Competitive against whom?
All the other fast food franchises that also have the same cost increase?
Like Papa John's who (in)famously said something along the lines he would have to raise the price of a pizza by $x, where x is less than 0.2, iirc?
Wendy's issues are not salary related.
Compete against the companies that WILL automate their food preparation and ordering whether you do or not.
I have Comcast and am not paying anything like that. I had internet only, which was around $75/month for 30Mbs. I upgraded my modem, and when I talked to customer service, I ended up with a plan that is costing me about $70/month for 90Mbs after adding basic cable. The cable box is still sitting in the box they shipped it to me in. My only problem is that now it's easy to exceed the 300GB/month cap, and I have to pay $10 for each 50GB after that.
Still, you have to expect with a la carte pricing that combos will give you a larger discount and some benefits - you weigh in how you're going to use the service and get the best plan for you. I don't see the problem.
About 20 years ago, when my then manager asked "would you use a pager?" I smiled and replied "only if it comes with a raise."
Of course, he wasn't a douche bag, he laughed, and the subject never came up again.
Still, I get work email on my phone.... sometimes I check it, sometimes I don't; I actually like the job I do and am interested in the projects I'm working on, so while I may not do any work, I don't mind checking email to see the status of something and know what to expect when I do get back to work the next morning. At the same time, I may go all weekend without checking - and I've told coworkers not to expect me to check email over the weekend. So it's all on me, and I wouldn't want the government telling me I'm not allowed to check when there's something I'm actually interested in hearing about.
But it's a one time initial cost + maintenance; if the maintenance is not far lower cost than an employee, then it wouldn't have been worth it to begin with, and the machine can be turned off when not needed (and not have to go on food stamps because of it).
I'm sure he meant it figuratively, not literally. The question, as in Finland, for example, then becomes whether or not you want a "stable" economy at the expense of you being a slave to the state (yes, that's figuratively, too).
That's a nice idea, but it's not exactly like there's a plethora of skilled jobs available here, either - even if you trained up all that unskilled labor, there's not nearly enough work for them when everything becomes automated. There's another front page story about tech layoffs doubling in the bay area... I understand that's an isolated location, and there are certainly jobs available, but not enough to go around as it is.
What these big business, capitalist entities are ignore is they are creating a fast track to communism as the masses of unskilled, unemployed workers vote in politicians who promise to "make those companies pay" for being profit driven. I honestly don't see a way to stop that train wreck, though.
How to you figure? The local franchise owner opts to get a few of these, replacing a good part of the staff, and has fewer employees to pay - especially important in high minimum wage states. They can keep costs down, keep prices down to stay competitive. Sure, the corporate side benefits, ultimately, too, but it seems good (in a business sense) for both sides of the equation.
Agreed.... I'd take the train if there was one. The idiots in my county repeatedly vote down light rail into our area believing the hype that it will bring criminals from the city up to our neighborhoods.... the same people that live with the nightmare commute that I do. Yes, I understand I chose where to live - I admit it was a mistake, and plan on moving.
Except from my experience, you simply don't get anywhere near optimal flow because of the way people drive - if you think someone in the left lane slowing down every single lane as they move to the right to get to their exit is NOT affecting traffic, then you're delusional - and it's not just the one guy, it's driver after driver trying to beat the pace of traffic, and destroying the optimal flow in the process. Otherwise explain why 6 or 7 lanes of traffic come to stop and go because of a single right lane exit.
And the reason he's an asshole is because he could have not "inconvenienced" himself by driving the limit in the right lane.... and then not violated the mores (and sometimes rules) of the road by passing on the left, and the often posted "slower traffic keep right." What a douche bag.
Completely agree... people around here are so accustomed to discourteous behavior that when you try to be nice, you often get screwed because they weren't paying attention or taking advantage of it.
I would suggest that's the biggest problem on the road, but people who just aren't paying attention and going well below the speed limit are also huge causes of problems as all the traffic around them change lanes to pass. In moderate traffic on the interstate, ONE driver can create a very dangerous situation for thousands of other drivers - many of whom are compounding the problem by being impatient.
Still, back on subject, while I support the legalization of all drugs (yes, all - if people want to kill themselves, that's their prerogative), they simply should not get behind the wheel when doing so. If you're being a threat to yourself, it's one thing; if you're being a threat to others, that's when you cross the line.
