|
 Let's all take a minute to remember that jrod is saying teenagers should drop out of high school and work to develop their skills instead of depending on unearned handouts from the government, right after telling us a story about how he was unable to work due to a medical condition beyond his control and had to depend on unearned handouts from his grandparents after the welfare system that had been gutted by people like him failed himI mean, Christ on a cross dude, I'm really glad your grandparents had the means to help you and you weren't bankrupted and forced onto the street, but holy poo poo how can you go through that and expect other people without rich family members to survive through sheer wit and gumption?
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Alhazred posted:Because of this: Look they're just anxious because some liberal wanted them to line up for a photo. They've got work to do. They don't have time for some sob story about how they should be in school or have a childhood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted::Let's all take a minute to remember that jrod is saying teenagers should drop out of high school and work to develop their skills instead of depending on unearned handouts from the government No, he's saying that black teenagers should drop out of school and work on their burger flipping skills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:How many of you have ever run a business where you have had to pay employees a wage? Have any of you ever MANAGED A DENNY'S?!?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
Googling "libertarianism won't just lead to a new state because" only gives me articles about why libertarianism is dumb. Help!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Look I know this study is saying that phrenology is pseudoscience. But that stands in sharp contrast to all the studies that came before it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
Holy hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
My dad started his small business in 1993, and if the minimum wage were increased to $12/hr, he would have to eliminate exactly zero positions because his starting pay for unskilled workers is above that. I remember him telling me once that if he could go back to 1993 and tell himself one thing that he didn't learn from his MBA classes, it's to pay your people a good wage so they care about their jobs and do their best. His biggest problems with employees that cost him the most in time, business, and money through fuckups were when he didn't pay people enough to give a drat. If your business can't make a profit while paying its people enough to survive, then you're a poo poo businessman and your company is a cancer on the face of humanity and deserves to fail, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Also, you know, that money doesn't disappear into a loving black hole when you pay your employees. They're gonna spend it, and the guy the gave it to (possibly a small business owner with newly increased labor costs!!) is gonna spend it, and so on, and so on, until it ends up back in a rich person or corporation's hands and they sit on it. But until they do that money is paying a lot of people and helping to increase demand. Which will be good for your business if your model is at all feasible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Earlier today, the nation's top research teams announced a startling discovery. "It may be the case", announced Dr. Eli Goldsburgwherfer, "that the economy is not a closed system consisting solely of your racist uncle's McDonald's franchise." Many in the crowd were shocked and troubled by the revelation. "If this is the case, then the economy is far greater and more complicated in scope than anyone dared to previously believe" continued the excited economist. "Whole new economic laws may be waiting to be discovered!"
paragon1 fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Mar 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Full disclosure though, my dad believes in Austrian economics (like literally, gave me his copy of Human Action to read when I was 18, hence my post diving into Human Action and showing how jrod's summary of von Mises' argument is completely wrong) and he draws the opposite conclusion from his experience than I do. Namely, he thinks it's proof the minimum wage isn't necessary, and also that safety regulations aren't necessary because he follows them without a government inspector looking over his shoulder so OSHA is clearly redundant. But whatever, it doesn't change the fact that a $12/hr minimum wage would cause him to fire exactly zero people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
 Okay then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
I'm only halfway through but this is really pretty typical of "arguing" with libertarians. They operate under certain assumptions, the guy here operating under the compact theory of the Constitution although he probably doesn't even realize that's what it is, and don't really have any idea how to interact with people who don't have these same assumptions. He's trying to repeat stuff he'd read or heard somewhere that sounds convincing to believers but sounds like gibberish to non-believers. It's like all that "violence" garbage that Jrod says, it's meaningless to non-libertarians but to him it seems like a rhetorical masterstroke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The unemployment effects of the law are only ONE way in which they are unjustified. The ethical argument against them is quite strong as well. What right do you have to initiate force against me or an employer if we both voluntarily agree to a wage contract that is below some arbitrary level? As a worker I am trying to improve my life through assessing my options and choosing that which will be most beneficial to me using my own value judgments. If I choose to take a job at a low wage, it means I've decided that such a job will provide me the best value out of the options I have available to me. Hey Jrod as someone who has worked exclusively garbage minimum wage jobs they don't actually give you desirable skills. Working retail for a year does not make me more desirable except to other bad retai jobs. I would love o know how delivering pizza and shot translates into the skills needed to get a good job, but really i would love for you to kill yourself
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
"Get a better microphone made by a private company."
