More lefties learn the glory of the 15 dollar minimum wage....unemployment.....

[Flopper]

There of 10 states,AZ, CO, FL, MO, MT, NJ, NV, OH, OR, and WA that index minimum wage to inflation. Senate Democrats are proposing this.

That's simply pandering - paying lip service without fixing the problem.

That would depend on what you mean by fixing the problem.

History has shown that tying wage increases to inflation has been ineffective, and actually contributes to the problem, rather than fixing it. Congressmen proposing to do that are merely pretending to care about fixing the problem.

Define "ineffective".

One would expect no improvement in the standard of living of minimum wagers by tying increases to inflation. Is that what you mean by "contributes to the problem"?

I think that at this juncture, people who genuinely care about minimum-wagers should be exceptionally careful not to push too hard. A few dollars an hour is the only thing making a flesh-and-blood human worker preferable to a machine in a great many service industries, and the machines aren't getting any slower or more expensive.

"One would expect no improvement in the standard of living of minimum wagers by tying increases to inflation. Is that what you mean by "contributes to the problem"?"

Exactly so, and, it even exacerbates the problem. Since we know that the 'cost of living increases' do not keep up with the actual cost of living, raising wages (and thus, the concordant rise in cost of living) actually negatively impacts the lower level earners more than others. As usual, 'feel good' government policies harm the very people they purport to help.

As for automation - you can count on it. Low end jobs will disappear in an ever-increasing spiral. $15/hour people who bitch and moan, go on strike, show up late for work or not all, get sick, or take vacations, are a significantly greater cost (and pain in the ass) than turning on the burger flipper machine every morning. Not only do I eliminate the low end worker, I can also cut back on my mid-level managers, as well.

The reason I suggested indexing minimum wage was to eliminate the divisive minimum wage fight that occurs every few years in congress. Going to indexing versus what we doing now will not make a significant difference in the minimum wage. It will make it easier for businesses to plan their future because they will know well in advance when they will have to adjust wages and since it's based on inflation they will know fairly closely the magnitude of the increase.

Indexing of course will not provide a higher standard of living for low income earners, it will just help them to maintain their standard of living. If Congress wants to elevate the living standard of the poor, then they can do so and index minimum wage so they want have to keep revisiting it every few years.

I agree with your statement that automation will eliminate low end jobs. It's going to happen whether we raise minimum wages or not because the technologies are improving and getting cheaper. Moderate increases in minimum wage will have little effect. Large increase will just make it happen a little faster. However, most minimum wage jobs will be here for a long time because there will always be tasks that machines can't do. In most businesses people prefer to deal humans rather than machines plus machines can never be as flexible as humans.

 

[Spare_change]

That's simply pandering - paying lip service without fixing the problem.

That would depend on what you mean by fixing the problem.

History has shown that tying wage increases to inflation has been ineffective, and actually contributes to the problem, rather than fixing it. Congressmen proposing to do that are merely pretending to care about fixing the problem.

Define "ineffective".

One would expect no improvement in the standard of living of minimum wagers by tying increases to inflation. Is that what you mean by "contributes to the problem"?

I think that at this juncture, people who genuinely care about minimum-wagers should be exceptionally careful not to push too hard. A few dollars an hour is the only thing making a flesh-and-blood human worker preferable to a machine in a great many service industries, and the machines aren't getting any slower or more expensive.

"One would expect no improvement in the standard of living of minimum wagers by tying increases to inflation. Is that what you mean by "contributes to the problem"?"

Exactly so, and, it even exacerbates the problem. Since we know that the 'cost of living increases' do not keep up with the actual cost of living, raising wages (and thus, the concordant rise in cost of living) actually negatively impacts the lower level earners more than others. As usual, 'feel good' government policies harm the very people they purport to help.

