Fast food jobs in NY evidently attract a lot of comedians.

Every couple of months I'll actually go into my credit union, wait in line, give them my ID and say I don't have my account information, they look it up, fill out a withdrawal slip and give me my quarters.

Those food teller machines look similar to the ones I saw in a few Japanese restaurants. Those were pretty easy to use...place your order put the money in, take your number and wait to be served.

I can get down with that in fast food places.

Some weasely bullshit to be stamped out in here:

Stop interchanging "can live on" with "will maintain the lifestyle I prefer".
An individual can live on minimum wage. Barren studio apartment and a bus pass, motherfucker. Entry level, unskilled service industry jobs are not meant to support your entire fucking family and 10 years of chemotherapy.

So which kinds of employees are meant to receive chemotherapy?

The ones with the skills and motivation to advance beyond "disposable, entry-level drone" in the job market, to a point where it is worth it to an employer to compensate them at that level.

You are not worth what you wish you were worth, not the figure you arrive at when you total up everything you want to pay for. You're worth what someone is willing to pay you for what you offer, where the balance of "value you offer" minus "value you receive" allows for a profit margin acceptable to your employer.

Would this mean that children and severely handicapped adults should never receive chemotherapy?

Albert, you idiot, when the poor's wages double they can afford a slight 1.66% one time price increase. Yes, that's the actual numbers.

The fact that wages only make up 2%-3% of the price of everything should tell you something if you weren't so dense and blinded by ideology. As should that fact that retail places like Costco ALREADY start people off at $12 per hour nation wide despite having prices as low as Walmart's club stores. The reality is virtually everything you have said has been wrong or so generalized as to be meaningless as a study of the actual numbers shows; I know reality isn't your strong suit but you really need to come back to it.

It means you should not expect one parent working a fast food job to be able to afford it. Beyond that, it is not my job to offer solutions to problems I did not cause.

This is where the wailing apologists insist that nobody makes babies when they're already poor, that everyone is a victim of circumstance and we shouldn't "punish" the children for their parents' [-]irresponsible choices[/-] "bad luck". It is also required that you villify anyone who suggests that such families forgo any and all personal luxuries that are not absolute necessities of survival, or in any way hint at the idea that it's not society's responsibility to maintain a comfortable lifestyle for you or subsidize your reckless mating habits.

It's interesting how Albert willingly punishes children for the mistakes of their parents, all the while saying that he shouldn't be punished for the mistakes of others.

That's not even remotely true as proven in the Costco vs Walmart thread. Costco actually has more employees per square foot compared to Sam's Club and their stores are smaller than Sam's Club but Costco makes almost twice as many dollars in sales per employee mostly because they offer better customer service with employees knowing more about the products they sell. That means they can really tell customers the benefits of this or that thus selling the shit out of it where as you average minimum wage paid Sam's Club employee, when asked a question, just shrugs and says "I don't know".

Yes, you get what you pay for and better pay means better more motivated employees.

Yes. That is what it means. And there's nothing wrong with it meaning that. This isn't utopia. We don't all get what we want. We don't even all get what we need. Tough. Go find a hankie and cry over it, then get back to work.

No, asshole. "Refuse to solve other peoples' problems" is not "punishing" anyone for anything. I'm not taking away your food or medical care, because it's not mine to give or yours to take from me. The "punishment" is imposed by the parents who put them in that position in the first place.

Clearly. And yet here I am, wanting kids who need chemotherapy to get chemotherapy regardless of their parents' affluency, and living in a country where that is the case.

Of course, you can also just immediately give up on everything you want by default; if that's what you prefer.

Then you pay for it. I won't stop you.

I see. It's not that you punish them, it's that you'd stand idly by, watching, as somebody else punishes them for the mistakes of others. Yes, that's a much more moral stance for you to take.

Good. Find them. Write a check.

EDIT: Heh, UA caught it first.

Who is "punishing" them, exactly?

This isn't utopia. We don't want utopia. You are bad if you strive for utopia. 'Merika, fuck yeah!

