Boston McDonald's Launching ATM That Spits Out Big Macs | The Daily Caller

 

I assume someone is cooking the burgers and then just stocking the machine which is basically a heat tray vending machine. Not sure why they are giving the burgers away for free for a limited time though. I guess just PR stunt.

 

its a photoshopped image.

 

Why do you crush all of our dreams?

 

So much for my hope of finally getting my sandwiches made right.

 

On the one hand, this is not a new idea:




On the other hand, the problem of inefficient fast-food-assembly is not being ignored in the present day:











And here's a nice, calming video of an engine being assembled. By men. German men:

 

Here's the study which the city of Seattle commissioned the NBER to do, analyzing the effects of their two recent increases in minimum wage, from $9.47 to $11 per hour in 2015 and to $13 per hour in 2016:

https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/f...ng%20Paper.pdf

An excerpt from the abstract:

 

Ohh who would have guessed if you raised the cost of something artificially that employers will use less of that something.

 

That study is quite interesting and seems intuitive. However, I know they excluded large employers from the data set which I found strange considering they would be the ones best able to absorb the extra cost. I know this study was commissioned by the city so you would think it would favor their position but I still wonder how the inclusion of large employers would have affected the results.

 

If you're worried about minimum wage (cutting jobs if increasing hourly wage or hourly wage not increasing), the fact that you're worried should be your biggest concern.

 

Curious as to how you know this. (Also also how you define "large" employer.)

I will admit that I haven't read every single word in the study, but I've given is a couple of reasonable skimmings. Seems that the authors have crated a reasonable cross-sample of employers, industries, and wage-levels, and re looking at a broad range of low-wage (not merely minimum-wage) employees, rather than focusing on a single sector (eg: fast food) or a single wage group (eg: minimum-wage only) as with prior studies.

 

I have been reading quite a few threads on this exact study on a few different sites and I could have sworn someone mentioned (and cited) that the authors mentioned not including employers with significant operations in other states (this would generally be larger employers by nature) as it made gathering relevant data more difficult. Let me see if I can find it.

Edit: http://www.epi.org/publication/the-h...mum-wage-incr/

They excluded all multi-site employers which make up 40% of all employees. This also includes any chain or large retail corporation. I would assume these types of businesses employ a large number if not the vast majority of minimum wage workers.

 

They may have been excluded for convenience or because the numbers would be much worse. Wouldn't the fast food businesses be multiple location operations?

 

Vash has it right. Min wage affects ~4% of the entire workforce. It's a non-concern and only an issue democrats use to gain votes -- simply because it sounds like they care ( when in fact it hurts the people they try to convince you it helps )

 

Agreed that it's essentially just a party-line issue used by democrats.

Disagreed that it only affects 4% of the workforce. Although only 4% of the workforce receive minimum-wage (I haven't fact-checked that number, just accepting what you said as true), if you read the paper I linked to, what it finds is that low-wage workers who earn slightly more than the minimum wage are also negatively impacted by it. They don't benefit from the increase in minimum wage (because they already earn more than it), but do experience a reduction in both hours worked and overall employment.

Unintended consequences are a bitch.

 

I've posted the source before, im sure it's in this thread. its a VERY low number of the total workforce that makes min wage or below.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/min.../2015/home.htm

okay, min wage or below only make up 3.3% of the total hourly wage workforce, only 3.3% out of 58.5% of the total work force. so if i can math that's: ~1.37% of the total workforce?


it's also an issue that's really only near and dear to the hearts of the young:


there goes the living wage argument...



all increasing min wage does is make it harder for the uneducated high-school students and dropouts to compete with college graduates, with major debt, who majored in women's studies and both only have skills to do shitty min. wage level work.

 

Are we just ignoring all if the workers that make above $7.25 but below say $10 an hour that would get a raise from a heightened minimum wage. It seems rather intuitive that not many people make exactly the minimum wage or less but that many people do make just above it and would receive a raise if the minimum wage was increased to $10-$15 an hour. I know you all aren't this ignorant so I have to assume you're being intentionally pedantic.

I have no specific idea how the results of the study may have changed if all relevant data was included but I do find the exclusion of this data to be troublesome and am therefore reluctant to place any reliance on the study until it is peer reviewed or further analysis is performed on the data which was excluded.

 

My wife is a teacher's aide. She makes more than minimum, but not by a hell of a lot. They are union, but separate from the teachers.

If minimum wage goes up, so does her salary. To minimum. To make up the difference, benefits will be cut. It's all in the contract.

So, we end up getting screwed, too. Because the only reason she works is for the benefits, specifically health care.

 

we could hire more sign twirlers if they lowered min wage...