As for automation - you can count on it. Low end jobs will disappear in an ever-increasing spiral. $15/hour people who bitch and moan, go on strike, show up late for work or not all, get sick, or take vacations, are a significantly greater cost (and pain in the ass) than turning on the burger flipper machine every morning. Not only do I eliminate the low end worker, I can also cut back on my mid-level managers, as well.

The reason I suggested indexing minimum wage was to eliminate the divisive minimum wage fight that occurs every few years in congress. Going to indexing versus what we doing now will not make a significant difference in the minimum wage. It will make it easier for businesses to plan their future because they will know well in advance when they will have to adjust wages and since it's based on inflation they will know fairly closely the magnitude of the increase.

Indexing of course will not provide a higher standard of living for low income earners, it will just help them to maintain their standard of living. If Congress wants to elevate the living standard of the poor, then they can do so and index minimum wage so they want have to keep revisiting it every few years.

I agree with your statement that automation will eliminate low end jobs. It's going to happen whether we raise minimum wages or not because the technologies are improving and getting cheaper. Moderate increases in minimum wage will have little effect. Large increase will just make it happen a little faster. However, most minimum wage jobs will be here for a long time because there will always be tasks that machines can't do. In most businesses people prefer to deal humans rather than machines plus machines can never be as flexible as humans.

Honestly, indexing minimum wage is no more than a placebo to make people believe they have addressed a problem, but don't have to admit that they have done so in a way that really exacerbates the problem.

We've had enough of that over the last 30 years. It's time to directly address the problem, and institute actual - and effective - changes. You can only put band aids on a sucking chest wound for so long before the patient dies despite all your activities.

 

[Flopper]

those are items on their list...........

Nothing would surprise me...
I wish they force welfare recipients to pick up trash on the freeway. It only seems fair.

For your information, 60% of low income families have at least one adult working in a full time job. One of the biggest misconception about social welfare is the recipients don't work. The fact is they do work. They just don't make enough money to support their family.

Of course the flip side of that is, Don't start a family if you can't afford to support that family on your own. I think it is completely unfair ad irresponsible for someone who does not have the means to support a family to say they have a right to have a family and then expect the taxpayers to support that family.

At $10/Hr with TWO full time workers you would have a hard time raising two kids on your own with no help. Let alone 1 parent.

I think irresponsibility is a huge oversimplification. They have been making bad choices throughout their lives in not taking school seriously, in the use of drugs and alcohol, in dropping out of school, and in the selection of a mate. Do you really think these kids, and most of them are kids, would plan a pregnancy and consider their future earning capacity? That is just not part of their of their world.
.

Then, like everything else in life, you need to experience the ramifications of your decisions. Do I have any sympathy? Not one little bit. Am I furious at their parents who didn't raise intelligent, responsible adults? You damn right.

Looking a the statistics, I think welfare families certain do learn from the mistake of having kids they can't afford. 80% of the families on welfare have 2 or less kids.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43187.pdf

 

[Flopper]

That would depend on what you mean by fixing the problem.

History has shown that tying wage increases to inflation has been ineffective, and actually contributes to the problem, rather than fixing it. Congressmen proposing to do that are merely pretending to care about fixing the problem.

Define "ineffective".

One would expect no improvement in the standard of living of minimum wagers by tying increases to inflation. Is that what you mean by "contributes to the problem"?

I think that at this juncture, people who genuinely care about minimum-wagers should be exceptionally careful not to push too hard. A few dollars an hour is the only thing making a flesh-and-blood human worker preferable to a machine in a great many service industries, and the machines aren't getting any slower or more expensive.

"One would expect no improvement in the standard of living of minimum wagers by tying increases to inflation. Is that what you mean by "contributes to the problem"?"

Exactly so, and, it even exacerbates the problem. Since we know that the 'cost of living increases' do not keep up with the actual cost of living, raising wages (and thus, the concordant rise in cost of living) actually negatively impacts the lower level earners more than others. As usual, 'feel good' government policies harm the very people they purport to help.