The world. Welcome to it.

What does it matter? Albert says it's not him, therefore their suffering is irrelevant.

Well, if you want us to take you seriously when you claim that somebody is punishing them, you should be ready to tell us who you think is doing it.

I've already said who I think is doing it. Albert and I disagree on the issue, because he thinks he has no obligation to help a drowning man.

So just for final clarity, your denial of reality has now lead you to defining places like Germany as not being part of "the world", right? They just can't exist, so obviously they don't?

No you stupid gerbil fucker.....

I never claimed that.

Read it again you stupid excuse for a human being.....

Bear said a store with a couple of cashiers. I pointed out that there would be no cashiers and instead of seeing ONE OR TWO KIOSKS you would see a whole lot more.

There are no McDonalds that I know of that have all kiosks and no cashiers but there are McDonalds that have one or two and I showed a picture of that. The point being that eventually you will see all kiosks.

I was not saying nor made any claims that there was no cashiers in that picture especially since in that picture you can plainly see a cashier and two managers.

And you're retarded if you think the public won't go for that. Once they get used to it they will do it. Especially younger people who are more technology friendly.

I can't think of any Publix (favorite store regardless of cost) that has them where I shop.

I know Winn Dixie has them and I actually like their version because instead of a little desk you have a full size self cashier station where you can push the groceries down to the end so things don't get in the way.

I've used them at Home Depot. Can't remember if the Lowes by me has them.

Costco doesn't have them at the one I go too.

Other then that I know only of Home Depot and Winn Dixie that have them for sure.

Eventually we will reach a point where you can just push the cart up and it gets scanned. Don't even have to take anything out of the cart.

Absolutely not.

The value of labor isn't the maximum value at which the business can sustain. The business is in business to maximize profit, not to minimize it.

The value of labor is what it would cost to replace it in a free market. If people are willing to do a job for $6/hour, then $6/hour is what the labor is worth.

You don't create any wealth that way, you're just re-distributing it.

As I said, whether the end product gets more expensive to the consumer depends on several things, so an increase in labor cost may not necessarily involve higher prices. But if it doesn't, then it's a loss of profit to the businessowner. And profit is why the businessowner has the business to begin with.

Expensive is what something costs. Value is what it's worth. Cost and worth are not the same concept. It's fully possible to pay more for something than it's worth, wouldn't you agree?

A person's labor may only be worth $5/hour, but it may cost $10/hour if the law stipulates a price floor for labor.

Not to go all partisan, but this truly is one of the big disconnects the left has about economics, and why their economic ideas don't work. In trying to suck up all the profit for the worker, you deprive the owner of the rewards for building his business.

That's only a contradiction as long as you insist on taking sides. The business supplying the automation, or the worker offering their labour, are also out to maximize their profit. If a contract comes together at $12/hour, that's the prize they've both agreed upon. A minimum wage might outlaw lower wages, but it doesn't force any employer to buy labour at a cost that isn't profitable.

Only because you have already decided that you can still replace the worker at a lower price, even tough you're discussing a situation where you can't, by definition. The mere fact that you continue to produce your product means you're still creating wealth.

As are the workers, or the providers of automation.

If value != cost, then the value of labour is not defined as what it costs to replace it, and the basis of your argument breaks away. I happen to believe precisely that, which is why I don't agree with your argument in the first place.

I live by personal responsibility, not "collective responsibility for every useless asshole and every mistake he makes."

You want me to get on board, punish irresponsible, negligent parents. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you should not be making babies, and there should be consequences for willfully burdening society for 18+ years of child-rearing.

And I'm not standing idly by. I work for a living. I'm a little busy supporting myself, trying not to burden others with my mistakes, to be cutting "do over" checks for everyone else.

Interesting. What consequences? And isn't this an invasion of their personal right to make their own private choices in your worldview?

So the babies made the mistake of being born to the wrong parents? Well then, by all means they shouldn't expect any medical care, food, or lodging. How dare they make claims on such resources when they made such bad choices in who would parent them!