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:No, he's saying that black teenagers should drop out of school and work on their burger flipping skills. Clearly then African Americans are the true superior Randian übermenschen because at 16 they are ready to strike out on their own and earn their way to suburban affluence by the sweat of their noble brow, whereas jrod and his fellow effete whiteys need to survive on family handouts and require the boost of well-funded schools courtesy of parental affluence to do the same. We must base our entire economic system on assuming that everyone else is born able to do what I was unable to do 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Mar 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 15:35
|
|
SedanChair posted:Look I know this study is saying that phrenology is pseudoscience. But that stands in sharp contrast to all the studies that came before it. Reading journal articles debunking phrenology from the 19th century was one of my favourite academic moments.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:A black teen with no labor experience, who might come from a broken home and with a potentially poor education is most likely NOT going to have productivity exceeding $10 an hour. It might only be $5 an hour. Only the voluntary negotiation of worker and employer on the market can reveal the value of their labor in terms of money. This is manifestly untrue. Let's look at an example. Walmart earned $473.1bn in revenue in 2014. They also employed 2.2 million people. That's an average of $215,000 per person in revenue, and as all revenue apparently has to be produced by a person worthy of earning it, we can assume that number is also their average worth. How should these employees be compensated for their work? Should they be paid, on average, $15,576 a year for 34-hour work weeks, which is what Walmart actually pays them? Or should they be paid more, or less? Please demonstrate your moral calculus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Jrod's talking about minimum wage. This is going to be fun. As many of you know, I used to be an assistant manager for Walgreens. Which means, I actually have business experience and understand how business works. JRod, on the other hand, has a priori assumptions and lacks the basic ability to understand how anything works. In a boxing analogy, this is Mohammed Ali versus a baby with smooth-brain syndrome. So, I'm going to be jumping from Jrod post to Jrod post, as I float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. jrodefeld posted:This is a really important thing to focus on for a second. I am asking this question in all sincerity. How many of you have ever run a business where you have had to pay employees a wage? Well, Jrod, you're in luck! I have ran a business where I had to pay employees a wage! quote:Personally, my mom runs a small business. My grandfather ran a business. I have friends who own small businesses and pay wages to workers. Even myself, I am partially self employed and, although I don't have any full time workers, I contract with people on the free market for part time help. And you don't have any experience running a business. I mean, hiring someone is not the same as running a business and paying wages. For examples, when I moved, I hired movers. That doesn't count as an experience since these people were employed elsewhere, and simply, I was just the ones offering them the job that they would be taking. quote:Every time I hear Progressives pontificating about how this law or that doesn't really hurt the profitability of business or cost any jobs, I can only assume that people like this have NEVER had any experience in running a business. Jrod, you know I'm here. You know I've spoken on how to run a business. You keep ignoring me and that offends me deeply, but dude. I'll say this clearly. You have no experience with running a business, nor do you have any understanding about the things you discuss. And frankly, you look like a total loving buffoon because I have answered for many of the claims you've made today in the past and yet you continue to make them. You are so ignorant and lacking in knowledge that you don't even know enough to know when someone has successfully argued against something you've said. quote:Do you understand what it is like to be taking a loss for several months while you still have to pay each and every worker the full wage you agreed to? That is part of the deal, I understand, but there are always a ton of jobs which need doing where the numbers simply don't add up to pay anyone for doing the job at the minimum wage. Pray tell, good sir. What jobs are speaking of? quote:You are not appreciating the cost of the State violence you are unleashing upon both business owners AND wage laborers. Shut the gently caress up about state violence you stupid rear end in a top hat. quote:It is probably not worth hiring a 15 year old kid to do almost ANY job for $12 an hour. This is not an argument. This is an unsupported assertion that means nothing. It's a loving platitude. It's empty. It's meaningless. It also exposes how little you actually understand about running a business and labor laws. In general, it is not worth hiring a 15-year-old kid to do ANY job for almost ANY