Franchise group files to block [Seattle's] $15 minimum-wage phase-in

[Axulus]

And none of those automated systems has resulted in lower prices. Odd.

You are basing this off of, what, exactly?

Some indirect evidence, food as a percent of total disposable income is at all time lows, consistent with real (inflation adjusted) prices declining:

 

[DBT]

The chart represents about 6 - 8% but doesn't tell us the source of the price fall. For example, it may be because consumers are spending less, economic conditions, etc, and not because food prices have fallen by that margin.

It looks like a fairly steady price line from 1999 till 2011, in any case, this probably being the greatest period of change in computerization.

Do you have an analysis to go with the chart?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It has to do with production of foodstuffs going up. More land is under cultivation and more food is being produced.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And none of those automated systems has resulted in lower prices. Odd.

You are basing this off of, what, exactly?

The claim by retailers that installing the machines will result in lower prices.

 

[Togo]

Franchise owners, the subject of the OP, would be things like fast food outlets, which would be concerned with the Green line, where prices haven't fallen. Unless I'm missing something?

 

[ZiprHead]

And did Albertson's prices go through the roof when they brought humans back into the system?

Sounds to me like the didn't bring more humans into the system.

 

[Canard DuJour]

And none of those automated systems has resulted in lower prices. Odd.

You are basing this off of, what, exactly?

Some indirect evidence, food as a percent of total disposable income is at all time lows, consistent with real (inflation adjusted) prices declining:

Indirect evidence of what, exactly, with respect to automated systems?

The graph suggests that, unless automated supermarket checkouts were mostly installed in the 1960s, they've actually slowed down and reversed the trend of cheaper "food at home", and that the automated fast food vendor thingy you posted a picture of is part of a more expensive "food away from home" trend.

 

[Emily Lake]

You are basing this off of, what, exactly?

The claim by retailers that installing the machines will result in lower prices.

Is that their claim? I wouldn't expect it to actually reduce prices, so much as reduce trend in prices - that is reduce the rate at which food prices increase... and only because it reduces on of the costs that the seller bears.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The claim by retailers that installing the machines will result in lower prices.

Is that their claim? I wouldn't expect it to actually reduce prices, so much as reduce trend in prices - that is reduce the rate at which food prices increase... and only because it reduces on of the costs that the seller bears.

Yes it was the claim here along with "no waiting" in line.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The chart represents about 6 - 8% but doesn't tell us the source of the price fall. For example, it may be because consumers are spending less, economic conditions, etc, and not because food prices have fallen by that margin.

It looks like a fairly steady price line from 1999 till 2011, in any case, this probably being the greatest period of change in computerization.

Do you have an analysis to go with the chart?

Note that they're still spending on eating out. Food prices have fallen as a percentage of our budgets.

 

[DBT]

The chart represents about 6 - 8% but doesn't tell us the source of the price fall. For example, it may be because consumers are spending less, economic conditions, etc, and not because food prices have fallen by that margin.

It looks like a fairly steady price line from 1999 till 2011, in any case, this probably being the greatest period of change in computerization.

Do you have an analysis to go with the chart?

Note that they're still spending on eating out. Food prices have fallen as a percentage of our budgets.

Perhaps on the basis of more food being produced, larger farms, etc, rather than automation at the local shop or supermarket...which was the point. Large scale mono culture's and factory farms may not even be sustainable in the long term.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Note that they're still spending on eating out. Food prices have fallen as a percentage of our budgets.

Perhaps on the basis of more food being produced, larger farms, etc, rather than automation at the local shop or supermarket...which was the point. Large scale mono culture's and factory farms may not even be sustainable in the long term.

There's no way we can show any particular change reduced costs as the effects are too small to see. All we can do is figure that the companies wouldn't choose to spend the money doing it unless they believed it would reduce costs--and they have a far better picture of the costs than we possibly can have.

 

[ksen]

it's all about faith

 

[arkirk]

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024257566_franchiseinjunctionxml.html



Sorry franchise owners, you don't get to have only the benefits of being associated with a (trans)national corporation and none of the drawbacks.

