Fast Food Walk Out

[Gravitymaster 0]

I'll also add that a lot of the people I observe coming and going in fast food restaurants are students, soccer moms and office workers. I don't see too many Lexus's, Mercedes, and upper line BMW's parked there. Mainly older cars and Mommy vans.
I wonder how much economic impact a $12.00 combo will have on them? Perhaps they will just start bringing their lunch.

[swisschris62 0]

People are going to have to start growing their food...rich or poor.
When the trucks stop moving there won't be fuel to put in the clunker or the BMW, no burgers to flip, no food in the stores.

OR...wages will double, rates will go up and everything will cost twice as much.

Now we're back where we started.....

[Gravitymaster 0]

You need to join the Preppers. I have a mountaintop in Tennessee I can let you have cheap.

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***If unions were not exempt from Antitrust laws ...

Hold on. What -precisely- is your issue?

My issue is that unions can act in ways that other companies cannot. Take Microsoft. If Microsoft decides to destroy a business simply for the sake of destroying it by, say, pricing its product so low that the competitor withers, that would be bad and subject to punishment.

A union can do that. It can actually negotiate lower wages for union members with Companies A, B anc C so that Company D loses every bid it places and is put out of business. And it would be legal.

Look at Hostess. One union held a business and alll the other unions hostage. That's fine under the law. Here in Cali, you have unions that are publically telling Jerry Brown that they helped pass the tax increases and they want their kickbacks. Yep - unions can do that.

I don't like exceptions built in to laws. It creates a power imbalance.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[devildog 0]

quade

First, make sure your premise is correct.

Is money a zero sum game or in today's economy does money enter and leave the system as if by magic? When the Dow loses or gains, is that money going from one person and to another?

Absolutely not.

Yes, actually, money is going from one person to another somewhere in the chain that affects the Dow.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[swisschris62 0]

I already have 70 acres on a mountaintop in the north west but I appreciate you looking out

[quade 3]

devildog

***First, make sure your premise is correct.

Is money a zero sum game or in today's economy does money enter and leave the system as if by magic? When the Dow loses or gains, is that money going from one person and to another?

Absolutely not.

Yes, actually, money is going from one person to another somewhere in the chain that affects the Dow.

NEGATIVE.

Just the other week the Syrian Electronic Army took hacked into AP's Twitter account and made a false post about the White House suffering an explosion and the President being killed in it. MACHINES, not people, scanning various news sources picked it up and for a brief time the Dow PLUNGED. Literally billions upon billions of dollars instantly vanished from the world economy.

Then, AP regained control over its Twitter account and posted a retraction. The NYSE reversed some of the purchases. The Dow "recovered" -- almost. However, MY stocks are still lower than they were before the attack as is the entire Dow.

It is literally a confidence game where money is created out of nothing and lost the same way.

Don't even get me started on derivatives.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Darius11 12]

These are low skill jobs, you’re supposed to get minimum wage.
If you have 3 kids then that’s on your buddy wear a condom or close your legs. What I am supposed to pay for people being stupid? You had the first one ok you made a mistake but you have 3????? WTF
You can’t live alone by yourself and support a decent life on minimum wage what would make you think hey I am going to have a few kids?
The bigger issue is life has gotten more expensive while wages have remained the same even for skilled jobs. Look at managers 20-30 years ago they made almost the same money as now but the cost of a home or rent has sky rocketed.
The problem is Greed the CEOs and top guys make a lot more than they did, and 2nd We have too many people. So resources cost a lot more.
We need a tax system where people pay for what they use, You have kids you shouldn’t get a break you should get a penalty, you don’t have kids you should get a tax break. Simple, use resources pay for it don’t use resources get break.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[weekender 0]

devildog

***First, make sure your premise is correct.

Is money a zero sum game or in today's economy does money enter and leave the system as if by magic? When the Dow loses or gains, is that money going from one person and to another?

Absolutely not.

Yes, actually, money is going from one person to another somewhere in the chain that affects the Dow.

(edited and removed the part where i disagreed with the above poster. on second reading i realize he understand the markets and the other gentlemen is confused. the rest of my post stands because it explains zero sum.)

money going from one to the other does not make it a zero sum game. If you buy a stock that is in the Dow index and it goes up and then sell it. The next person can buy it and also sell it higher. His profit and loss is completely independent of yours. so by definition it is not zero sum.

futures and options are much closer to zero sum since they are contracts for a goods delivery based on a agreed price and also time. If they expire one person has a profit equal to the others loss. zero sum.

not the case with bonds, equities and currencies.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[DcloudZ 0]

Salaries should be based on the value you provide to the company. Not what you think you deserve to earn.

Hell, if it was up to me, I'd fire anyone who walked out on the job demanding better pay; I would then pick someone from the plentiful pool of other people lining up that would be glad to do the same job for the same pay.

Furthermore, if by some miracle, employers were forced to pay the 15$ an hour or what not, I would still fire the idiot who walked out demanding the higher pay and higher someone else who actually deserves it.

My 2 cents. You want more money? E-A-R-N it.

"Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing than a long life spent in a miserable way." -Alan Watts

[Darius11 12]

Quote

You want more money? E-A-R-N it.

Can you describe what earning it means?
Is earning it actually just finding a way to get your hands on money? Or does earning it mean creating something, or doing a service?

Because the people who make the most money now days do not create anything, they simply play the game of numbers. Hedge fund managers make a lot of money but not sure what they do to earn it.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[DougH 270]

quade

It also has ZERO to do with ambition or skill or education. In a lot of places these are the jobs that are available and that's it.

That funny, because many companies are saying they can't find enough skilled workers to fill their positions.

Machinists and other tradesmen are in need, and these jobs don't take an expensive four year college degree. They do take strong math skills, and training which many employers are happy to provide, but not many takers.

They pay a solid middle class wage, far better than any fast food job. But they aren't a auto union worker dream either, they require you to think, you aren't going to get paid 50 bucks an hour to bolt the same seat into a car over and over and over.

You wan't me to learn calculus, and trigonometry, and you aren't going to give me 300k a year. Yeah ok, F that, I am just going to bitch about making shit at McD's instead.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[DcloudZ 0]

Darius11

Quote

You want more money? E-A-R-N it.

Can you describe what earning it means?
Is earning it actually just finding a way to get your hands on money? Or does earning it mean creating something, or doing a service?

Because the people who make the most money now days do not create anything, they simply play the game of numbers. Hedge fund managers make a lot of money but not sure what they do to earn it.

Those people went to school, earned a place in a company as an underpaid, overworked intern pulling back-to-back all nighters practically sucking off their bosses to get to where they are today.

"Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing than a long life spent in a miserable way." -Alan Watts

[weekender 0]

quade

******First, make sure your premise is correct.

Is money a zero sum game or in today's economy does money enter and leave the system as if by magic? When the Dow loses or gains, is that money going from one person and to another?

Absolutely not.

Yes, actually, money is going from one person to another somewhere in the chain that affects the Dow.

NEGATIVE.

Just the other week the Syrian Electronic Army took hacked into AP's Twitter account and made a false post about the White House suffering an explosion and the President being killed in it. MACHINES, not people, scanning various news sources picked it up and for a brief time the Dow PLUNGED. Literally billions upon billions of dollars instantly vanished from the world economy.

Then, AP regained control over its Twitter account and posted a retraction. The NYSE reversed some of the purchases. The Dow "recovered" -- almost. However, MY stocks are still lower than they were before the attack as is the entire Dow.

It is literally a confidence game where money is created out of nothing and lost the same way.

Don't even get me started on derivatives.

the twitter hack was such a small event i forgot about it and had to look it up. it was in April, not recently and certainly not the drama you seem to imply. the DOW lost 150 points or so. its currently at around 14800, higher than it was during that sell off. It was as high as 16658 on 2 Aug. You are grossly exaggerating the impact of that hack. There were a number of far more important events that have impacted the pricing of equities since then.

Machines can buy and sell stocks but there are none that can read newspapers and then buy and sell stocks. Even if they could it does nothing for you argument that equities are zero sum and a confidence game. it only shows that computers are involved in finance. that should not be news to anyone.

There are certainly inefficiencies in the market from time to time. That does not make it a confidence game or a fraud as you imply. Stocks trade based on their fundamental valuation mostly. There are short term fluctuations based on momentum and speculation, sure. That doesnt make it a scam.

I dont think you understand the financial markets well and should moderate your strong opinions. there are people who lurk here with vastly more experience and understanding. also, its a quiet day and they have the time to point out your misunderstandings.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[quade 3]

Quote

That does not make it a confidence game or a fraud as you imply.

I said it was "literally a confidence game." I didn't suggest there was fraud (although there certainly is quite a bit of that as well), but money is NOT what most people think it is.

Most people, much like Lawrocket, assume money is something fixed and constant like a chunk of gold. Like if we were two children trading a fixed number of beads and a zero sum game where if I "win" you "lose." The reality could not be further from the truth.

In fact, not even the value of something such as a bar of gold is fixed. It completely, 100% absolutely, depends on the confidence of individuals today agreeing on what they think its value will be in the future.

You say, "I dont think you understand the financial markets well..."

I say, most people should reconsider their concepts of "reality."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Remster 24]

Quote

I said it was "literally a confidence game."

I guess you're using the new expanded definition then!

Remster

[quade 3]

Remster

Quote

I said it was "literally a confidence game."

I guess you're using the new expanded definition then!

The other is the metaphor.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Remster 24]

quade

***

Quote

I said it was "literally a confidence game."

I guess you're using the new expanded definition then!

The other is the metaphor.

That made my brains literally explode.

Remster

[weekender 0]

quade

Quote

That does not make it a confidence game or a fraud as you imply.

I said it was "literally a confidence game." I didn't suggest there was fraud (although there certainly is quite a bit of that as well), but money is NOT what most people think it is.

Most people, much like Lawrocket, assume money is something fixed and constant like a chunk of gold. Like if we were two children trading a fixed number of beads and a zero sum game where if I "win" you "lose." The reality could not be further from the truth.