wages for many reasons. First off, there are many restrictions placed on the working conditions for employees under the age of 18, and at least in every state I have experience with, there are even more stringent restrictions on people under the age of 16 or 17. Basically, there are limits to the total number of hours a day a 15 year old can work, total number of hours a week (the value depends on whether or not school is in session). There's a limitation on what they can do and when they can do it. I have to make sure they get a break within a certain amount of time and I have to keep track. It is loving hard employing 15-year-olds. The minimum wage laws have no impact on that at all. Even if I could pay them 2 bucks an hour, it still would be too much of a bother for me. And that's not talking about things like transportation and maturity. Your example is a horrible example to anyone who has ever employed a minor. quote:There are numerous jobs that have been automated in past decades that would otherwise be offered to low skilled workers. And why wouldn't these jobs be automated anyway? The things that can be automated are things that don't need the judgment of a human being. For example, in pharmacies, many of them have robots that do the filling of the prescriptions. Why? 1. There's less of a chance for a mistake to be made. A person can always pull the wrong bottle off the shelf and put the wrong pills into the bottle. Or I could put the right pills into the wrong bottle. While the robot can glitch out, it's less likely than a human to make mistakes. 2. It's much faster than a human. Counting tablets by hand is always going to be slower than a computer doing the counting. 3. It frees the pharmacy techs up to do things that only a human can do. Like, enter prescriptions, or deal with customers, or manage insurance issues. Here's the funny thing Jrod - pharmacy techs, the people who do things like fill the prescriptions, are all paid pretty good wages. A pharmacy tech got paid like 15 dollars an hour at a minimum. They wouldn't be impacted by the minimum wage laws. quote:An article that bolsters my argument: You should listen to yourself Jrod. You need to have a sound foundation. You clearly don't. When you talk about wages this way, it's very difficult to argue with you because this just doesn't reflect reality. So, let's start at the top. Why do I choose to hire employees? Ultimately, it's because I need to. I cannot run the business by myself. Either there is too much work for me to do by myself, or I need someone else's expertise that I don't have. But first, I choose to hire based upon need. Now, when we talk about what we pay a person, it really depends. There are some jobs, like janitorial jobs, where you can't really show that if I pay this person 10 dollars an hour, I will get 12 dollars in productivity for it. The other problem for you too is that at the hourly phase, most employees are far outproducing their wages. At Walgreens, wages were supposed to be about 1/10 of our costs. The other 90 percent went to everything else. jrodefeld posted:The unemployment effects of the law are only ONE way in which they are unjustified. The ethical argument against them is quite strong as well. What right do you have to initiate force against me or an employer if we both voluntarily agree to a wage contract that is below some arbitrary level? As a worker I am trying to improve my life through assessing my options and choosing that which will be most beneficial to me using my own value judgments. If I choose to take a job at a low wage, it means I've decided that such a job will provide me the best value out of the options I have available to me. Because we want to prevent exploitation. I need money to live. I need to be able to buy food, clothes, and housing. That's a basic fact. If someone is the only game in town, they can set up the rules. They can put me in a position where I'm practically a slave, working for wages that won't cover my needs. quote:Furthermore, I don't accept that minimum wage laws have increased wages for the average worker. People who currently earn minimum wage have a level of productivity that is above the minimum wage and those who don't are not employed. Who are these people? You're just making proclamations and not backing them up. quote:I think if you look at the cost of living today (food, housing, essentials like that) and compare how low wage workers are making ends meet today versus fifty years ago you will find that workers are NOT really better off. The truth is that inflation has outstripped the increase in the minimum wage by several times over the past few decades. The answer obviously would be to stop the inflation, which starts with stopping the expansion of the money supply at the federal reserve. That is a logical leap that could win the gold medal at the Olympics in the long jump. Maybe the problem is that wages haven't been increasing, and instead remain stagnant. But yet, CEOs make millions, get golden parachutes, they blow millions of dollars on bad deals. Yeah, the problem is inflation and not the fact that people are being exploited and not being given a fair share of the wealth they help to generate. quote:The notion of the minimum wage being a great success at lifting up the