McDonald's Hits All-Time High As Wall Street Cheers Replacement of Cashiers With Kiosks (cnbc.com) 632
McDonald's is expected to increase its sales via new digital ordering kiosks that will replace cashiers in 2,500 restaurants. As a result, the company's shares hit an all-time high, rallying 26 percent this year through Monday. CNBC reports: Andrew Charles from Cowen cited plans for the restaurant chain to roll out mobile ordering across 14,000 U.S. locations by the end of 2017. The technology upgrades, part of what McDonald's calls "Experience of the Future," includes digital ordering kiosks that will be offered in 2,500 restaurants by the end of the year and table delivery. "MCD is cultivating a digital platform through mobile ordering and Experience of the Future (EOTF), an in-store technological overhaul most conspicuous through kiosk ordering and table delivery," Charles wrote in a note to clients Tuesday. "Our analysis suggests efforts should bear fruit in 2018 with a combined 130 bps [basis points] contribution to U.S. comps [comparable sales]." He raised his 2018 U.S. same store sales growth estimate for the fast-food chain to 3 percent from 2 percent.
Let me guess.. (Score:5, Funny)
Running Windows XP Embedded, and connected to the internet for convenient maintenance. What could possibly go wrong?
Re:Let me guess.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, this^
Wall street is the only part of the country that would cheer the loss of jobs.
Re:Let me guess.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wall street is the only part of the country that would cheer the loss of jobs.
Everybody should cheer. The purpose of economic activity is to create goods and services, not "keeping people busy". If the same number of burgers can be delivered with less labor, that is a GOOD THING.
As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the customers, franchisees, and shareholders will have more money to spend on other things, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy. For more insight on why pointless make-work jobs are NOT "good for the economy", you can read The Parable of the Broken Window [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually Only shareholders will have "more money" to spend
In a competitive market (and fast food is competitive) most of the cost savings will go to the customer, not the shareholders. Historically, this is what has almost always happened.
Henry Ford got rich by automating automobile manufacturing, but far more money was saved by his customers when the cost of a car went from over $10,000 for hand-built cars to $850 for the first Model-T in 1908, and to only $300 by 1925.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. I thought we already had vending machines. MacDonalds was supposed to be a fast food joint, which actually allows you to customize your order and have face-to-face service.
Re:Let me guess.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Increased productivity is generally a good thing but I take issue with this point
"As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the customers, franchisees, and shareholders will have more money to spend on other things, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy. "
Currently we have an unprecedented amount of capital accumulated at the top (within major corporations and the wealthiest few) that is most certainly not generating more jobs. Much of it is just sitting around accumulating interest. This is why we have a stock market so out of wack with our country's current level of prosperity. I fail to see how these interests having even more money will help generate jobs.
If you actually want to generate jobs in a scenario like we are currently in you want the people at the bottom to have more money because they are going to go right out there and spend that money (being poor means you have a shortage of capital to spend which makes it is virtually assured they will be spending the money rather then saving it which generates far less economic activity) thus generating a greater demand for goods and services. The affluent and our major corporations generally all have enough capital to generate an epic amount of jobs, they don't do so because there's no demand for the goods and service these jobs would be providing.
Now before people get crazy on me I'll just add on here that this does not make the super rich or major corporations "bad guys" by any stretch, I'm just explaining our current reality and how capitalism works.
Re:Let me guess.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument hinges on those jobs being 'pointless,'
If you can be replaced with a kiosk, your job is pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Let me guess.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or put another way, I should have to put up with a sullen attitude and incorrect orders because some entitled college student hates working the register to pay for her Gender Studies "degree."
Curse of the Invisible Hand. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Let me guess.. (Score:3, Informative)
Your studies are clearly not in Economics. You would realize that busy work is not valuable to anyone. Read a book.
Re: (Score:2)
..and if the day comes when only a small percentage of the population is fit to task for the remaining jobs? Who are these companies going to sell to?
Re: Let me guess.. (Score:5, Interesting)
..and if the day comes when only a small percentage of the population is fit to task for the remaining jobs?
