But less than 1% of fast food joints have a drive-through.
More than 70% of McDonald's outlets have drive throughs.
40% of Starbucks have drive throughs.
Nearly 100% of Jack-in-the-Box outlets have drive throughs.
Some factoids: Drive through customers tend to spend more than walk-in customers, especially on combo meals.
Drive through servers will speed up or delay orders to keep the queue 3-4 cars deep. With shorter wait queues, people order less. Longer wait queues, and people drive off and go somewhere else.
Has increased productivity ever actually led to higher wages after inflation was considered?
Yes. Nearly every time. Incomes have stagnated since the 1990s, and especially since 2007, for exactly the opposite reason: stagnant productivity growth.
The problem in America is not "automation of jobs", but "lack of automation".
It hasn't in my lifetime, not even once... and I'm old.
How old? If you are 50, per capita income, after inflation, has nearly doubled in your lifetime. If you are not white and male, you likely did even better.
More importantly, incomes grew the fastest when productivity was increasing the fastest.
Unless the remaining workers are paid more than the sum of workers were paid before, it's a net loss for the working class.
You are assuming, almost certainly incorrectly, that the replaced workers will not be able to find jobs elsewhere.
The cost savings from automation will be passed on to either consumers as lower prices, freeing up money to be spent on other things, or as higher wages for remaining employees, giving them more spending money, or as higher profits for shareholders, giving them more capital to invest in other businesses. All of these will lead to more jobs elsewhere in the economy, which is historically what has always happened when productivity improves.
When and where exactly was this golden age when rich people weren't rich?
According to both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders the "Golden Age" was the 1950s.
Back then, people had jobs for life, everyone could afford a house, no one was poor, and America was Great.
Of course, that is total bullcrap. Average job tenure is higher today than it was then. Home ownership rates are higher today, and houses are also significantly larger. Poverty was a much bigger problem then. Even white men are better off today, and minorities and women are far better off.
Most nostalgia is nonsense, especially about the past.
Raising the minimum wage is about ensuring that people are being paid well enough that they can afford room, board
Most people earning minimum wage are not doing it to pay for room and board. They are 2nd or 3rd earners in households that are, on average, above median income.
Raising the minimum wage does little to help the poor, since most minimum wage earners aren't poor, and most poor people don't earn the minimum wage.
A very small percentage of minimum wage earners really are sole earners for their household. But it is far better to help those people with targeted programs such as EITC.
A typical McDonalds does not employ ~30 full time people.
LET'S DO MATH!!!!
There are 14,146 McDonald's in America. McDonald's has 1.5 million employees. That is over 100 employees per restaurant.
Of course, some of them work in distribution, corporate administration, etc. and not at restaurants. Many of them are part time. But 30 full time equivalents per restaurants seems reasonable.
Now lets look at one restaurant that is open from 5am to midnight. The workers need to be there an hour before opening and an hour after closing. So that is 21 hours per day, for 7 days per week, or 147 hours per week. 30 full-time equivalents would be 1200 hours per week. 1200/147 = 8 workers in the restaurant at any time. That seems about right to me.
Of course, but most people don't see it that way. They tend to believe that all past productivity improvements are GOOD and the foundation of our prosperity, but all productivity improvements occurring now, or in the future, are BAD and are destroying jobs and pushing us into poverty.
This cognitive dissonance has been observed since the invention of the steam engine and automatic loom.
The CEO making these claims after the minimum wage went up by one silly dollar
The minimum wage went up $1 on Jan 1st, but it will continue to rise a total of $5. Meanwhile, the cost of automation is coming down.
Expect to see most cashiers and order takers disappear from fast food joints, as they are replaced by kiosks.
This is a good thing, since the purpose of jobs is creating goods and services not "keeping people busy". We have a full employment economy, so these people can get new jobs where they do something useful.
Architectural shingles are likewise supposedly hail and wind proof
"Hail proof" often does not mean "Colorado hail proof". Along the front range of the Rocky Mountains, you get some weird weather patterns. Hailstones the size of grapefruits can literally kill people. Some big hailstorms have caused more than $1 Billion in damages.