You're both right, but just because it's how the law is written doesn't mean people have to be douche bags and make merging in hard for other people. One-for-one when merging is pretty fair, but too many people refuse to let someone get in front of them (they seem to take it as a personal affront), and too many people trying to merge in try to force their way in as a second car. People will never be on the same page about it, and so there will always be problems until we all have self driving cars.
Yes... a big pet peeve of mine, every single f#@king day. Where I get on the interstate the speed limit is 70, and people drive down a rather long ramp (and on-ramps are usually down hill, which helps you, just as off ramps are usually up hill - which also helps you) and get to the end.... and I've actually had people stop because they couldn't merge in. Now you're trying to get into a lane going 70 from a complete stand-still. These are things that should be on driving tests.
If I didn't already post in this discussion, I'd mod you up. If they are actually concerned about safety, the guy going 55 in the left most of 6 lanes of traffic while everyone else is doing 65 is the one causing the most danger. If you're adamant about people going the speed limit, it's still the ones tailgating, cutting off other drivers, failing to signal, and intentionally blocking other drivers from changing lanes that cause the most problems.
It seems to me the majority of traffic problems/jams are the fault of the drivers and not just traffic volume... people left-lane bombing (entering onto the highway and pushing their way all the way to the left lane, despite the fact traffic is not flowing at top speed anyway), people right-lane bombing (trying to pass in front of people who were already waiting to exit to the right); every lane change when traffic is already moving slowly, not being in the lane you need to be in before traffic slows. Those right lane bombers slow every lane they pass through to get to the right lane - cumulatively f#@king up the flow of traffic badly, causing 6 lanes of traffic (in my case) to become slow and go because of a single popular exit. The most blatant example of people causing the problem is gridlock. There's just simply no excuse to enter the intersection unless you are certain you can clear it before the light changes.
It will never get better until it's mandatory that all cars be self driving. The flow of traffic (and the danger caused both by people changing lanes abruptly and without signaling, and the ones actively tailgating to not allow people to change lanes) will never improve unless and until everyone is actually on the same page.... and that will never happen.
I already admitted people make the rules are often the worst abusers, but we go for lemonade stand analogy it's entirely different - you don't set up a lemonade stand in your neighbors yard. That's the problem... when people can't keep themselves from doing stuff like that, that's when you create rules, and the rules are created because people can't restrain themselves.
Sadly, we do need "authorization" if we don't have the common sense or common courtesy to not be dicks and set up not a fruit stand, but a "farmer's market" in front of someone else's private residence (see my other response to you).
I know I'm generally in agreement with you - I generally have very libertarian ideals... I used to muse that the problem with liberals is they believe that, since they are reasonable people, then everybody can be reasoned with; but now I realize that libertarians have the same problem - I agree we shouldn't NEED laws to stop people from ruining other people's quality of life. Ideally, someone setting up a Farmer's Market goes to a public park or something, and maybe we should allow that. But they don't... they set up in front of other established businesses, they set up, in this case, in front of people's private residences... I believe in libertarian ideals, but there are far too many people who simply won't respect others that make such laws required. Even f#@king speed bumps... because some idiots cannot control their behavior, we all have to drive over speed bumps - this case is an extension of that. People can't control themselves, they will take any "easy" path regardless of the effect it has on the people around them... so if you want to maintain a quality of life, you need regulations. It's folly to think people will comply with what should be common sense and common courtesy - they won't, and they reduce the quality of life for everyone around them.
Because people seem incapable of regulating themselves... so they do things like set up shop in front of someone's house. I don't like all the rules and regulations, and I think they are generally abused by the people making the rules, but I don't see a problem with the government telling vendors that they can't set up in front of someone's private residence if those vendors don't have the common sense/courtesy to not do it on their own.
Good for some people - but you didn't just slack off, either. A few posts up someone claimed their company won't hire people who took more than four years after graduating high school to get their degree... at the same time, people I know who joined the military, took classes while in the military, and then finished up college after, were the best in their fields. But I don't believe it's a generally good thing - when studies show how much kids lose just over the summer, to take an entire year off if you're not doing something really worthwhile during that time.
Slashdot Mirror
Competitive against whom? All the other fast food franchises that also have the same cost increase? Like Papa John's who (in)famously said something along the lines he would have to raise the price of a pizza by $x, where x is less than 0.2, iirc? Wendy's issues are not salary related.