average worker is a complete myth. I think its interesting how you acknowledge the need for exceptions in the minimum wage for certain groups of people. Why are there frequently exceptions for the very young, and sometimes for the mentally handicapped? If minimum wage laws are a floor that pushes up wages for all workers, then you shouldn't need exceptions. I've asked this before, but do you think about your arguments before and after you write them? We're arguing whether or not the minimum wage laws should exist. Saying "But there are exceptions to the minimum wage laws today" isn't an argument against us. None of us have brought up these exceptions before or said that they were good. The fact that there are exceptions to the current minimum wage statutes is irrelevant to the question of whether or not minimum wage laws should exist. Also, we can talk about these exceptions because we live in the real world and understand that there are issues that come into play. Many of these exceptions are very limited and targeted in nature, and also, there are many exceptions that people can disagree with. For example, there are exceptions for workers with disabilities who would not be able to meet the employment due to their disabilities. In many cases, we're talking about the profoundly disabled. People who would not normally be able to work, who would need to be given such specialized job duties that they can perform. The purpose of this law is to help encourage businesses to hire these employees so that they can gain skills, so that they can have productive experiences. At Walgreens, I worked with a few people with profound disabilities. It was incredibly rewarding. They did good work, and they really loved to do good work. Honestly, in terms of attitudes, they were my best employees. But they were very limited in what they could do, it took a lot more of my time to oversee these employees since they needed more guidance. We paid them the same wage as everyone else (we wouldn't be eligible anyway for the exception since Walgreens does way more than $500,000 in business). But if I was a guy who owned his own store, some of those realities might dissuade me from hiring them. The key fact here though is that this is an exception for employees who cannot perform the job that they are being hired for due to disabilities. See, per the labor law, I am not required to make a new job for someone who cannot perform their job. So, if you get injured and can't lift 10 pounds, I don't need to keep you employed. These aren't just people who are less productive, they are less productive by a wide margin. Other exceptions include vocational students, in which case you can argue that part of their pay is the education that they are getting, and once again, they would require more oversight than a regular employee. These students are not taking the job on as a career, but rather, as an opportunity to learn the skill. There are some I'm less comfortable with. Such as the exception for tipped workers, or full time students. But as I said, whether or not these exceptions exist today has no bearing on minimum wage. quote:What these exceptions prove is that certain groups have a lower productivity than others and therefore they won't be hired at the mandated minimum wage. Jrod, you should be careful trying to make logical conclusions. You're not very good at them. As I said, in the case of disabled employees, these are employees who could not perform the normal job duties. Vocational students may not be less productive, but since they are there for education, they will require more input from the employers. quote:But if they acknowledge that it is productivity that allows workers to earn higher wages, why not focus on getting people employed AT ANY WAGE, and then allowing them to gain skills which will make them more productive leading to more employment opportunities and progressively higher wages? BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST PRODUCTIVITY THAT ALLOWS YOU TO EARN A HIGHER WAGE, YOU loving IDIOT. Many of these minimum wage jobs are unskilled. The cashier at Walgreens is not developing new skills that they can apply to other industries. They are just basically demonstrating that they can work and run a cash register. No matter how productive that cashier is, they are always going to be easily replaceable because they have no skill that is in demand. The only way to really make good money is to be a skilled employee. That means that you have to have some skill that puts your services in more demand. Like programmers. Not everyone can program, so there is more demand for programmers. It raises their wages and the value of their work because only a limited number of people can do it. jrodefeld posted:How do we know what anything is worth in terms of money? How much is an iPhone worth? Well, it seems to be worth about $500 or $600 or about $200 with a contract. How do we know? Because that is what consumers are willing to pay. It is determined by the market, by competition. There is a bare minimum to the price though - and that's the basic cost of making an iPhone. If the price goes below that cost, then simply, that means that places are trying to get rid of their stock so they can use it more effectively. However, when it comes to