In fact, not even the value of something such as a bar of gold is fixed. It completely, 100% absolutely, depends on the confidence of individuals today agreeing on what they think it's value will be in the future.

You say, "I dont think you understand the financial markets well..."

I say, you should reconsider your concepts of "reality."

I owe you an apology. You do understand the concept of zero sum. i miss read your post as the opposite. sorry.

also, i suppose i owe you an apology about "literally a confidence game." i interpreted that to mean a con or a scam. i was basing that on the context of your post, which i believe to be overly dramatic and inaccurate in its description of the hack.

i still think you lack my understanding of finance but that is understandable. I am quite a big deal, hah.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[devildog 0]

quade

******First, make sure your premise is correct.

Is money a zero sum game or in today's economy does money enter and leave the system as if by magic? When the Dow loses or gains, is that money going from one person and to another?

Absolutely not.

Yes, actually, money is going from one person to another somewhere in the chain that affects the Dow.

NEGATIVE.

Just the other week the Syrian Electronic Army took hacked into AP's Twitter account and made a false post about the White House suffering an explosion and the President being killed in it. MACHINES, not people, scanning various news sources picked it up and for a brief time the Dow PLUNGED. Literally billions upon billions of dollars instantly vanished from the world economy.

Then, AP regained control over its Twitter account and posted a retraction. The NYSE reversed some of the purchases. The Dow "recovered" -- almost. However, MY stocks are still lower than they were before the attack as is the entire Dow.

It is literally a confidence game where money is created out of nothing and lost the same way.

Don't even get me started on derivatives.

And that value dropped because people were selling at a rate that was lower than before. A stock won't drop without money changing hands somewhere, it doesn't matter if a computer did the trading or a person did. Money went from one place to another and affected the price.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[quade 3]

devildog

And that value dropped because people were selling at a rate that was lower than before.

Oh . . . so close you almost have it.

No. The price dropped because the computers were programmed to value the stocks less because of a mathematical model which said they had less confidence in the future value of the stock. Other computers also looked at the prices and determined stocks would ONLY be worth buying at lower prices because they also had less confidence in the future value of the stock.

It had zero to do with the actual value of anything.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Paul,

Quote

And it's only going to get worse the better robots become.

Here you go:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/tech/innovation/meet-the-robot-chef-prints-cookies/index.html?hpt=hp_c4

JerryBaumchen

[DrewEckhardt 0]

quade

***The gist of the segment was that all of these 'overseas jobs' would not be coming back to the US; those jobs would be performed by machines.

And it's only going to get worse the better robots become.

Up higher in this thread was a quip about "food service robots." Trust me, that's not a joke.


Yup. High-priced noodle cooks in China making $6400 a year are finding themselves replaced by robots which cost just $1600.

http://singularityhub.com/2013/04/19/chinese-restaurant-owner-says-robot-noodle-maker-doing-a-good-job/

At $22K Baxter would pay for himself inside 18 months when used to replace a minimum wage biological robot. If the programming was commoditized for an application a cash-flow positive business that could get loans against revenues would come out ahead in the first month today.

http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/products/baxter/

Having humans prepare restaurant food for you is going to go the way of having them take care of your grocery needs which is to say up market with fewer jobs.

When I buy a $25 steak from Whole Foods one of several butchers wraps it, a checker scans it, and a bagger packages it for convenient transport.

When I buy a $7 steak from Fresh and Easy it was wrapped in a central facility, I scan it myself, and I bag it myself. I don't interact with the one human on duty supervising 8 checkout stations unless I'm buying beer and they need to check my ID.

Quote

The moment the technology is cheaper than a human (and frankly it might already be fuggin' close), you will not see human food servers anywhere except at 1% establishments.

Not quite. The top decile will still get human service which contributes to the value of the experience. At the bottom there will still be a few hole-in-the wall single proprietor and family operations which continue doing everything themselves.

[weekender 0]

quade

***And that value dropped because people were selling at a rate that was lower than before.

Oh . . . so close you almost have it.

No. The price dropped because the computers were programmed to value the stocks less because of a mathematical model which said they had less confidence in the future value of the stock. Other computers also looked at the prices and determined stocks would ONLY be worth buying at lower prices because they also had less confidence in the future value of the stock.

It had zero to do with the actual value of anything.

IMO you are correct about the result of programs and algo's but have a very weird way getting there. program selling is triggered by algorithms based on volume, momentum and the size of bids and offers. they dont really think as much as your describing. once they notice a sell imbalance they trigger another sell program. this momentum triggers another momentum sell program and so on.

the bids below the market will cancel once they detect the momentum to the down side. if no human notices or cares, there are no bids. all offers and no bids or in laymen terms, more sellers than buyers, the stock goes down. One stock triggers the other and it all happens in fractions of a second.

your use of the words "value" and "confidence" are not really accurate to describe how algo's and program selling work. they are not thinking like humans. they do not model for the future as humans do. they work on liquidity and momentum solely. your correct on the process, however, your explanation could use some polish.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[quade 3]

Allow me a bit of poetry.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver