How Did Walmart Get Cleaner Stores and Higher Sales? It Paid Its People More

[peter12]

I don't know, but I have observed a lot of chaos in the McDonald's near my place as they introduced the kiosks - not only for customers but for the workers as well.

Now, does this mean that McDonald's will start paying more for a small handful of workers clever enough to blend personal and automated customer service? Maybe.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The GST is a tax charged on goods and services, hope that clarifies for you what that nonsense is. The original posters were stating that higher taxes dissuade them from working harder and that wealth redistribution was disturbing to them, so I wanted to know how the change to that tax affected them in those regards. Is it a tax directly related to your income? No, but logic would lead someone to believe that if you make more money you are likely buying more things which would mean a greater amount of your earnings would be going to gst than someone who has less money to spend.

Higher income taxes, not higher taxes. The GST is a value added tax that is not applied to all items. It has zero relation to my motivation to work. Taking money out of my pocket before I see it with an income tax has a very, very different effect.

Don't declare you're using logic. You're not. You're just fabricating nonsense to support your opinion.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

so the carbon tax in your mind has exactly zero to do with emissions and green technology and everything to do with redistribution of wealth.

If this question is pointed at me, I should preface that I'm fine with the B.C. version where corporate and personal taxes were reduced to equal the increased income from both sectors' carbon taxes. I'm not fine with the sort of boondoggle personal wealth redistribution and distribution of revenue from profitable enterprises to unprofitable ones that the Alberta government is planning.

Yes, there are increased costs at all levels (marginal ones once an efficient change in corporate and personal taxes are netted out), but if the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, a B.C.-style tax is the most efficient way to do it. This method is much efficient than through regulations and cap and trade which also increase costs, but do so in much more expensive ways relative to actual reductions, with the costs being opaque to consumers.

My point was that if increasing cost of a good naturally decreases consumption of that good, and the same also follows for labour. The only argument that I'd accept as debatable is about the amount of elasticity between the cost and the demand, but it's not inelastic.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

If this question is pointed at me, I should preface that I'm fine with the B.C. version where corporate and personal taxes were reduced to equal the increased income from both sectors' carbon taxes. I'm not fine with the sort of boondoggle personal wealth redistribution and distribution of revenue from profitable enterprises to unprofitable ones that the Alberta government is planning.

Yes, there are increased costs at all levels (marginal ones once an efficient change in corporate and personal taxes are netted out), but if the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, a B.C.-style tax is the most efficient way to do it. This method is much efficient than through regulations and cap and trade which also increase costs, but do so in much more expensive ways relative to actual reductions, with the costs being opaque to consumers.

My point was that if increasing cost of a good naturally decreases consumption of that good, and the same also follows for labour. The only argument that I'd accept as debatable is about the amount of elasticity between the cost and the demand, but it's not inelastic.

Honestly it wasn't pointed at you but another poster but thanks for your reply. Yes the BC version where its truly revenue neutral makes more sense.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

so the carbon tax in your mind has exactly zero to do with emissions and green technology and everything to do with redistribution of wealth.

Not sure if this was directed at me, but if it was, no I don't believe the carbon tax has anything to do with redistribution of wealth.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Higher income taxes, not higher taxes. The GST is a value added tax that is not applied to all items. It has zero relation to my motivation to work. Taking money out of my pocket before I see it with an income tax has a very, very different effect.

Don't declare you're using logic. You're not. You're just fabricating nonsense to support your opinion.

An increase or reduction on either your income tax or the general sales tax both have an affect on your disposable income, whether you will admit to this or not. Unless of course you don't buy any taxable goods or services which is unlikely. For every percentage the gst goes up or down, the amount of money you can spend on taxable items goes up or down by that same amount.

[Bownesian]

You'd be wrong in your belief then.

Levies are redirected from those who pay them (consumers - mostly wealthier consumers and profitable companies including farmers) to: families under the median income, small (but not large) businesses, unprofitable businesses (renewable energy, bioenergy, transit, etc.), efficiency programs run by bureaucrats, and select groups (indigenous and coal communities).

