Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[oldtimer]

"According to a recent BofA reported on how robotics will reshape the world, San Francisco start up Momentum Machines are out to fully automate the production of burgers with the aim of replacing a human fast food worker. The machine can shape burgers from ground meat, grill them to order with the specified amount of char, toast buns, add tomatoes, onions, pickles, and finally place it on a conveyor belt.

The robot is shown below. It occupies 24 square feet, and is much smaller and efficient than most assembly-line fast-food operations. It provides "gourmet cooking methods never before used in a fast food restaurant" and will deposit the completed burger into a bag. It does all of this without a trace of attitude."

 

 

 

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-10/dear-striking-fast-food-workers-meet-machine-just-put-all-you-out-job

It points out the systemic problem of providing skills to the nations workers.

[Woofers and Tweeters]

 

If one doesn’t have an earned income, they can’t vote.

 

Or own property?  Or why not bump it up to only those who own a business?  So much for a representative government.  Even Julius Caesar saw the sense of giving the head count the vote.  Wasn't it to curb somewhat the power of the elite?  The founders of our current government thought the same.  Those who were against it were royalists, or tories.  Why not go full retro and declare for the queen?  As Aretha Franklin sang: THINK.

 

Oh, please. 

 

Can't ya take on what I said instead of twisting it with verbiage 

Edited November 11, 2015 by jweber

[oldtimer]

Machines have replaced many jobs already.  The challenge is to train and/or retrain the people who have already shown a willingness to work so that they can continue working.

[oldtimer]

 

 

If one doesn’t have an earned income, they can’t vote.

 

Or own property?  Or why not bump it up to only those who own a business?  So much for a representative government.  Even Julius Caesar saw the sense of giving the head count the vote.  Wasn't it to curb somewhat the power of the elite?  The founders of our current government thought the same.  Those who were against it were royalists, or tories.  Why not go full retro and declare for the queen?  As Aretha Franklin sang: THINK.

 

Oh, please. 

 

Can't ya take on what I said instead of twisting it with verbiage 

 

I did take on what you said.  Would you care to elaborate what else you feel needs taking on?

 

Twisting it?  What about your quote is twisted.  Where in the sentence did you not advocate restriction of voting rights?

Edited November 11, 2015 by oldtimer

[Bella]

Machines have replaced many jobs already.  The challenge is to train and/or retrain the people who have already shown a willingness to work so that they can continue working.

 

I'm not sure. With technology poking along, I think the challenge is to re-tool the economy to function in such a way as to not be reliant on workers, since machines will ever increasingly replace them.

[Arrow#422]

Cool, I can soon either send my robot replacement to the worksite, or simply lease my bot to an employer for my compensation.

[oldtimer]

 

Machines have replaced many jobs already.  The challenge is to train and/or retrain the people who have already shown a willingness to work so that they can continue working.

 

I'm not sure. With technology poking along, I think the challenge is to re-tool the economy to function in such a way as to not be reliant on workers, since machines will ever increasingly replace them.

 

Then who will tend the machines?  (sensing a sci-fi scenario developing in the conversation)

[Jim Naseum]

Bottom line: If you think a person serving you is underpaid, you can tip them. Be generous! You don't need to wait for Congress. Just go ahead and start tipping generously today. Nobody is stopping you. Tip your yard-man more. Tip the garbage collector. Tip the newspaper carrier. It's all in your hands.

To summarize:

People in the lowest 90% should go around tipping each other to solve the low wages problem.

No, that won't help a bit. We need to change the bad rules that were forced on the economy by the plutocrats. We need to take a large carving knife and slice into the top plutocrats income flows, and push that money down to the bottom. How? By canceling the horrendous trade agreements they have secretly foisted onto the population, which cause massive surplus labor, and subsequent loss wages, while simultaneously increasing their already bloated incomes. That's the economic adjustment program we need to fulfill our moral obligation to our fellow citizens.

The lowest paid workers today are not of any lower virtue than the lowest paid workers of 20 years ago, 50 years ago, or 200 years ago. They are just the lowest on the economic leader.

Since wages are falling steadily for 90% of the population, and prices are rising steadily, you might want to look beyond your own comfy situation and wonder, "is this good for the country?" Is it going to be good to have 290 million people in poverty? Because right now, that IS the direction it is going.

This issue has nothing to do with taxes. It has nothing to do with welfare, it has nothing to do with taking your money. It had to do with the conditions of creating huge amounts of excess labor through agreements devised by global plutocrats.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Woofers and Tweeters]

 

 

 

If one doesn’t have an earned income, they can’t vote.

 

Or own property?  Or why not bump it up to only those who own a business?  So much for a representative government.  Even Julius Caesar saw the sense of giving the head count the vote.  Wasn't it to curb somewhat the power of the elite?  The founders of our current government thought the same.  Those who were against it were royalists, or tories.  Why not go full retro and declare for the queen?  As Aretha Franklin sang: THINK.

 

Oh, please. 

 

Can't ya take on what I said instead of twisting it with verbiage 

 

I did take on what you said.  Would you care to elaborate what else you feel needs taking on?

 

Twisting it?  What about your quote is twisted.  Where in the sentence did you not advocate restriction of voting rights?

 

Using only part of the statement was done to hide what was actually said. The useless prattle of property owners and declaring a queen isn't furthering anything worthwhile.

[oldtimer]

If one doesn’t have an earned income, they can’t vote. Don’t like it, get a job (gooberment assistance isn’t a career)

 

OK.  Here is the whole statement.  I have little to no argument with the rest of your post if that is what you mean by "statement."  But this particular line is a concern, and my post only extrapolated the logical consequences and theory of the thought.  I think it needed rebuttal, do you still hold to it or not?

[oldtimer]

BTW, here is the definition of earned income.  Your "statement" would also exclude the very well off living off of dividends, annuities, investment income, etc.  I guess they should not be able to vote either.

 

https://www.irs.gov/Credits-&-Deductions/Individuals/Earned-Income-Tax-Credit/What-is-Earned-Income%3F

Edited November 11, 2015 by oldtimer

[Woofers and Tweeters]

BTW, here is the definition of earned income.  Your "statement" would also exclude the very well off living off of dividends, annuities, investment income, etc.  I guess they should not be able to vote either.

 

https://www.irs.gov/Credits-&-Deductions/Individuals/Earned-Income-Tax-Credit/What-is-Earned-Income%3F

 

Not only should they not be able to vote, the Creature from Jekyll Island type should go to prison. BUT, first we have to fix the broken system. I don't blame the welfare recipient for the burden on our taxes, I blame the broken system.  

 

Back to the vote: Sorry I wasn't clear enough that I caused extrapolations and exasperation.     IMHO, there is a large difference in encouraging someone to get a job and change things, or being repressed by the King of the Britons.  

[Woofers and Tweeters]

 

If one doesn’t have an earned income, they can’t vote. Don’t like it, get a job (gooberment assistance isn’t a career)

 

OK.  Here is the whole statement.  I have little to no argument with the rest of your post if that is what you mean by "statement."  But this particular line is a concern, and my post only extrapolated the logical consequences and theory of the thought.  I think it needed rebuttal, do you still hold to it or not?

 

What do you 'hold to' when it comes to having people who contribute nothing to the financial system controlling how the money is spent?

[Wolfbane]

"According to a recent BofA reported on how robotics will reshape the world, San Francisco start up Momentum Machines are out to fully automate the production of burgers with the aim of replacing a human fast food worker. The machine can shape burgers from ground meat, grill them to order with the specified amount of char, toast buns, add tomatoes, onions, pickles, and finally place it on a conveyor belt.

The robot is shown below. It occupies 24 square feet, and is much smaller and efficient than most assembly-line fast-food operations. It provides "gourmet cooking methods never before used in a fast food restaurant" and will deposit the completed burger into a bag. It does all of this without a trace of attitude."

 

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-10/dear-striking-fast-food-workers-meet-machine-just-put-all-you-out-job

 

 

I like it!  And I don't have to worry about any nefarious activity against my burger while it was being made.

 

Just as long as it doesn't ask 'do you want cheese with that?' I'll be able to die happy. 

[oldtimer]

Glad to see you stand up for restricting the right of certain citizens to vote.  God Bless America.

[oldtimer]

What do you 'hold to' when it comes to having people who contribute nothing to the financial system controlling how the money is spent?

 

What makes you think they do?  Are you saying the big corporate money that controls the legislators who control how the money is spent contributes nothing to the financial system? I thought they at least provided crappy jobs.

[Woofers and Tweeters]

Machines have replaced many jobs already.  The challenge is to train and/or retrain the people who have already shown a willingness to work so that they can continue working.

 

We already do have those people trained and working for $15 an hour. What do we tell them when they can collect the same amount of money if they can put a burger in a bag and had it to the customer? 

[oldtimer]

Tell them to form unions.

[Woofers and Tweeters]

Glad to see you stand up for restricting the right of certain citizens to vote.  God Bless America.

There you go again.   IIRC, there are already 'restrictions' that say one has to be of a certain age. Do you have a problem with that too? People used to forfeit the 'right' to vote if the were a federal convict. That was, though small, an encouragement to stay out of prison. Was that restriction wrong too?

[Woofers and Tweeters]

Tell them to form unions.

So, you as a business owner, who has done without; stayed up late trying to figure out how to make it; mortgaged everything because competition is just that; paid competitive wages that is in pace with the market (because if you didn't, you wouldn't have employees)....you're going to tell your employees to form a union?