As jobs are automated, their cost of production drops, meaning money is freed up to spend or invest elsewhere in the economy. This means that not only is there no net loss of jobs, the additional production means that the same income can buy more goods and services. I know that this is hard for some people to believe, but higher productivity and more affordable prices do NOT cause poverty.
If automation caused poverty, then America, Europe, and Japan would be starving, while countries that avoided the "folly of efficiency" such as Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Afghanistan would be rich and prosperous.
Who are these companies going to sell to?
Just for the sake of argument, let's say that "this time is different", and greater productivity really does lead to mass poverty. Then when the rich refuse to hire the poor, the poor could just MAKE STUFF FOR EACH OTHER. Since grocery store pies will only be available to the rich, I can grow apples in my backyard, and barter with my neighbor who can make them into pies in her kitchen. Perhaps we could even use little metal or paper tokens as a medium of exchange to facilitate these transactions.
We could just build a parallel economy. But the difference is that the rich will use automation, while we will do everything manually. But the joke will be one them, because in this alternative universe, automation CAUSES POVERTY, so soon we will be rich while their efficient production will lead them to the poorhouse! HA HA HA!!!
Re: Let me guess.. (Score:5, Insightful)
As jobs are automated, their cost of production drops, meaning money is freed up to spend or invest elsewhere in the economy.
Nice theory, but it only holds a certain amount of water. The price of a product and the cost of manufacturing it are only loosely coupled. A vendor will sel the product for whatever the market will bear. With the advent of easy (not necessarily cheap) credit, people will keep paying old prices even when they can't really afford it.
TL;DR: people are stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Add to that the fact that vendors will hoard the money rather than reinvest them and you end up with a crapton of unemployed people and a shitload of money sitting in war chests or mansions on the Riviera.
Re: (Score:3)
Add to that the fact that vendors will hoard the money rather than reinvest them
How exactly do vendors "hoard" their money? Do they:
1) Expand to make even more money
2) Cash it out and put in their own pockets
3) Invest it using other means such as bonds or stock market
4) Stick in the bank
5) Buy a giant Scrooge McDuck style safe to store stacks of $100 bills and gold coins.
In the case of 1 and 3, the money goes back into the economy. The business expands, creating more jobs by the expansion itself or r
Re: (Score:3)
higher productivity and more affordable prices do NOT cause poverty.
We're not getting more affordable prices, though. In order for that to happen, wages have to make gains on inflation. That hasn't happened in over twenty years, especially the minimum wage. Absent MGI, permitting people to work for less than a living wage is some percentage slavery (whatever percentage of needs are unmet.)
Just for the sake of argument, let's say that "this time is different", and greater productivity really does lead to mass poverty
That is a straw man, if you had a valid argument you would make it. No one is claiming that greater productivity leads to mass poverty. The claim is that a reduced number of jobs will lead
Re: (Score:3)
In the last 20 years minimum wage has tripled from 5 to 15.
What? Who told you that, and why are you repeating it like a dumbshit? Type minimum wage in usa into google right now and then fuck off.
Re: Let me guess.. (Score:5, Insightful)
He isn't trolling, the question is valid. We are eliminating low qualification jobs. Which is by itself a good thing, we don't need 100 farm hands to do what a single machine can do better, faster and more efficiently. But what are we going to do with the 100 farm hands. Putting a shovel into someone's hands and telling him to dig from here to next Wednesday is something you can do to everyone (some handicapped people excluded). If you replace them with a machine, retraining those 100 people to write computer programs is not going to work.
Jobs that require an IQ of 80 can be done by nearly everyone. Require an IQ of 100 and half the population is excluded. Require 120 and you'll have a quite hard time finding work for a sizable amount of your people.
And jobs get more "brainy". The low qualification, low intelligence jobs have been eliminated from production. We're now, as you can see in this example, doing the same with services. Where should these people work now? We cannot retrain them all to be programmers, analysts and consultants, they don't have the mental capacity, and we simply don't need so many middle managers, which are equally being eliminated. For the same reason.