Compete against the companies that WILL automate their food preparation and ordering whether you do or not.
I have Comcast and am not paying anything like that. I had internet only, which was around $75/month for 30Mbs. I upgraded my modem, and when I talked to customer service, I ended up with a plan that is costing me about $70/month for 90Mbs after adding basic cable. The cable box is still sitting in the box they shipped it to me in. My only problem is that now it's easy to exceed the 300GB/month cap, and I have to pay $10 for each 50GB after that.
Still, you have to expect with a la carte pricing that combos will give you a larger discount and some benefits - you weigh in how you're going to use the service and get the best plan for you. I don't see the problem.
About 20 years ago, when my then manager asked "would you use a pager?" I smiled and replied "only if it comes with a raise."
Of course, he wasn't a douche bag, he laughed, and the subject never came up again.
Still, I get work email on my phone.... sometimes I check it, sometimes I don't; I actually like the job I do and am interested in the projects I'm working on, so while I may not do any work, I don't mind checking email to see the status of something and know what to expect when I do get back to work the next morning. At the same time, I may go all weekend without checking - and I've told coworkers not to expect me to check email over the weekend. So it's all on me, and I wouldn't want the government telling me I'm not allowed to check when there's something I'm actually interested in hearing about.
But it's a one time initial cost + maintenance; if the maintenance is not far lower cost than an employee, then it wouldn't have been worth it to begin with, and the machine can be turned off when not needed (and not have to go on food stamps because of it).
I'm sure he meant it figuratively, not literally. The question, as in Finland, for example, then becomes whether or not you want a "stable" economy at the expense of you being a slave to the state (yes, that's figuratively, too).
That's a nice idea, but it's not exactly like there's a plethora of skilled jobs available here, either - even if you trained up all that unskilled labor, there's not nearly enough work for them when everything becomes automated. There's another front page story about tech layoffs doubling in the bay area... I understand that's an isolated location, and there are certainly jobs available, but not enough to go around as it is.
What these big business, capitalist entities are ignore is they are creating a fast track to communism as the masses of unskilled, unemployed workers vote in politicians who promise to "make those companies pay" for being profit driven. I honestly don't see a way to stop that train wreck, though.
How to you figure? The local franchise owner opts to get a few of these, replacing a good part of the staff, and has fewer employees to pay - especially important in high minimum wage states. They can keep costs down, keep prices down to stay competitive. Sure, the corporate side benefits, ultimately, too, but it seems good (in a business sense) for both sides of the equation.
Agreed.... I'd take the train if there was one. The idiots in my county repeatedly vote down light rail into our area believing the hype that it will bring criminals from the city up to our neighborhoods.... the same people that live with the nightmare commute that I do. Yes, I understand I chose where to live - I admit it was a mistake, and plan on moving.
Except from my experience, you simply don't get anywhere near optimal flow because of the way people drive - if you think someone in the left lane slowing down every single lane as they move to the right to get to their exit is NOT affecting traffic, then you're delusional - and it's not just the one guy, it's driver after driver trying to beat the pace of traffic, and destroying the optimal flow in the process. Otherwise explain why 6 or 7 lanes of traffic come to stop and go because of a single right lane exit.
And the reason he's an asshole is because he could have not "inconvenienced" himself by driving the limit in the right lane.... and then not violated the mores (and sometimes rules) of the road by passing on the left, and the often posted "slower traffic keep right." What a douche bag.
Completely agree... people around here are so accustomed to discourteous behavior that when you try to be nice, you often get screwed because they weren't paying attention or taking advantage of it.
I would suggest that's the biggest problem on the road, but people who just aren't paying attention and going well below the speed limit are also huge causes of problems as all the traffic around them change lanes to pass. In moderate traffic on the interstate, ONE driver can create a very dangerous situation for thousands of other drivers - many of whom are compounding the problem by being impatient.
Still, back on subject, while I support the legalization of all drugs (yes, all - if people want to kill themselves, that's their prerogative), they simply should not get behind the wheel when doing so. If you're being a threat to yourself, it's one thing; if you're being a threat to others, that's when you cross the line.
You're both right, but just because it's how the law is written doesn't mean people have to be douche bags and make merging in hard for other people. One-for-one when merging is pretty fair, but too many people refuse to let someone get in front of them (they seem to take it as a personal affront), and too many people trying to merge in try to force their way in as a second car. People will never be on the same page about it, and so there will always be problems until we all have self driving cars.