labor, it's a little bit more difficult. Trying to compare an iPhone to an employee is just foolish. quote:A black teen with no labor experience, who might come from a broken home and with a potentially poor education is most likely NOT going to have productivity exceeding $10 an hour. It might only be $5 an hour. Only the voluntary negotiation of worker and employer on the market can reveal the value of their labor in terms of money. You're saying that black people are so unskilled that they can't even perform in an unskilled job. That sounds a little racist. I'll give you a chance to take that back. See, that's the problem with your whole little trying to figure out what people are worth. Many jobs on the low end of the spectrum are unskilled, which simply means I need anyone to fill them and they will make me money. jrodefeld posted:Furthermore, you REALLY don't need to rely on empirical studies to understand the effects of minimum wage laws. You just need to understand demand curves, the laws of supply and demand and basic economics. The demand in many cases is absolute. I can't automate a cashier because I need to have somebody manning the station. Customers prefer dealing with human beings. There's a ton of reasons why they can't be replaced. If I want to run a store, I need a cashier. It's an absolute demand. What is the number of cashiers I will hire? That's based on the demands of my customers. quote:Honestly, it is loving staggering to me that you all contend that a person whose marginal productivity is only $6 an hour will be hired by a company when the minimum wage is set at $10 and hour even thought the company will lose $4 every hour he works. Don't companies want to turn a profit? And yet, you don't understand how much money people actually make for their companies. Most employees aren't making 10 dollars an hour. In fact, I'm sure most companies can't directly say how much money an employee makes for them. quote:Even if some delusional company wants to take a loss on hiring workers who produce less than they cost, you think such a person would be able to find employment as easily with a $10 minimum wage or no minimum wage? Most of these jobs are unskilled. Are you a friendly person who will show up to work on time and not piss me off? Congratulations, you got the job! quote:What about the ethics though? If a worker and an employer both sign and agree to a voluntary wage contract of $6 an hour, they are both made to be criminals who are subject to prosecution and even jail time. The worker won't go to jail because he is being "exploited" but an employer could certainly be thrown in a cage merely for offering a job opportunity for less than the mandated minimum wage. Only the employer would be punished. If I'm getting exploited, I'm not going to be arrested for being exploited. Also, the employer would be fined. He wouldn't be thrown in a cage merely for that. quote:Now if a worker voluntarily agrees to a job offering at $6 an hour, what does that necessarily say about him? What it says is that he evaluated his economic options and chose the best option available to him at that time. If I offer a job to someone for a very low wage, and they are clearly worth more than that, then I have done them no harm. They have no options and will take any job they can get. And if they can't afford to live, too loving bad? I guess the societal effects of having people paid too little don't matter to Jrod. Hey, who cares that we live in an area with high poverty, high crimes, low gainful employment. At least I don't have to pay people a minimum wage. quote:They would never seriously consider my offer. But I am offering them an economic option that they wouldn't otherwise have. This matters little to someone with a college degree and a high level of productivity and specialized skills but it matters a great deal to unskilled laborers, minorities, the very poor, ex-gang members, people will a criminal background, the mentally or physically handicapped and any number of less productive or discriminated against members of the workforce. Take a cashier. If you can't complete a normal transaction within 2 minutes, it doesn't matter what I pay you, you are worthless to me. Customers want to be in and out. I'm not going to pay a bad cashier less money. I'm not going to pay them at all. I won't let them work for me either. quote:What you are saying by supporting these laws is that we are going to artificially limit the economic opportunities available to the most vulnerable members of our society. I person who, without a minimum wage, might have a dozen job opportunities offered to him or her, now might have only a couple or none at all. Well, Jrod. I just did. I answered your claims. This is how I spent my Sunday morning. I will be happy to clarify anywhere where you are not sure about what I'm saying. Fortunately for you, I have experience in the matters you are discussing. Sadly, you are too ignorant to know that you are talking to someone who knows more than you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