I started to read an article about Musk by his ex-wife, Justine. In the first paragraph she said that if you ever want to be like Elon, you need to understand that "he would never waste time reading an article like this."
So I stopped reading, and watched random video clips on Facebook instead.
One need only look at MP3 and MPEG to see that if you get in early and get your foothold, you're pretty well set even if something free and better comes along.
I am confused. I pay this much to use an MP3: $0, and this much to generate an MP3: $0.
MP3 may not be free as in IP, but it is free as in beer, and that is all the general public cares about.
OGG may be better technically, but it is not cheaper.
Then they developed digital photography, patented the technology, and sat on it for fear of disrupting their lucrative film business.
They did do Photo CD, which was crap and way overpriced.
But it is silly to suggest they would have been successful if they went digital sooner. They would have lost anyway. Whatever format they created would not have been able to compete with JPEG at a price point of $0. What possible reason would I have to pay Kodak to take a photo with my phone?
Yes. With Google, I know what they will do with my data. They will use it to place ads for their clients. It is very unlikely that they will sell it to third parties, because that would come at a heavy cost with very little benefit.
For the other trackers, I have no idea what they will do with the information they gather.
This was not a study of behavior, but a survey of self-reported "feelings". Another way to interpret the data is that "teenagers today are more honest about themselves".
There's actually a lot of objective evidence that people are a lot more mean online than they are in person. There's even a name for this difference—the online disinhibition effect.
The "disinhibition effect" is driven by anonymity. People are "mean" to strangers online. Teenagers spend most of their time socializing with close friends.
It should be self-evident...
Asserting that something is "self-evident" is very different from providing actual evidence. I have seen no evidence of causative harm from teenagers socializing online, rather than say, watching TV.
I didn't realize you had to be in a protected status to be treated right.
A lawsuit is not about what is "right". It is about what is legal.
Companies have broad discretion to terminate employees for almost any reason, or for no reason. However, California has a "public policy" exemption from "at will" termination. Damore was fired for expressing his opinion on what he believed to be discriminatory practices at Google, and he could try to claim he was protected by that exemption.
I think that will be an uphill battle in a California court, and I predict he will lose, or perhaps get a settlement with a "non-disclosure" clause that requires him to shut up and go away.
Maybe. Or perhaps the moral panic that the world is going to hell because teenagers are using technology to SOCIALIZE is just the predictable result of yet another generation reaching cranky geezerhood.
Meanwhile, until I see some objective evidence that mobile phones are really more harmful than TV or landlines (the targets of previous moral panics), I will decline to micromanage my kids social lives, and let them learn responsibility by making their own decisions.
What happened to the good old "Turn the damned phone off"....or even better..."Give me that phone".
Or even better "Show me some objective evidence that phone use is actually harmful".
In the meantime, I will let my kids make their own decisions.
Hell, why would parents buy children (less than teens at least) a phone in the first place?
My daughter has had a phone since she was 8 (3rd grade). It is not just a matter of convenience, but also of safety. If she gets lost or is in a bad situation, she can call for me for help, or dial 911.
I have seen no evidence that having a phone is harmful to kids in any way. The moral panic about "excessive texting" just means another generation is reaching cranky geezerhood and thinks "the world is going to hell".
Slashdot Mirror
But less than 1% of fast food joints have a drive-through.
More than 70% of McDonald's outlets have drive throughs.
40% of Starbucks have drive throughs.
Nearly 100% of Jack-in-the-Box outlets have drive throughs.
Some factoids:
Drive through customers tend to spend more than walk-in customers, especially on combo meals.
Drive through servers will speed up or delay orders to keep the queue 3-4 cars deep. With shorter wait queues, people order less. Longer wait queues, and people drive off and go somewhere else.
Has increased productivity ever actually led to higher wages after inflation was considered?
Yes. Nearly every time. Incomes have stagnated since the 1990s, and especially since 2007, for exactly the opposite reason: stagnant productivity growth.
The problem in America is not "automation of jobs", but "lack of automation".
It hasn't in my lifetime, not even once... and I'm old.
How old? If you are 50, per capita income, after inflation, has nearly doubled in your lifetime. If you are not white and male, you likely did even better.
