Jack in the Box CEO reconsiders automation, kiosks • Hacker News Board

Re: Jack in the Box CEO reconsiders automation, kiosks

#61

Post by KozmoNau7 » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 12:19 AM UTC

mrkstu wrote: post #31

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there are literally no good reasons for that. If you work a full-time job, and I don't care what that job is, your employer absolutely should adequately compensate you, for the amount of time spent on your job. Your employer is buying your time, the most precious and absolutely non-renewable resource you have. Don't sell it too cheaply.

So teenagers working part-time need to earn a living wage? Having a one-size-fits-all number is damaging. The problem is workers who don't hone a useful skill and create a record of reliability. Anyone that does that won't be making the minimum wage after a little while, at least in the current economy.

I specifically said a full-time job. A full-time job needs a proper full-time wage.

Re: Jack in the Box CEO reconsiders automation, kiosks

#62

Post by astr0n0m3r » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:55 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #60

astr0n0m3r wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there are perfectly good reasons the minimum wage should be below a "living wage".

Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and ideological flamebait to HN? When I look at your comment history I see several of those, and also several substantive comments, though those are from years ago. If you'd like to keep commenting here, please drop your recent habit and go back to that earlier one. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I think you are mistaken. If I see a comment that is objectively false, then it ought to be pointed out as such. Not doing so would make Hacker News irrelevant. How am I to object to a false statement without getting flagged? Wouldn't the comment to which I'm replying also need to be flagged, since it states an ideologically driven false statement?

Please tell me what recent comments are flamebait because I've looked at my comment history. In context, I've always been civil.

Re: Jack in the Box CEO reconsiders automation, kiosks

#63

Post by KozmoNau7 » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 8:33 AM UTC

Agustus wrote: post #39

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there are literally no good reasons for that. If you work a full-time job, and I don't care what that job is, your employer absolutely should adequately compensate you, for the amount of time spent on your job. Your employer is buying your time, the most precious and absolutely non-renewable resource you have. Don't sell it too cheaply.

Entry level worker who is not valued the fluctuating livable wage level; where they do not have basic work skills. In San Fransciso, a livable wage might be around $50,000 ($12k for housing, 20k for all taxes, $8k for food and other housing necessities, and 10k for savings, clothes, or insurance); this basically means an hourly wage of $25/hr. As an entry level job this is not a good option for employers and thus why…

Automation is inevitable. It is absolutely not a valid argument for a race to the bottom.

Re: Jack in the Box CEO reconsiders automation, kiosks

#64

Post by KozmoNau7 » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 8:34 AM UTC

astr0n0m3r wrote: post #55

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there are literally no good reasons for that. If you work a full-time job, and I don't care what that job is, your employer absolutely should adequately compensate you, for the amount of time spent on your job. Your employer is buying your time, the most precious and absolutely non-renewable resource you have. Don't sell it too cheaply.

Since you literally can't think of a single reason, I thought it would be fun if I tried to think of a reason that I had never heard before (or at least I don't remember hearing). So here it is: Suppose that someone makes $20/hr but only works 20 hours per week. A second (unskilled) job that only pays $5/hr for 20 hours per week would be a significant increase in their income. In fact, where I live that would put the…

But that's a supplemental part-time job, not a full-time job.

Re: Jack in the Box CEO reconsiders automation, kiosks

#65

Post by astr0n0m3r » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 1:53 AM UTC

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #61

mrkstu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So teenagers working part-time need to earn a living wage? Having a one-size-fits-all number is damaging. The problem is workers who don't hone a useful skill and create a record of reliability. Anyone that does that won't be making the minimum wage after a little while, at least in the current economy.

I specifically said a full-time job. A full-time job needs a proper full-time wage.

The same applies to a married couple where one makes $20/hr and the other $5/hr.

Re: Jack in the Box CEO reconsiders automation, kiosks

#66

Post by KozmoNau7 » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 9:54 AM UTC

astr0n0m3r wrote: post #65

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I specifically said a full-time job. A full-time job needs a proper full-time wage.

The same applies to a married couple where one makes $20/hr and the other $5/hr.

It is still exploitation.

No person in their right mind would work a $5/hr full-time job in the western world, unless they were indoctrinated into a sick "trust us, trickle-down works!" society.

Let's flip it around: Why do you think it's reasonable in any way, that an employer wants to hire a full-time worker at way below a living wage?

Full-time job must pay full-time wage. Can't afford to run your business then? Too bad, find somewhere cheaper to run it. The city/countryside balance will adjust.