As for automation - you can count on it. Low end jobs will disappear in an ever-increasing spiral. $15/hour people who bitch and moan, go on strike, show up late for work or not all, get sick, or take vacations, are a significantly greater cost (and pain in the ass) than turning on the burger flipper machine every morning. Not only do I eliminate the low end worker, I can also cut back on my mid-level managers, as well.

The reason I suggested indexing minimum wage was to eliminate the divisive minimum wage fight that occurs every few years in congress. Going to indexing versus what we doing now will not make a significant difference in the minimum wage. It will make it easier for businesses to plan their future because they will know well in advance when they will have to adjust wages and since it's based on inflation they will know fairly closely the magnitude of the increase.

Indexing of course will not provide a higher standard of living for low income earners, it will just help them to maintain their standard of living. If Congress wants to elevate the living standard of the poor, then they can do so and index minimum wage so they want have to keep revisiting it every few years.

I agree with your statement that automation will eliminate low end jobs. It's going to happen whether we raise minimum wages or not because the technologies are improving and getting cheaper. Moderate increases in minimum wage will have little effect. Large increase will just make it happen a little faster. However, most minimum wage jobs will be here for a long time because there will always be tasks that machines can't do. In most businesses people prefer to deal humans rather than machines plus machines can never be as flexible as humans.

Honestly, indexing minimum wage is no more than a placebo to make people believe they have addressed a problem, but don't have to admit that they have done so in a way that really exacerbates the problem.

We've had enough of that over the last 30 years. It's time to directly address the problem, and institute actual - and effective - changes. You can only put band aids on a sucking chest wound for so long before the patient dies despite all your activities.

Just raising minimum wage is not the way to address income inequalities.

 

[Flopper]

I'm sure minimum-wagers would duly appreciate it for the approximately 26 months they remained employed before their job was usurped by the burger-o-matic 5000.

See, here is what you are apparently too stupid to understand.

We will ALWAYS have both minimum wage jobs, and minimum wage employees.

Let's say that McDonalds , for example, bought the burger-o-matic 500 and put it in all their stores. They would still need a minimal number of employees to run the thing. Those employees would still be entry level employees earning at or near the min wage. And the people who USED to work at McDonalds? They would still have to be employed somewhere at or near minimum wage.

The jobs will simply shift. When the automobile was invented did the people who ran livery stables and such suddenly no longer work? Of course not, they instead moved to another industry earning at or near the same wages.

Where exactly are these ex-employees going to work? You're assuming the system magically adapts to find them jobs, but based on what? Hiring these people isn't a cost-effective decision for any employer. Their skills have been rendered obsolete by mechanization.

That's the problem here: the fundamental obsolescence of a burgeoning underclass in a system that is thoroughly capitalist in nature, despising inefficiency. These people have become inefficient. They've become a liability in such a system. Raising the minimum wage makes them a greater liability.

I don't think you appreciate the true scope of the problem. It goes far beyond just minimum wage. And you can spare me the usual platitudes about "people will work to fix the machines" (maintenance jobs might replace one in ten of the jobs displaced by automation, if we're lucky), and "people will adapt" (we're in unprecedented territory for several reasons, not the least of which is the extreme scale of the problem, and "people will adapt" is a blind cop-out.)

They will find a job somewhere. When buggies stopped being sold, did buggy makers just go die because they were out of work, or did they adapt and find a new skill set?

True, most of the people who are earning minimum wage are lazy worthless pieces of shit who would rather not be working at all, and they are fine with that, because our system encourages it . Do very little work, for very little pay, and let the taxpayers pick up the difference.

I say fuck that. I say set the minimum wage @ $10 and tighten up welfare and if you are able bodies and no one wants to hire you because you cant or won't make yourself worth $10, too bad for you, go hungry.

I think hardest work I ever did in my life was wheelbarrowing concrete in a hundred degree temperatures at a minimum wage of $1/hr. When you say people earning minimum wage are worthless pieces of shit, you're talking about nearly half the workforce because that's where they started their career.