Rather than derail this discussion further, I'll point you here:
http://www.alberta.ca/climate-carbon-pricing.aspx

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Maybe. Maybe. It all depends on how much customers like using them. I think the McDonald's kiosk experiment has been a complete disaster, and if you go to Walmart, there are still tons of people using the regular tills.

Personally, after an initial experimentation with the automated tills, I switched back to interacting with an employee.

So many things can go wrong that a till cannot help you with.

I'm curious why you feel that way. I've been to a couple of McDonalds recently and almost everybody was in the waiting area with touch-kiosk reciepts and nobody was going to the counter. This was during the lunch rush. It worked very smoothly. People waited for their number to appear on the screen or to be called out and just picked up the order. It's reduced a lot of the chaos of people lining up for tills and milling around and staff unable to hear orders in a noisy restaurant, etc.

Their build your own burger campaign may not be taking off but I think the kiosk model is working very well, especially as all the McDs are renovating to reduce the tills down to 2 only (in the 3 I've been in recently). They have the warchest to fund this experiment and I think others will soon follow suit.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I'm curious why you feel that way. I've been to a couple of McDonalds recently and almost everybody was in the waiting area with touch-kiosk reciepts and nobody was going to the counter. This was during the lunch rush. It worked very smoothly. People waited for their number to appear on the screen or to be called out and just picked up the order. It's reduced a lot of the chaos of people lining up for tills and milling around and staff unable to hear orders in a noisy restaurant, etc.

Their build your own burger campaign may not be taking off but I think the kiosk model is working very well, especially as all the McDs are renovating to reduce the tills down to 2 only (in the 3 I've been in recently). They have the warchest to fund this experiment and I think others will soon follow suit.

I think the build your burger thing failed because most people lose their minds and build the worst burgers ever.

But overall I like the automated system, once they clear out till space it will get better.


The next step for the addicted customer is to move the kiosks to mini touch screens at the table, then you can move the hostesses to bringing orders out to tables.

[Fuzz]

They should bring back the old drive in model. Pull into the parking lot, open an app, place your order/pay, then someone delivers it to your car. No idling in a line, waiting for the minivan in front to put in their massive order etc. Why aren't they doing this?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The situation you are painting above, e.g. Germany after WWI, was due to a very unique set of circumstances which is well documented.

In my understanding, we are living in very unique economic times, when there is weak demand for goods and services globally. Expanding the money supply (or printing money) is one way to stimulate that demand, by boosting consumer spending, thereby kick starting the global economy. Naturally it must be done very carefully and methodically in a way that does not lead to hyperinflation.

The less dumb countries do not literally print money. That literally expands the most liquid money supply (something called M0), which then leads to massive inflation because each unit of money is worth less.

What countries are doing is something called quantitative easing. What this is is that they first buy back their relatively expensive bonds (in terms of what they bear in interest) and replace it with bonds that pay less interest.

Now this part works because in a low interest rate environment like now any bond that pays better than nothing at all is considered almost risk-free and a decent investment, so there's still very good demand for these near worthless investments.

The next part is the central bank takes the funds from these bond sales and gives banks the money. The banks then will use these funds to loan to people and businesses, thus stimulating the economy via the usage of debt but avoiding inflation because only qualified borrowers would have access to that money, and that money would only go towards projects that have an ROI.

There was absolutely nothing special about what happened in Germany; deflation of currency is very easy to do. The Romans did it for hundreds of years and it probably had more than something to do with their downfall, and Venezuela is a very, very recent example of incredibly stupid economic policy.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They should bring back the old drive in model. Pull into the parking lot, open an app, place your order/pay, then someone delivers it to your car. No idling in a line, waiting for the minivan in front to put in their massive order etc. Why aren't they doing this?

It probably has to do with maximizing space, and harnessing the consumer to do some of the work.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jammies

Bill Gates was an entrepreneur and investor, and he made the vast bulk of his money by owning stock in his company that appreciated in value, not from his weekly wages as CEO. Thanks for confirming my argument that the common misconception is, indeed, common.

Whose to say a lot of other people making outlandish 'salaries' are not doing the same thing?

I find it a bit strange that there are so many complaints about ridiculous CEO pay while in fact it has been pointed out in this thread that average CEO pay is not THAT crazy.

Sure there are a few that make more than they should considering how poorly their company is doing, but seems to me overall the average pay, at least in Canada, isn't that ridiculous.