More importantly, incomes grew the fastest when productivity was increasing the fastest.
Unless the remaining workers are paid more than the sum of workers were paid before, it's a net loss for the working class.
You are assuming, almost certainly incorrectly, that the replaced workers will not be able to find jobs elsewhere.
The cost savings from automation will be passed on to either consumers as lower prices, freeing up money to be spent on other things, or as higher wages for remaining employees, giving them more spending money, or as higher profits for shareholders, giving them more capital to invest in other businesses. All of these will lead to more jobs elsewhere in the economy, which is historically what has always happened when productivity improves.
When and where exactly was this golden age when rich people weren't rich?
According to both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders the "Golden Age" was the 1950s.
Back then, people had jobs for life, everyone could afford a house, no one was poor, and America was Great.
Of course, that is total bullcrap. Average job tenure is higher today than it was then. Home ownership rates are higher today, and houses are also significantly larger. Poverty was a much bigger problem then. Even white men are better off today, and minorities and women are far better off.
Most nostalgia is nonsense, especially about the past.
Raising the minimum wage is about ensuring that people are being paid well enough that they can afford room, board
Most people earning minimum wage are not doing it to pay for room and board. They are 2nd or 3rd earners in households that are, on average, above median income.
Raising the minimum wage does little to help the poor, since most minimum wage earners aren't poor, and most poor people don't earn the minimum wage.
A very small percentage of minimum wage earners really are sole earners for their household. But it is far better to help those people with targeted programs such as EITC.
If there's no value added to going to a "restaurant", like human service, why go?
Restaurants that have drive through windows typically get 50-70% of their business from people sitting in their cars and shouting into a microphone.
People do not go to fast food joints for "human interaction".
A typical McDonalds does not employ ~30 full time people.
LET'S DO MATH!!!!
There are 14,146 McDonald's in America. McDonald's has 1.5 million employees. That is over 100 employees per restaurant.
Of course, some of them work in distribution, corporate administration, etc. and not at restaurants. Many of them are part time. But 30 full time equivalents per restaurants seems reasonable.
Now lets look at one restaurant that is open from 5am to midnight. The workers need to be there an hour before opening and an hour after closing. So that is 21 hours per day, for 7 days per week, or 147 hours per week. 30 full-time equivalents would be 1200 hours per week. 1200/147 = 8 workers in the restaurant at any time. That seems about right to me.
You added the "manager payroll" into a talk about raising minimum wage.
If the minimum wage is going to $50/hour, even the managers would be getting substantial raises.
A shift manager makes about $2/hour more than a burger flipper.
General managers at McDonalds average about $46k/yr, which is about $23 per hour. So their salaries would need to more than double.
Your claim that McD could afford to pay $50/hr is totally ridiculous. Why would you even say something so absurd?
And in a free market, exactly what is supposed to happen when the price of food is higher than one's salary?
That tends to happen much more often when free markets are absent.
McDonald's would still be profitable with a $50/hr minimum wage.
Bullcrap.
Annual payroll expense per McDonald's restaurant: $602,000
Annual net profit per McDonald's restaurant: $153,900
Even a 25% increase in payroll would put them out of business. There is no way they could absorb a 300-400% increase, which is what you are claiming.
McDonald's cost vs profit
But this is exactly what we want.
Increased productivity through automation.
Of course, but most people don't see it that way. They tend to believe that all past productivity improvements are GOOD and the foundation of our prosperity, but all productivity improvements occurring now, or in the future, are BAD and are destroying jobs and pushing us into poverty.
This cognitive dissonance has been observed since the invention of the steam engine and automatic loom.
The CEO making these claims after the minimum wage went up by one silly dollar
The minimum wage went up $1 on Jan 1st, but it will continue to rise a total of $5. Meanwhile, the cost of automation is coming down.
Expect to see most cashiers and order takers disappear from fast food joints, as they are replaced by kiosks.
This is a good thing, since the purpose of jobs is creating goods and services not "keeping people busy". We have a full employment economy, so these people can get new jobs where they do something useful.