So how much training did that require?
And claiming that it is "half the work force" is disingenuous at best.
Try around 3% of the work force.

I didn't say half of the workforce was making minimum wage. I said nearly half the workforce has worked at minimum wage. Most people at sometime in their lives worked a minimum or wage, or lower job, often a person's first job.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

See, here is what you are apparently too stupid to understand.

We will ALWAYS have both minimum wage jobs, and minimum wage employees.

Let's say that McDonalds , for example, bought the burger-o-matic 500 and put it in all their stores. They would still need a minimal number of employees to run the thing. Those employees would still be entry level employees earning at or near the min wage. And the people who USED to work at McDonalds? They would still have to be employed somewhere at or near minimum wage.

The jobs will simply shift. When the automobile was invented did the people who ran livery stables and such suddenly no longer work? Of course not, they instead moved to another industry earning at or near the same wages.

Where exactly are these ex-employees going to work? You're assuming the system magically adapts to find them jobs, but based on what? Hiring these people isn't a cost-effective decision for any employer. Their skills have been rendered obsolete by mechanization.

That's the problem here: the fundamental obsolescence of a burgeoning underclass in a system that is thoroughly capitalist in nature, despising inefficiency. These people have become inefficient. They've become a liability in such a system. Raising the minimum wage makes them a greater liability.

I don't think you appreciate the true scope of the problem. It goes far beyond just minimum wage. And you can spare me the usual platitudes about "people will work to fix the machines" (maintenance jobs might replace one in ten of the jobs displaced by automation, if we're lucky), and "people will adapt" (we're in unprecedented territory for several reasons, not the least of which is the extreme scale of the problem, and "people will adapt" is a blind cop-out.)

They will find a job somewhere. When buggies stopped being sold, did buggy makers just go die because they were out of work, or did they adapt and find a new skill set?

True, most of the people who are earning minimum wage are lazy worthless pieces of shit who would rather not be working at all, and they are fine with that, because our system encourages it . Do very little work, for very little pay, and let the taxpayers pick up the difference.

I say fuck that. I say set the minimum wage @ $10 and tighten up welfare and if you are able bodies and no one wants to hire you because you cant or won't make yourself worth $10, too bad for you, go hungry.

I think hardest work I ever did in my life was wheelbarrowing concrete in a hundred degree temperatures at a minimum wage of $1/hr. When you say people earning minimum wage are worthless pieces of shit, you're talking about nearly half the workforce because that's where they started their career.

So how much training did that require?
And claiming that it is "half the work force" is disingenuous at best.
Try around 3% of the work force.

I didn't say half of the workforce was making minimum wage. I said nearly half the workforce has worked at minimum wage. Most people at sometime in their lives worked a minimum or wage, or lower job, often a person's first job.

Well no shit. You expect em to start out at the top?

 

[haissem123]

Give an example of a business you think would have to raise prices.

All fast food joints and any other place that hires teenagers as their main workforce.
I dont frequent fast food joints,but if they raise prices by a couple bucks for the crap food they serve I'll never set foot in one again.
And I know many people who feel the same. I want to see them stay in business when they lose a third of their customers and they have to pay artificially inflated wages.
They'll close in droves.

Fast food customers tend to be lower wage. So many customers will get wage increases. This will allow them to eat fast food more often helping cover the increased labor costs.

I'm not going to go over this for the twentieth time.
When costs increase at the very places the min wage workers are employed how does that make it any cheaper for them?

The object is to reduce the wages of the owners of this world. Tax dividends stocks and bonds as assets and income. Only right

So you want to punish successful people...we get it.

No longer want to judge people true worth not let them take as much as they can get through any devious methods they can. Inobody is worth billions and to rpove it they will be toppled and see what happens to the world. Nobody will be missed in billions. Trust me.

 

[OnePercenter]

What period of time did this occur?

2014.

What was your operating cost?

Have you figured out my business profit yet?

You drop ship everything and net $80K/yr.