You don't even need to do the calculus. Just look at places where the minimum wage is over 10 dollars an hour. Black teens, amazingly, still can get jobs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Yeah, that's what I want to know. What are these jobs that are only worth $7.25/hr and not a penny more to employers? It can't be burger-flippers, McDonald's still finds it profitable to hire people to make burgers in Rhode Island. It can't be janitors, I don't see Target's floors going unswept in Delaware. It can't be stockers, I've not heard of empty shelves in New York. It can't be cashiers, Walgreen's in Oregon continues to ring up customers as far as I know. It can't be delivery boys, because I've ordered pizza in DC. What are these jobs that are just a few pennies above profitability? What are they? Where's the business that's going to decide it's cheaper to run without cashiers and make zero profit rather than paying $12/hr? How do you even quantify the value of a job like "cashier"? Without a cashier a store makes zero. No matter what minimum wage you set for cashiers, a store will pay it until it gets so high that the owner starts manning the register herself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld, you're the worst missionary ever. If we were primitive tribesmen from New Guinea we'd be comically lowering you into a giant cooking pot right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How do you even quantify the value of a job like "cashier"? Without a cashier a store makes zero. No matter what minimum wage you set for cashiers, a store will pay it until it gets so high that the owner starts manning the register herself. This is what happens when somebody with a little bit of knowledge thinks that they can talk authoritatively on a subject related to it. Jrod spent a lot of time talking about minimum wage today. And nearly everything he said was wrong because he doesn't understand the basic realities of the jobs he is discussing. Most of minimum wage jobs just simply need to be filled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:The demand in many cases is absolute. I can't automate a cashier because I need to have somebody manning the station.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Not to derail the discussion, but you totally can automate a cashier. Stores with automatic cashiers is completely normal in my country. Entirely true, but for the most part American consumers aren't ready to make that leap in part because it would kick start the inevitable labor riots. Cemetry Gator posted:This is what happens when somebody with a little bit of knowledge thinks that they can talk authoritatively on a subject related to it. Jrod spent a lot of time talking about minimum wage today. And nearly everything he said was wrong because he doesn't understand the basic realities of the jobs he is discussing. Most entry level jobs I'm aware of won't even discuss wage outside of the minimum posted unless the employee presses the issue in interview and most managers I've seen will use that as a way to not hire people who have even an inkling of the need to negotiate pay. There's another person waiting to be interviewed who won't ask. Of course this is probably not as true with businesses not run by national corps but I've seen it happen in the US UK and AU all independently of each other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Entirely true, but for the most part American consumers aren't ready to make that leap in part because it would kick start the inevitable labor riots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Not to derail the discussion, but you totally can automate a cashier. Stores with automatic cashiers is completely normal in my country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Not sure this is true, self checkouts are pretty common now in the United States. The thing that really stops them from being uniformly implemented is that it massively increases the risk of theft. In my experience self-checkouts kind of need a human at least supervising them because there are some customers (such as myself  ) who keep loving up when they try to use them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Yeah, the only thing automated checkout have done is move cashiers from overseeing one lane and one register to overseeing multiple lanes and registers. I've worked two retail places just as they were implementing automated checkout terminals and both times exactly 0 people were fired, merely retrained to oversee the automated checkouts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:jrodefeld, you're the worst missionary ever. If we were primitive tribesmen from New Guinea we'd be comically lowering you into a giant cooking pot right now. This can't even be taking place right now, noble tribesmen. How can you show aggression towards me when you are not encumbered by a state? If you want any of my succulent leg meat you're going to have to contract with me for it 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Not sure this is true, self checkouts are pretty common now in the United States. The thing that really stops them from being uniformly implemented is that it massively increases the risk of theft. Shrink as it is called in retail isn't going to increase greatly because of the cashier being automated or not. Most of the people who steal walk into the store with the very earnest intent to steal something. Combine this with the fact that there's the technological