Suck it up and pay your people enough to live on.

It's a legal case. There are legal arguments and stuff.

Does that make the workers any less in need of a living wage? A lot of our court system is a pure sham put on to keep the big boys in business. How about paying the poor devils who flip your burgers and keeping the lawyers out of it?

 

[arkirk]

Perhaps on the basis of more food being produced, larger farms, etc, rather than automation at the local shop or supermarket...which was the point. Large scale mono culture's and factory farms may not even be sustainable in the long term.

There's no way we can show any particular change reduced costs as the effects are too small to see. All we can do is figure that the companies wouldn't choose to spend the money doing it unless they believed it would reduce costs--and they have a far better picture of the costs than we possibly can have.

Again, here you come with "It's too complicated for you to talk about it. Only the experts know. Have faith they are honest and they are reducing costs as only they know how." The standard you are setting is the lowest priced food regardless of anything else...hardly what I would want to swallow.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's no way we can show any particular change reduced costs as the effects are too small to see. All we can do is figure that the companies wouldn't choose to spend the money doing it unless they believed it would reduce costs--and they have a far better picture of the costs than we possibly can have.

Again, here you come with "It's too complicated for you to talk about it. Only the experts know. Have faith they are honest and they are reducing costs as only they know how." The standard you are setting is the lowest priced food regardless of anything else...hardly what I would want to swallow.

Not "only the experts know", but rather "only those with access to the detailed data know".

You also have quite a lack of respect for the skills of experts.

 

[DBT]

Perhaps on the basis of more food being produced, larger farms, etc, rather than automation at the local shop or supermarket...which was the point. Large scale mono culture's and factory farms may not even be sustainable in the long term.

There's no way we can show any particular change reduced costs as the effects are too small to see. All we can do is figure that the companies wouldn't choose to spend the money doing it unless they believed it would reduce costs--and they have a far better picture of the costs than we possibly can have.

Do you think that the companies involved have sat down in their boardrooms and worked out the overall cost of their computerization programs, self service industry, etc, to society in terms of helping create an increasing percentage of a permanently unemployed class, and welfare dependence?

 

[Emily Lake]

Does that make the workers any less in need of a living wage? A lot of our court system is a pure sham put on to keep the big boys in business. How about paying the poor devils who flip your burgers and keeping the lawyers out of it?

Who should pay them? And what should happen if they can't afford to do so?

- - - Updated - - -

There's no way we can show any particular change reduced costs as the effects are too small to see. All we can do is figure that the companies wouldn't choose to spend the money doing it unless they believed it would reduce costs--and they have a far better picture of the costs than we possibly can have.

Do you think that the companies involved have sat down in their boardrooms and worked out the overall cost of their computerization programs, self service industry, etc, to society in terms of helping create an increasing percentage of a permanently unemployed class, and welfare dependence?

I do not believe that "cost to society" is an entry on their balance sheets. They're not compensated for the burden of those costs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's no way we can show any particular change reduced costs as the effects are too small to see. All we can do is figure that the companies wouldn't choose to spend the money doing it unless they believed it would reduce costs--and they have a far better picture of the costs than we possibly can have.

Do you think that the companies involved have sat down in their boardrooms and worked out the overall cost of their computerization programs, self service industry, etc, to society in terms of helping create an increasing percentage of a permanently unemployed class, and welfare dependence?

Of course not. I don't think they should, either--welfare is the job of government, not of business. You're just being a Luddite.

 

[DBT]

Do you think that the companies involved have sat down in their boardrooms and worked out the overall cost of their computerization programs, self service industry, etc, to society in terms of helping create an increasing percentage of a permanently unemployed class, and welfare dependence?

Of course not. I don't think they should, either--welfare is the job of government, not of business. You're just being a Luddite.

I'm merely questioning the motives, the strategy and the social effects of the current business strategy of eliminating costs, and consequently, jobs. My question still remains: when we come to the point where a high percentage of paid work has gone for ever (computerization and the self service industry), where does the money that all newly unemployed require in order to, not only survive, but expect a reasonable standard of living come from? Who pays the Bills?