I paid nothing for shipping. What's my profit?

Of course, the shipper pays shipping cost.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2014.

What was your operating cost?

Have you figured out my business profit yet?

You drop ship everything and net $80K/yr.

I paid nothing for shipping. What's my profit?

Of course, the shipper pays shipping cost.

Nope, it was included in my sales price.

 

[OnePercenter]

To compete in today's environment you need three things.

1. Five years operating capital.
2. Know who to hire which you can farm out.
3. Never, ever, ever, hire family

Wow, that's it?

It's that easy, wow! Who knew!!

Look at the top ten reasons that businesses fail and apply my three must-haves. Yes, it is that easy.

 

[OnePercenter]

If a machine can grind meat, shape burger patties, cook and assemble burgers for $10/hr, that's the price point beyond which humans will be replaced.

There are no machines that can grind meat, shape burger patties, cook and assemble burgers, so your argument is moot.

If automated gas pumps can allow customers to pump their own gas for $2/hr, that's the price beyond which humans will be replaced.

There is no such thing as an automated gas pump. Corporate America has falsely convinced consumers to get out of their car, pump their own gas, and buy something in their convenience store and they 'think' they're saving money, which they aren't.

See, the way you approach this is all wrong. A typical business owner looks at it this way. I have a product that I sell. That product costs me X dollars in raw materials. Then I have to add in Y dollars to assemble the product and Z dollars to transport and sell it. Then I have to add enough to cover the taxes I will be charged by the government (this is why corporate taxation is so stupid. The customer pays them). Finally, after all that, I add in 3% as my profit margin. And, most of the time, labor is the biggest expense a company has. So, when it's all said and done, a job that "makes all the money for an business owner" simply doesn't exist.

Nobody makes a 3% profit.

 

[OnePercenter]

That's a very general statement. In the first place, define "afford". If a business can raise prices without a significant loss of sales, they can "afford it". If they can lay off workers without a significant loss of productivity, they can "afford it". If they have a large profit margin and don't mind reducing it, they can "afford it". If they don't have any of those options, they can't.

The statement identifies the lie. Can you name one business that failed because the owner of the business paid her/his employees too much?

 

[OnePercenter]

That would be a very stupid thing to do.

Can you name one bill in the last 45 years written or supported by a Republican that helped the middle class and/or poor that didn't include measures to promote the wealthy disproportionally?

 

[OnePercenter]

The machine has an upfront cost and an operating cost. That cost will come down. It always does. Employees have an operating cost that continually rises. At some point, those costs will converge and the machine's TCO will be lower than the cost of human employees. That eliminates cooks in the back flipping burgers. Now, have you noticed that you don't have to go through a checkout line at the supermarket any more? You can scan your own goods and pay for them at a kiosk. There are restaurants where you can place your order from a screen at your table if you want. That technology will replace people working the register, it;s just a matter of adjusting the mindset of the customer. What's left? Taking the burger from the machine to the counter? You've now replaced 15 MW workers with maybe 3, and a handful of machines. It's all pure economics.

There's a hamburger flipping machine?

Real American's shouldn't patronize self-checkout. I don't.

 

[Spare_change]

That's a very general statement. In the first place, define "afford". If a business can raise prices without a significant loss of sales, they can "afford it". If they can lay off workers without a significant loss of productivity, they can "afford it". If they have a large profit margin and don't mind reducing it, they can "afford it". If they don't have any of those options, they can't.

The statement identifies the lie. Can you name one business that failed because the owner of the business paid her/his employees too much?

General Motors .... only a liberal bailout saved them.

 

[Flopper]

If a machine can grind meat, shape burger patties, cook and assemble burgers for $10/hr, that's the price point beyond which humans will be replaced.

There are no machines that can grind meat, shape burger patties, cook and assemble burgers, so your argument is moot.

If automated gas pumps can allow customers to pump their own gas for $2/hr, that's the price beyond which humans will be replaced.