means to have people just grab stuff off the shelf and have it paid for by RFID and it is suffice to say its not the technology that's then issue which is what Alhazred's point was. The issue is there is an incalculable value, culturally in America for there to be a human being processing the transactions, a kiosk isn't going to call for additional assistance if the line has suddenly exploded in size because an entire football team has unloaded and wants to individually buy beef jerky. Libertarians argue always against the value of human social interaction entirely and picking on cashiers is just a microcosm of their generally corrupt world view. To me the elimination of cashier jobs as a whole in America are not going to cause a socialist revolution because of some inherent measure of productivity issue but because America has been telling lies to itself about how minimum wage jobs are just stepping stones to more skilled work, if the elimination of those jobs comes, and it may or may not depending on how labor rights plays out versus corporate interests, Luddites and the cultural value of "a full days work". It would be the fact that the unemployment rate is potentially inherently higher is what could cause labor riots. Some people will never aspire to higher skilled work, either they don't believe they can, never pick up the skills or are unable to due to only just getting by with their terribly compensating minimum wage job. We harm our society when those who are paid a minimum wage aren't being paid a living wage. Rather than the common conservative pro corporate tact we take we should be asking the question how come we see little value in people that them spending 40 hours a week to keep you business running isn't worth food shelter and health security. E: I also agree about all the cases you need a human but I think in keeping with the theme of the thread its worth considering some of the more incideous implications of attacking the min wage worker instead of literally any other part of a company. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Mar 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:This is manifestly untrue. Let's look at an example. Walmart earned $473.1bn in revenue in 2014. They also employed 2.2 million people. That's an average of $215,000 per person in revenue, and as all revenue apparently has to be produced by a person worthy of earning it, we can assume that number is also their average worth. How should these employees be compensated for their work? Should they be paid, on average, $15,576 a year for 34-hour work weeks, which is what Walmart actually pays them? Or should they be paid more, or less? Please demonstrate your moral calculus. I know that this wasn't directed at me, but I at least have an answer that can be compared and contrasted to JRod's inevitable fellating of the "Free Market": Clearly, given the profit-margin, the workers are being paid far, far less than their labour is worth. The solution would either be to raise their wages significantly, and/or provide a hefty bonus at the end of the year to each and every worker. Something on the order of $100.000 per worker per year ( Or more ) would still leave the company with a hefty profit for growth and investment, and Walmart would have the most dedicated loving workforce in the world. And while we're at it, I'd like a unicorn and a spaceship, please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:This is manifestly untrue. Let's look at an example. Walmart earned $473.1bn in revenue in 2014. They also employed 2.2 million people. That's an average of $215,000 per person in revenue, and as all revenue apparently has to be produced by a person worthy of earning it, we can assume that number is also their average worth. How should these employees be compensated for their work? Should they be paid, on average, $15,576 a year for 34-hour work weeks, which is what Walmart actually pays them? Or should they be paid more, or less? Please demonstrate your moral calculus. It's even better than that: why is the company earning any profit? Any money that their employees are earning must be going directly back to them, perfectly balanced, otherwise the employees would just go to another job. Another interesting point: what if an employee is worth different amounts at different places? A store where a cashier has to do upselling will value cashiers vastly more than stores where they don't. Claiming that other stores will just pay them more if they're worth more is oversimplifying. Jobs aren't exactly equal. Cemetry Gator posted:Only the employer would be punished. If I'm getting exploited, I'm not going to be arrested for being exploited. Also, the employer would be fined. He wouldn't be thrown in a cage merely for that. And if he refuses to pay the fine then a reminder letter will come, and if he doesn't answer that he'll get a summons to court and if he doesn't go then the police will show up and if he doesn't come along with them he'll get arrested and if he doesn't let himself get arrested they'll use some force and if he pulls out a gun AS IS HIS RIGHT and starts shooting at them then they'll shoot at him PUT AWAY THE GUN, STATIST.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:[*]Does your clientele prefer cash or cheque transactions? You probably want a human. quote:[*]Price check? Need a human. This machine lets customer check the price themselves:   Where is your god now, GulMadred