Yes... a big pet peeve of mine, every single f#@king day. Where I get on the interstate the speed limit is 70, and people drive down a rather long ramp (and on-ramps are usually down hill, which helps you, just as off ramps are usually up hill - which also helps you) and get to the end.... and I've actually had people stop because they couldn't merge in. Now you're trying to get into a lane going 70 from a complete stand-still. These are things that should be on driving tests.
If I didn't already post in this discussion, I'd mod you up. If they are actually concerned about safety, the guy going 55 in the left most of 6 lanes of traffic while everyone else is doing 65 is the one causing the most danger. If you're adamant about people going the speed limit, it's still the ones tailgating, cutting off other drivers, failing to signal, and intentionally blocking other drivers from changing lanes that cause the most problems.
It seems to me the majority of traffic problems/jams are the fault of the drivers and not just traffic volume... people left-lane bombing (entering onto the highway and pushing their way all the way to the left lane, despite the fact traffic is not flowing at top speed anyway), people right-lane bombing (trying to pass in front of people who were already waiting to exit to the right); every lane change when traffic is already moving slowly, not being in the lane you need to be in before traffic slows. Those right lane bombers slow every lane they pass through to get to the right lane - cumulatively f#@king up the flow of traffic badly, causing 6 lanes of traffic (in my case) to become slow and go because of a single popular exit. The most blatant example of people causing the problem is gridlock. There's just simply no excuse to enter the intersection unless you are certain you can clear it before the light changes.
It will never get better until it's mandatory that all cars be self driving. The flow of traffic (and the danger caused both by people changing lanes abruptly and without signaling, and the ones actively tailgating to not allow people to change lanes) will never improve unless and until everyone is actually on the same page.... and that will never happen.
No, moving cars often run into cars stopped where they're not supposed to be, like in the middle of the road.
And when people don't like it, all you have to do is put up walls around the city to keep them from leaving. Problem solved.
I completely buy it - they put out the hit on Sanders as much as they did the republicans.
So the media isn't left, it's pro democrat establishment.
And you're arguing with people who think you should be able to sue the gun manufacturers because someone misused their product.
I already admitted people make the rules are often the worst abusers, but we go for lemonade stand analogy it's entirely different - you don't set up a lemonade stand in your neighbors yard. That's the problem... when people can't keep themselves from doing stuff like that, that's when you create rules, and the rules are created because people can't restrain themselves.
Fair enough.
Sadly, we do need "authorization" if we don't have the common sense or common courtesy to not be dicks and set up not a fruit stand, but a "farmer's market" in front of someone else's private residence (see my other response to you).
I know I'm generally in agreement with you - I generally have very libertarian ideals... I used to muse that the problem with liberals is they believe that, since they are reasonable people, then everybody can be reasoned with; but now I realize that libertarians have the same problem - I agree we shouldn't NEED laws to stop people from ruining other people's quality of life. Ideally, someone setting up a Farmer's Market goes to a public park or something, and maybe we should allow that. But they don't... they set up in front of other established businesses, they set up, in this case, in front of people's private residences... I believe in libertarian ideals, but there are far too many people who simply won't respect others that make such laws required. Even f#@king speed bumps... because some idiots cannot control their behavior, we all have to drive over speed bumps - this case is an extension of that. People can't control themselves, they will take any "easy" path regardless of the effect it has on the people around them... so if you want to maintain a quality of life, you need regulations. It's folly to think people will comply with what should be common sense and common courtesy - they won't, and they reduce the quality of life for everyone around them.
Because people seem incapable of regulating themselves... so they do things like set up shop in front of someone's house. I don't like all the rules and regulations, and I think they are generally abused by the people making the rules, but I don't see a problem with the government telling vendors that they can't set up in front of someone's private residence if those vendors don't have the common sense/courtesy to not do it on their own.
Good for some people - but you didn't just slack off, either. A few posts up someone claimed their company won't hire people who took more than four years after graduating high school to get their degree... at the same time, people I know who joined the military, took classes while in the military, and then finished up college after, were the best in their fields. But I don't believe it's a generally good thing - when studies show how much kids lose just over the summer, to take an entire year off if you're not doing something really worthwhile during that time.