Re: Let me guess.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This works as long as they're few. It works as long as the majority of your population is not in that group and can actually be simultaneously kept in fear of becoming part of it and being happy that they have something to look down onto as "those lazy bums". That way you keep them busy working for you.
We're nearing critical mass, though. At some point you'll have to resort to violence to keep them from going at your throat. You can of course do what we do now and pit them against each other, but that bears the threat that at some point someone might emerge that is charismatic enough to unite them when he says "follow me!"
And then we have Paris 1789, Moscow 1917 or Berlin 1933, depending on how it's going to pan out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously all these low qualification job seekers aren't on par with your intellectual capacity, yet these people still need a job. When automation eliminates 100k's of jobs, these people will all go on government assistance of some sort. Then you and your shareholders will be endlessly patting yourselves on the back over your profits, all the while endlessly bitching about people on welfares.
And your 'Trickle Down Economics' fantasy brainwashed into you is the only thing The Gipper ever left for this count
Re: Let me guess.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason that wasn't a problem back then (and up until now, it didn't happen only once) was that new industries emerged that hoovered up the available workforce.
When farms needed fewer hands, it was actually a beneficial situation because there was actually a shortage of workers for the at the same time emerging industries. The former farmers flocked to the booming industry towns (with all the ensuing problems), but at least these people did have a job again.
When industries automated away the conveyor belt workplaces with industry robots, the service industry was quite happy to take the former industry workers and use them as restaurant waiters, supermarket cashiers and fast food restaurant burger flippers.
The thing is that these jobs were all quite menial jobs, requiring low skill, little training and could be done by pretty much anyone. The skill requirements for raking hay, putting a sheet of metal under a press and pushing a button or carrying a tray of glasses is quite negligible. The problem now is that all those jobs have been automated, and there isn't anywhere to go for those people that isn't either already automated as well or won't be in a few years. Technology is at the point where it can do what someone with a low IQ can do, and since computers can work 24/7 and don't form unions, they are simply more attractive as "employees".
Up until now, you could argue (and rightfully so) that a new kind of market would emerge that needs those low qualified, low intelligence workers as cheap labor. Today, this simply isn't the case anymore. We have arrived in a time where it is indeed possible to replace some people with a very small script.
Re: (Score:3)
Busy work, no. People getting paid for it, yes.
Like I said before, give me a way to make people spend money without them having a job and I could ignore that requirement. Until then, we need people to have jobs so they have money so they can spend so they prop the economy up.
Re: (Score:3)
Ask a student who needs to pay for tuition how much of a good thing it is you selfish dick
If you're asking McD for a free handout, just so you can pay tuition, you're the selfish dick.
"living" Minimum wage (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask the student how important it is to have minimum wage jobs be paid a "living" wage.
Yup, society at present is very F'd up. Nope, communism/socialism won't fix anything, in fact it does the opposite.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, communism/socialism won't fix anything, in fact it does the opposite.
So then you're opposed to a minimum wage, right? Because that's socialism. But if you oppose a living minimum wage, then you support slavery... absent MGI, anyway
Re: (Score:3)
But if you oppose a living minimum wage, then you support slavery
Do you not know what a slave is? If I volunteer at the local soup kitchen, does that make me a slave? By YOUR definition, it does. However, slaves are considered property and have no choices. I can throw down my apron and walk out of the soup kitchen. A slave does not have that choice.
In the context of this discussion, if a "slave" doesn't like his wages, he's free to quit, making him not really slave. If he wants to make better wages, h
Re:Let me guess.. (Score:4, Interesting)
look up the performance of the test stores and see that they've actually hired MORE people due to the increased workload.
This is analogous to the way that ATMs increased jobs for human tellers [aei.org].
Increased efficiency leading to greater demand is known as Jevon's Paradox [wikipedia.org]. It is one more reason why zero-sum reasoning about economic issues is almost always wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
OP lost something in translation. The 3% number is misquoted:
From the source:
"Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although
workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of
hourly paid workers, they made up nearly half of those
paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed
teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 15 percent
earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3
percent of workers age 25 and older. (See tables 1 and 7.)