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:This can easily be solved by entering the 21st century and stop using cheques. To be fair I think he means when the system fails to recognize it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:This can easily be solved by entering the 21st century and stop using cheques. I would be OK if it was a few peoples jobs to just talk to people on their way out for collecting customer feedback and lift assistance and upwelling, depending on the nature of the business
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
why are you guys bothering? it's the same pattern every time; Jrod asserts vague free market platitudes about how things would be better if we did things the libertarian way Lots of posters respond with substantive data from the leading economic consensus, Jrod dismisses it as from biased 'socialist' sources. Jrod presents his own cherry-picked study dating from the 70s, it is refuted again by actuall economists Jrod says empiricism leads us astray and the moral and ethical reasons against introducing "VIOLENCE!!!" into situations is terrible. we tell him that his moral code is hosed up, once again showing many examples of why human society would not function under those strictures. Jrod either seizes on the insults as a way of ignoring the posts refuting him, or seizes on side topics to change the course of the discussion, abandoning the old track and never addressing the counterpoints (like the idea that min wage hasn't kept up with inflation; that means we hate the fed right guys!!?!) everything he posts is rhetorical obfuscation, he's constantly trying to 'win' arguments by deliberately misinterpreting the responses he gets or shifting the parameters of the debate. This is why libertarians are pretty much shunted out of most academic and political exchanges, inherent to the movement is this disingenuous argument style that tries to succeed on technicalities instead of substance. He can only get away here because the format let's him retreat whenever he finds himself unable to retort, whereupon he can wait two weeks and come back, resetting the discussion, reasserting things that have already been shot down, or finding articles to quote in their entirety yet neglect to provide any link to. Like Ron Paul and every libertarian thinker, he's a snake-oil philosopher.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
I love how Jrod just assumes that freeing people from a decent minimum wage will just meant that they'll be able to get a second part-time job in addition to their amazingly well-paif first job, instead of a race to the bottom that would see hordes of people having to work several crappy 2-bucks-an-hour jobs and still not meet their basic living expenses, and of course they would totally not be hosed over by multiple commutes, insane working hours, being estranged from their families, etc. We actually saw that here in Brazil, in the late 70s and most of the 80s. When the minimum wages was purposefully allowed to lag and reach pitiable lows, the quality of live in ours shantytowns (favelas)was thoroughly destroyed: you had people waking up at 3AM to take 2-hour-long bus rides to their first crappy job that started at 5, then left 15 to reach yet another miserable job, and got home perhaps by 10, worn to the bone and having pretty much entirely abandoned their children, who went into crime in record numbers because if that was what honest work was like, they were better off delivering cocaine or stealing watches. Our middle class here is infinitely nostalgic for that time, because basically anyone barely into the middle class could afford to hire help, often just for food. The wife of an auto chop manager could have two maids for just the cost of bus fare and some leftovers, because it at least meant that their mother wouldn't have to deal with the expense of feeding them. Indentured servitude without all that ugly social stigma. And we all know that unemployment in feudal Provence was 0%! Ironically, we saw a recent law that put housekeeping work squarely into minimum wage boundaries recently (it was nebulously defined before to keep it 'flexible') and the number of housemaids barely quivered. People who really needed them had to pay for the proper, adjusted minimum wage, and people that didn't often had already stopped hiring them due to automation. But you'll still catch some bigshots sighing for when you could have a live-in servant to clean up your messes and for your teenage son to grope without consequences, for less money than they spent on the family pet's rations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I would be OK if it was a few peoples jobs to just talk to people on their way out for collecting customer feedback and lift assistance and upwelling, depending on the nature of the business  God is dead
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Alhazred posted:This can easily be solved by entering the 21st century and stop using cheques. quote:This machine lets customer check the price themselves
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 17:53
|
|