Architectural shingles are likewise supposedly hail and wind proof
"Hail proof" often does not mean "Colorado hail proof". Along the front range of the Rocky Mountains, you get some weird weather patterns. Hailstones the size of grapefruits can literally kill people. Some big hailstorms have caused more than $1 Billion in damages.
List of costly and deadly hailstorms
I read his autobiography
I started to read an article about Musk by his ex-wife, Justine. In the first paragraph she said that if you ever want to be like Elon, you need to understand that "he would never waste time reading an article like this."
So I stopped reading, and watched random video clips on Facebook instead.
One need only look at MP3 and MPEG to see that if you get in early and get your foothold, you're pretty well set even if something free and better comes along.
I am confused. I pay this much to use an MP3: $0, and this much to generate an MP3: $0.
MP3 may not be free as in IP, but it is free as in beer, and that is all the general public cares about.
OGG may be better technically, but it is not cheaper.
Then they developed digital photography, patented the technology, and sat on it for fear of disrupting their lucrative film business.
They did do Photo CD, which was crap and way overpriced.
But it is silly to suggest they would have been successful if they went digital sooner. They would have lost anyway. Whatever format they created would not have been able to compete with JPEG at a price point of $0. What possible reason would I have to pay Kodak to take a photo with my phone?
Why should I reply to a text message with my thumbs, when I can use a real keyboard, and a screen big enough to view the entire conversation?
I have an iPhone and a Macbook, so I can already do this. It is nice, and I use it everyday.
Yes. With Google, I know what they will do with my data. They will use it to place ads for their clients. It is very unlikely that they will sell it to third parties, because that would come at a heavy cost with very little benefit.
For the other trackers, I have no idea what they will do with the information they gather.
Studies have shown that teenagers today are significantly more narcissistic.
This was not a study of behavior, but a survey of self-reported "feelings". Another way to interpret the data is that "teenagers today are more honest about themselves".
There's actually a lot of objective evidence that people are a lot more mean online than they are in person. There's even a name for this difference—the online disinhibition effect.
The "disinhibition effect" is driven by anonymity. People are "mean" to strangers online. Teenagers spend most of their time socializing with close friends.
It should be self-evident ...
Asserting that something is "self-evident" is very different from providing actual evidence. I have seen no evidence of causative harm from teenagers socializing online, rather than say, watching TV.
I didn't realize you had to be in a protected status to be treated right.
A lawsuit is not about what is "right". It is about what is legal.
Companies have broad discretion to terminate employees for almost any reason, or for no reason. However, California has a "public policy" exemption from "at will" termination. Damore was fired for expressing his opinion on what he believed to be discriminatory practices at Google, and he could try to claim he was protected by that exemption.
I think that will be an uphill battle in a California court, and I predict he will lose, or perhaps get a settlement with a "non-disclosure" clause that requires him to shut up and go away.
That just means you're a bad parent.
Maybe. Or perhaps the moral panic that the world is going to hell because teenagers are using technology to SOCIALIZE is just the predictable result of yet another generation reaching cranky geezerhood.
Meanwhile, until I see some objective evidence that mobile phones are really more harmful than TV or landlines (the targets of previous moral panics), I will decline to micromanage my kids social lives, and let them learn responsibility by making their own decisions.
Artificial Wife.
No, that is completely backwards. With these new devices, you tell THEM what to do.
What happened to the good old "Turn the damned phone off"....or even better..."Give me that phone".
Or even better "Show me some objective evidence that phone use is actually harmful".
In the meantime, I will let my kids make their own decisions.
Hell, why would parents buy children (less than teens at least) a phone in the first place?
My daughter has had a phone since she was 8 (3rd grade). It is not just a matter of convenience, but also of safety. If she gets lost or is in a bad situation, she can call for me for help, or dial 911.
I have seen no evidence that having a phone is harmful to kids in any way. The moral panic about "excessive texting" just means another generation is reaching cranky geezerhood and thinks "the world is going to hell".
Bury something in the EULA about not being allowed to hand down iPhones to your kids when you upgrade.
My daughter got a new phone for Christmas, and gave me her old iPhone 6. So that EULA wouldn't affect me.