Some more
In 2014, 77.2 million workers age 16 a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not so sure about that. The McD's near me at work changed to kiosks, and I can swear all the people who used to be at the cashier are now working inside putting food and orders together.
They went with the kiosks because they were busy and there were always long lines to take orders practically all the time. Now the lines are much shorter and there appears to be more people behind the counter. Oddly enough, there are still 3 ca
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't everyone realize this is a side effect of fixed minimum wage?
Many fast food restaurants need to pay above minimum wage to attract enough workers. Even where they pay the minimum, it is unlikely they could get away with paying much less. A higher minimum wage might accelerate automation, but it will happen regardless.
I could use... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you order the fat ass meal!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't replace your ruling class (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a beef with Wall Street. I expect them to be amoral sociopaths focused solely on profit [imdb.com]. I have a problem with politicians and a central bank which not only avoids prosecuting them, but actually keeps protecting and bailing them out [pbs.org] in return for cash and favors.
I am Jack's... complete lack of surprise. (Score:3)
Everything's moving this direction. I remember a factory I worked at back in 2000 paid new hires $8 an hour and until recently it wasn't much more than that. Then they automated the hell out of everything with more robots than people and pay over $13 an hour to start. And this is in a town with a very low cost of living. If you can keep up with the bots, you can stay.
You can't keep up with the bots (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also $13/hr isn't much of a raise in 17 years [bls.gov].
Depends on where you live. In 2000, you could live pretty well on $10 an hour. You still can today.
It's worth mentioning that jobs at that factory average out to more than just 40 hours a week, due to the way shifts are structured. Adjusting the same to a 40 hour week would yield an hourly wage of just under $15. On top of that, they tend to have overtime here and there.
Not sure I'm sold on them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Old people, when they eat out, typically do so at 4pm in the afternoon far away from normal rush hour
Re:Not sure I'm sold on them. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not sure I'm sold on them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If you spend a month in Europe and eat at McDonald's you're doing it wrong.
My British sister and her young kids (7 and 9) visited my partner and me in Paris - McDonald's was the only place
they liked to eat. At any other place the kids objected because the food wasn't like they were used to back home.
That even included pizza and Indian food.
Re:Not sure I'm sold on them. (Score:5, Insightful)
At any other place the kids objected because the food wasn't like they were used to back home.
They sound like some grade A spoiled little shits to me, and your British sister sounds like a spectacular enabler. So, just like Americans then!
Re:Not sure I'm sold on them. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If you spend unnecessary time and money on a vacation to Europe on FOOD, you're doing it wrong.
been there, done that . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Several fast food chains had those kiosks many years ago. They were ignored by customers who went to the counter anyway. This excites investors because they have never been in a fast food joint. They didn't see the failed system of the past. They have no clue how efficient current employees are. They think that laying off employees is the road to big profit.
Does anybody here see a future where food and drinks served by robots will be more attractive than what we have now? Isn't the personal service a large part of why we go out to eat and drink?
Re:been there, done that . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Personal service (and food presentation/quality) can certainly be a large part of why people go out to eat and drink - at proper restaurants.
At fast food (aka "gimme my awful, disgusting tasting, but dirt cheap burger right now!") - not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the personal service a large part of why we go out to eat and drink?
Depending on the location and time of day, 50-70% of McDonald's customers use the drive-thru window. They aren't there for the human connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the personal service a large part of why we go out to eat and drink?
No. I go out to eat and drink for a change of scenery to clear my mind. I use self checkout machines whenever possible and I wish every store and restaurant would offer them, because I don't like the sense of social obligation involved in the personal service experience. If I'm hungry or tired or preoccupied, I'm liable to be grumpy, and I don't want to deal with a superficial social interaction under those circumstances. Machines don't try to make small talk, machines don't expect to be tipped, and mach
Re: (Score:2)
No
Re:been there, done that . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't the personal service a large part of why we go out to eat and drink?