IMO, focus should be more on fair wages and workers right than it should be on outlandish CEO pay. If anything, give the shareholders more power to protest poor company performance while the CEO is raking it in.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Azure

Whose to say a lot of other people making outlandish 'salaries' are not doing the same thing?

I find it a bit strange that there are so many complaints about ridiculous CEO pay while in fact it has been pointed out in this thread that average CEO pay is not THAT crazy.

Sure there are a few that make more than they should considering how poorly their company is doing, but seems to me overall the average pay, at least in Canada, isn't that ridiculous.

IMO, focus should be more on fair wages and workers right than it should be on outlandish CEO pay. If anything, give the shareholders more power to protest poor company performance while the CEO is raking it in.

I think where most people take issue with CEO pay is the fact that they are the ones overseeing the implementation of unfair wages in some cases while getting paid an absurd amount of money.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I'm curious why you feel that way. I've been to a couple of McDonalds recently and almost everybody was in the waiting area with touch-kiosk reciepts and nobody was going to the counter. This was during the lunch rush. It worked very smoothly. People waited for their number to appear on the screen or to be called out and just picked up the order. It's reduced a lot of the chaos of people lining up for tills and milling around and staff unable to hear orders in a noisy restaurant, etc.

Their build your own burger campaign may not be taking off but I think the kiosk model is working very well, especially as all the McDs are renovating to reduce the tills down to 2 only (in the 3 I've been in recently). They have the warchest to fund this experiment and I think others will soon follow suit.

I was at McDicks this mornin and I watched someone go to the till to buy a coffee. While standing there all the workers behind the counter were busy or unaware that someone was at the till. After what seemed like 5 minutes the old feller yells out "Anyone want my money!!!!"

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think where most people take issue with CEO pay is the fact that they are the ones overseeing the implementation of unfair wages in some cases while getting paid an absurd amount of money.

For me it's the bonuses they get when the company under performs or doesn't make expected goals.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Dion

I was at McDicks this mornin and I watched someone go to the till to buy a coffee. While standing there all the workers behind the counter were busy or unaware that someone was at the till. After what seemed like 5 minutes the old feller yells out "Anyone want my money!!!!"

You don't have to pretend that wasn't you, Dion.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

Whose to say a lot of other people making outlandish 'salaries' are not doing the same thing?

Your original example was "What about Bill Gates, he's done a lot of good!", which is a non sequitur because Bill Gates being a CEO had very little to do with the wealth he is now voluntarily redistributing. I don't know that CEOs do give a disproportionate amount of their wealth away: maybe they do, maybe they don't. I also don't know that "who is to say?" is supposed to be an argument, which it really isn't.

Originally Posted by Azure

I find it a bit strange that there are so many complaints about ridiculous CEO pay while in fact it has been pointed out in this thread that average CEO pay is not THAT crazy.

I find it a bit strange that all the people who complain about overpaid union and government workers who don't "deserve" their inflated pay aren't equally annoyed with executives being grossly overpaid for their contribution. Why does a fair wage only apply to the middle class?

Again, these are EMPLOYEES we are talking about. Employees whose contributions are difficult to quantiry, but for whom the vast preponderance of evidence is that the contribution is negligible or non-existent. I've yet to see a convincing argument in favour of their wages being fair, just that they don't seem too unfair. What an amazing endorsement.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

It probably has to do with maximizing space, and harnessing the consumer to do some of the work.

Well if Superstore can do it....

I bet within 5 years we see this. Seams like a no-brainer. One less person working inside taking orders, I would think it would take less space than a full drive through, you could setup a favourite meal to make it really easy to roll up, hit order, and be done. Doesn't Starbucks already do this, except you have to go pick it up from the counter?

[Sainters7]

Don't go to Wal-Mart much since we moved, as there's not one close by like there used to be in Acadia...was in there a couple times recently after a long hiatus, is it just me or have they really increased their prices? Only ever shopped for groceries there so I couldn't comment on electronics, but I swear that place is pretty much on par - if not even higher - than the Co-op or Safeway by me. When did that happen?

Edit: apologies if this has already been mentioned. Just realized I haven't read past page 3 & it's on page 8 now..