven't crossed path yet, I chop it up with my lead and we keep it 100.

 

[Original Playa Records]

I stay away from management in corporate america. They aren't your friend. You're a liability in their eyes. We haven't crossed path yet, I chop it up with my lead and we keep it 100.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by rashi



Automation has always been a Socialist scare tactic argument. Automation doesn't reduce the number of jobs like they say it does, it just simply shifts the demand for labor.


Funny, the same people who cry about Automation will be the same people who cry about better working conditions in air conditioning and better working supplies (which will involve electronics, and who would build these?) to do "infrastructure" like building roads, bridges, ect. We should just give up all technology, get rid of bulldozers, cranes, ect. and do what the Amish do, have the entire village do work. Then we would have FULL employment!

There's no debating with you.

You just argue out of dogma. How old are you btw? 

Automation may or may not be a socialist scare tactic. I don't care either way. The fact that automation/ technology creates new areas of demand for labor (in some  instances) is such a broad statement. Shifts demand where and to whom and at what headcount/ wage ratio? 

You asked how would an enterprise increase in size/productivity without hiring additional labor and I answered your question. There's an entire profession (well paying I m might add) that suggests to businesses how they can increase in size/productivity without hiring additional labor/ hiring the minimal amount. 

It isn't a broad statement, how is it? You are making an argument assuming that employment for the sake employment is good for an economy. This automation argument is ridiculous actually. Because of automation it has allowed prices to drop significantly in various industries since the Industrial Revolution. Since then, Standards of Living has increased and prices have dropped (globally), what is exactly wrong with that? Because of Central Banking monetary manipulation Capitalism, one could argue that automation is "bad" for an economy.

 

What about the headcount/wage ratio? People need to build this new technology, correct? Labor is a commodity, no? Labor is something that is alienable and can be exchanged for goods and services, right? If their previous employment has been replaced by technology, then that means their job wasn't that scarce to begin with. That person should learn a trade that makes his labor a scarce resource. I can't tell you where the demand shifts, it depends on who's demanding the labor.

Moreover, there is always a scarcity of labor somewhere. Even now, I can open up the classified section in the paper and look at much employment oppurtunitites, does everyone qualify, though? Of course not, not everyone is skilled in in auto mechanics, not everyone is skilled in the health care industry, not everyone is a skilled car salesmen.


I think its a shame that McDonald's could hire that amount of people, considering that McDonald's is a very low skilled job where technology does 90% of the actual production of their products, but people are being paid almost $8.00 and hour to put fries in a frier, and put burgers in a microwave?

It's ridiculous. Minimum Wage laws have played a significant role in the unemployment in this country.


Of course there is no debating me when you argue with Statist justifications trying to describe a market economy. You either believe in Free Markets or you don't, you either believe in a system of voluntary exchanges or you don't. There isn't a Gray area here.

Since 2000 or so, extremely low interest rates shifted too many scarce resources into housing and commercial property construction and financing and too little money flowed into productivity enhancing investments. That type of capital accumulation is what creates higher standards of living and, ultimately, higher wages and lower levels of unemployment.

The government in the 90's tried to bank on Automation, only creating a bubble that bursted when nobody ended up buying the products.

Like I've said before. You argue out of dogma and what you've wrote only emphasis that.
No one said automation is bad. You implied that productivity could not be increased without adding headcount and you were clearly wrong.  

lol at no gray area. You sir, do not live in the real world. If you believe that this world is really that black and white then this isn't a good place for you. 

This world is full of grey. Very rarely are things either this or that 100%.  I'm for free markets just as much as you but I also know that there has been no such thing. Ever. It may be something to aspire too but you also have to consider the multitudes of externalities that effect that goal and adjust your approach. 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by rashi



Automation has always been a Socialist scare tactic argument. Automation doesn't reduce the number of jobs like they say it does, it just simply shifts the demand for labor.


Funny, the same people who cry about Automation will be the same people who cry about better working conditions in air conditioning and better working supplies (which will involve electronics, and who would build these?) to do "infrastructure" like building roads, bridges, ect. We should just give up all technology, get rid of bulldozers, cranes, ect. and do what the Amish do, have the entire village do work. Then we would have FULL employment!

There's no debating with you.

You just argue out of dogma. How old are you btw? 

Automation may or may not be a socialist scare tactic. I don't care either way. The fact that automation/ technology creates new areas of demand for labor (in some  instances) is such a broad statement. Shifts demand where and to whom and at what headcount/ wage ratio? 

You asked how would an enterprise increase in size/productivity without hiring additional labor and I answered your question. There's an entire profession (well paying I m might add) that suggests to businesses how they can increase in size/productivity without hiring additional labor/ hiring the minimal amount. 

It isn't a broad statement, how is it? You are making an argument assuming that employment for the sake employment is good for an economy. This automation argument is ridiculous actually. Because of automation it has allowed prices to drop significantly in various industries since the Industrial Revolution. Since then, Standards of Living has increased and prices have dropped (globally), what is exactly wrong with that? Because of Central Banking monetary manipulation Capitalism, one could argue that automation is "bad" for an economy.

 

What about the headcount/wage ratio? People need to build this new technology, correct? Labor is a commodity, no? Labor is something that is alienable and can be exchanged for goods and services, right? If their previous employment has been replaced by technology, then that means their job wasn't that scarce to begin with. That person should learn a trade that makes his labor a scarce resource. I can't tell you where the demand shifts, it depends on who's demanding the labor.

Moreover, there is always a scarcity of labor somewhere. Even now, I can open up the classified section in the paper and look at much employment oppurtunitites, does everyone qualify, though? Of course not, not everyone is skilled in in auto mechanics, not everyone is skilled in the health care industry, not everyone is a skilled car salesmen.


I think its a shame that McDonald's could hire that amount of people, considering that McDonald's is a very low skilled job where technology does 90% of the actual production of their products, but people are being paid almost $8.00 and hour to put fries in a frier, and put burgers in a microwave?

It's ridiculous. Minimum Wage laws have played a significant role in the unemployment in this country.


Of course there is no debating me when you argue with Statist justifications trying to describe a market economy. You either believe in Free Markets or you don't, you either believe in a system of voluntary exchanges or you don't. There isn't a Gray area here.

Since 2000 or so, extremely low interest rates shifted too many scarce resources into housing and commercial property construction and financing and too little money flowed into productivity enhancing investments. That type of capital accumulation is what creates higher standards of living and, ultimately, higher wages and lower levels of unemployment.

The government in the 90's tried to bank on Automation, only creating a bubble that bursted when nobody ended up buying the products.

Like I've said before. You argue out of dogma and what you've wrote only emphasis that.
No one said automation is bad. You implied that productivity could not be increased without adding headcount and you were clearly wrong.  

lol at no gray area. You sir, do not live in the real world. If you believe that this world is really that black and white then this isn't a good place for you. 

This world is full of grey. Very rarely are things either this or that 100%.  I'm for free markets just as much as you but I also know that there has been no such thing. Ever. It may be something to aspire too but you also have to consider the multitudes of externalities that effect that goal and adjust your approach.