What personal service?
"I'll have a <size> <menu> with <soda>"
"Anything else?"
"No, that's it"
"That'll be <price>"
*pay*
*wait*
*eat*
*leave*
If you go to a fast food joint it's probably because:
a) You're socializing with somebody not on the payroll
b) You're hungry and want a cheap, quick bite
c) You can't be arsed to cook, serve and clean
d) You're far from home and need to eat out
None of those particularly need a human element, sure it's practical... but if you added even a tiny service fee for a human to do it, I think you'd see 95% self-service orders.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Employees are more efficient and cost-effective than kiosks.
Until the city passes a $15 minimum wage. Then suddenly kiosks become more cost-effective than minimum wage employees.
Re: (Score:2)
In my fashionable neighborhood is a score of restaurants, a dozen nightclubs, 8 coffee shops, half dozen pizza & taco joints, and 1 (one) McDonalds. None of these places would survive without human servers. Not too many loner geeks or terrorists here, just fun loving people out for a good time. They're spending $30 and up for a meal, more for a night's drinking, and even at McDonalds they expect to see real humans behind the counter when they stop for their sobering up snack.
McDonalds is a small part of
Re: (Score:2)
This type of thing is a proven technology. We have had grocery store checkout kiosks for years in my area. Who prefers waiting in lines to a few button presses?
Remember (Score:2)
Ummm, okay. What are those jobs?
Maybe everyone will be bosses.
the end of burger flipping is near! (Score:2)
The cashier kiosks could be extended to fully automated McDonalds restaurants. Only the cleaners would survive it a bit longer, perhaps. So be good and get to your nearest JC to train as robot fixer.
and when the line jams and the place shuts down (Score:2)
and when the line jams and the place shuts down do want some on side to un jam it or do you want to wait 30 min to an hour for someone to come over to fix it? also when people beat up an vending machine after losing $0.75 - $1.00+ on an candy just wait for them to lose $7-$12 on a meal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Here come the robots (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If only we had machines to dispense money (Score:5, Interesting)
ATMs coupled with internet banking have substantially reduced the need for bank tellers.
Wrong. The number of human tellers has gone up [aei.org]. Prior to ATMs, human tellers mainly took deposits and dispensed cash. After ATMs and Internet banking, tellers do higher level tasks like setting up accounts, helping with mortgage applications, etc. This makes each teller more profitable, and thus banks have employed more of them.
When more efficient use of a resource leads to greater demand, it is an example of Jevon's Paradox [wikipedia.org].
USA, last in line. (Score:2)
Seriously, nearly every McDonalds around here has these kiosks
Canada is on another planet, in the future (Score:5, Interesting)
We've had the kiosks in Canadian McDonald's for at least a year now and:
- It's a much nicer way to order, no lines and no shouting to be heard
- No worries that the clerk screws up your order
- There doesn't seem to be less staff behind the counter, just more of them filling orders rather than taking them
Overall, it works well enough that we prefer going to McDonald's.
When it comes to dining payment technology, it seems like Canada is light years away (as well as well into the future) than the US. Payment is made at the table with chip reading cards that take debit or credit and we have had the McDonald's kiosks and Canada's economy hasn't collapsed.
Yet when these things are talked about in the US, it seems like they are job killing ideas coming from the devil himself.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't eat at McDonald's but the Panera's Bread down the street has these kiosks and I've pretty much defaulted to using them every time I go. There's never a line, despite there usually being several people waiting for a cashier. The touch screen thing is just an iPad recessed into a plastic holder running some custom ordering software. If this is the future of fast food, count me in.
Why a kiosk (Score:2, Insightful)
When you can just order through an app?
I don't understand the desire to install all this infrastructure. A group of friends could scan the barcode on their table and all order separately and at the same time.
Also don't get why Chili's put in ziosk. Just use an app!
tracking only (Score:2)
And if one wants to pay in cash? Here is the middle finger?
Re: (Score:2)
Kiosks? How about an app? (Score:2)
Why not go all the way? Give me an app so I can order AND pay from my phone. Save them the cost of the kiosks and save me from wasting time queuing for a kiosk.
Show me how long it would take for the order, so I can order even before I go there, and arrive just in time to pick it up.
Fast Food? (Score:2)
What would you expect from a fast food store?
A slow ordering system? NO.
The ordering menu should come up with a simple, single page order form.
So if I want a Big Mac with coke. I press two buttons on the top page and do the payment. BEEP. Then I go waiting for my food.
If people want to fine tune their order, they might go to a detail ordering page to adjust.
The order system in our area now requires pressing the touch screen and go through a few pages. I think that is not necessary. As a result, I igno
Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
There's your $15/hour minimum wage. Certain groups wanted this, now here it is. Good luck kids getting that first job to learn how to have a job so you can go out and get a real one.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think this is a consequence of an increased minimum wage, you're dead wrong.
The kiosks will at most have a TCO of about 50 cents an hour. Unless you advocate reducing minimum wage to under 50 cents an hour, the minimum wage has absolutely no bearing on whether these kiosks go in or not: they are inevitable.
Further more, at least the one McDonald's store we have here, headcount *has not been reduced*. The kiosks have gone in but they still employ the same number of staff except now they use those staf
Japan has been doing this for a long time already. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ticket style, vending machine style, and probably kiosks too, who knows.
I'm not sure how long this has been common there but it seems like quite a while.
Random sample:
http://jpninfo.com/31417 [jpninfo.com]
good. Now, focus on other robotics and illegals (Score:3)
A good example of robotic need would be animal husbandry for dairy and other farms. A lot of that labor is devoted to simple mucking out the stalls. That is easily automated.
Maybe I'm getting too old... (Score:3)
Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ontario has healthcare for all so even at $0 hr I (Score:4, Informative)
Ontario has healthcare for all so even at $0 hr I still get a doctor and can walk into the ER and not face 100K bill.
Just wait (Score:2)
Next thing you know your doctor is a self-help kiosk with a $15/hr nurse watching over a room full of them.
Re: (Score:2)
not in the usa when the doctors have the AMA backing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So liberal politics at its finest.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather live on welfare than have a minimum wage job. Society will need to face up to the fact that jobs (even shitty jobs) are going away and there will be a lot of people who just won't be able to get a job.
Universal basic income is one way to make sure people have enough to live on even when there are no jobs.
Re: Time for a $20 minimum wage. (Score:2, Informative)
The problem with universal basic income is that many of us will become an expense with zero return. A human's existence will become basically, from the standpoint of finances, a valueless detriment. We already see each other with suspicion especially if they are foreign or from a different race.
At some point someone will want to turn off the faucet. First they will make it easy, that anyone who commits a felony gets pushed off UBI. Most people are not felons so they would prefer the increased income from th
Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather live on welfare than have a minimum wage job.
That's primarily the reason why so many people are stuck on welfare. The only thing available to you to come off welfare is a minimum wage job, and it's getting worse and worse each year. As automation increases, even these jobs are gone and the welfare pit gets even deeper.
Re:Time for a $20 minimum wage. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't live on welfare (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know if the dole ever existed in America, but I can sure as hell tell you it doesn't now. While I'm on the subject there's no such thing as welfare queens either. UBI would be nice, but I don't see us getting it because of the aforementioned welfare queens. That myth's got legs and no amount of evidence seems to kill it.
Re: (Score:2)
Education is only for the few who are blessed with rich parents.
Everyone else gets the "basic" education which barely qualifies them for a minimum wage job.
Re: Time for a $20 minimum wage. (Score:2)
Lol, thanks for that. Well said.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, now that machines do all the easy jobs, shouldn't the salary be $15/hr, since all the remaining low-wage jobs are probably harder?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:See what happens when strikes for $15/hour happ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can get a Quarter Pounder and a chocolate shake for a dollar now, right?
A 1970 dollar, absolutely.
Re: (Score:2)
I always love it when one anonymous dork pretends to be a conversation on Slashdot.