There is no such thing as an automated gas pump. Corporate America has falsely convinced consumers to get out of their car, pump their own gas, and buy something in their convenience store and they 'think' they're saving money, which they aren't.

See, the way you approach this is all wrong. A typical business owner looks at it this way. I have a product that I sell. That product costs me X dollars in raw materials. Then I have to add in Y dollars to assemble the product and Z dollars to transport and sell it. Then I have to add enough to cover the taxes I will be charged by the government (this is why corporate taxation is so stupid. The customer pays them). Finally, after all that, I add in 3% as my profit margin. And, most of the time, labor is the biggest expense a company has. So, when it's all said and done, a job that "makes all the money for an business owner" simply doesn't exist.

Nobody makes a 3% profit.

Businesses convince customers to do their work, telling them it saves them money, and it's more convenient. My water company just announced a new customer service. They will automatically debit my bank account each month saving them the cost of processing my payment and for this service they will charge me $3 a month.

 

[HenryBHough]

Interesting conversation earlier today with a guy who repairs cars. He had "factory training" on two major brands while working previously for dealers.

He built his own shop and equipped it amazingly well - doing it all out of income. No loans.

Dave does good work and has built a good customer base. In fact, he has too much work! When he built the shop he did it with three work stations, intending to hire a couple of technicians.

The "too much work" situation had him ready to hire. A local high school has a good voc-ed program and turns out about 20 well trained technicians each year. Good staffing available and plenty of business.

So he sat down with his accountant.

Learned about the various taxes and insurance requrements (not medical - too small a business to worry), licenses required, generating and filing city, state and government reports.

He found a creative way to deal with it!

He doubled his shop prices and thereby reduced the workload without losing any income! But nobody got a job. The unused work stations? Since he now knew he had no use for them he rented them out for RV storage.

The 20 grad technicians? They're all working mostly at dealerships. About 5 close to home; the rest commuting to the closest "big" city - 45 miles and about an hour (traffic) away.

So, in a perverse sort of way, I guess you cold call it win-win.

 

[Spare_change]

There are no machines that can grind meat, shape burger patties, cook and assemble burgers, so your argument is moot..

Actually, we have machines that can grind meat, shape burger patties, and cook burgers - do you seriously believe burger assembly is an engineering challenge we can't solve?

 

[Spare_change]

Interesting conversation earlier today with a guy who repairs cars. He had "factory training" on two major brands while working previously for dealers.

He built his own shop and equipped it amazingly well - doing it all out of income. No loans.

Dave does good work and has built a good customer base. In fact, he has too much work! When he built the shop he did it with three work stations, intending to hire a couple of technicians.

The "too much work" situation had him ready to hire. A local high school has a good voc-ed program and turns out about 20 well trained technicians each year. Good staffing available and plenty of business.

So he sat down with his accountant.

Learned about the various taxes and insurance requrements (not medical - too small a business to worry), licenses required, generating and filing city, state and government reports.

He found a creative way to deal with it!

He doubled his shop prices and thereby reduced the workload without losing any income! But nobody got a job. The unused work stations? Since he now knew he had no use for them he rented them out for RV storage.

The 20 grad technicians? They're all working mostly at dealerships. About 5 close to home; the rest commuting to the closest "big" city - 45 miles and about an hour (traffic) away.

So, in a perverse sort of way, I guess you cold call it win-win.

No surprise. That's actually a pretty common story.

 

[OnePercenter]

That's a very general statement. In the first place, define "afford". If a business can raise prices without a significant loss of sales, they can "afford it". If they can lay off workers without a significant loss of productivity, they can "afford it". If they have a large profit margin and don't mind reducing it, they can "afford it". If they don't have any of those options, they can't.

The statement identifies the lie. Can you name one business that failed because the owner of the business paid her/his employees too much?

General Motors .... only a liberal bailout saved them.

The GM bailout was funded during the Bush Administration. FYI: Most of GM's was in the real estate.