|
Imagine four garbage bags of wine on the edge of a cliff.
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:24 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:All you have to do is ask him what the America-crumbling effects will be and suddenly it will affect almost half the workforce. Geriatric Pirate posted:40% of workers make under $15/h. Ahaha nailed it. So, why do you analyze who benefits from an increase to the minimum wage by taking only those making exactly $7.25 and not $7.26 or more, but when we look at the drawbacks now we include everyone making up to the new minimum wage. This method of analysis seems to me like a poor one that is going to give very misleading results, do you think it's an accurate way to compare costs and benefits?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ahaha nailed it. Some people are disingenuous shitheads who argue ridiculous positions in bad faith, hth.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:No one has posted a $10 minimum wage study, they've posted studies of actual minimum wage increases, so normally around 20%. The increase from 5.25 to 7.25 was a roughly 40% increase, not 20%. An additional 40% increase on top of that would be a minimum wage of about $10. What the poster is saying is that a 40% increase in minimum wage (to $10) is well-supported by the literature.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
This thread is like a butt hole making an endless amount of poop. Just when you think it is done, more poop comes out. Also, I think the "minimum wage" should be a GMI for black people and a maximum wage for white people.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:This thread is like a butt hole making an endless amount of poop. Just when you think it is done, more poop comes out. For a moment while reading your post I thought that I was reading the bitcoin thread
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
Is there any peer reviewed literature exploring the effect of a $15 min wage on higher wages?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 16:50
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Is there any peer reviewed literature exploring the effect of a $15 min wage on higher wages? this thread
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ahaha nailed it. You have a lot of posts in this thread, don't you think you should go outside or something? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Shayu posted:You have a lot of posts in this thread, don't you think you should go outside or something? I don't have a problem with this guy wanting to discuss things in debate and discussion. Comedy option: going outside risks exposure to the more violent and untrustworthy elements in our society. The police.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Shayu posted:You have a lot of posts in this thread, don't you think you should go outside or something? Thank you for elevating the discourse in this thread. I have no idea what we would do without the posting police.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
All right, which one of you is Shayu
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
quote:Minimum wage doesn't solve every problem, and may not even be the best solution to any problem, so why are we discussing it in the minimum wage thread? No matter how many times it's explained. Is there ANYONE here who supports higher minimum wage OVER or INSTEAD OF basic income/gmi ? In the absence of gmi/bi is there anyone who supports a $15 minimum wage that doesn't ALSO support better welfare/snap for those who don't work? I'm going to preemptively say "didn't think so". There might, maybe, be an argument that focusing on min wage now harms a future effort for gmi/bi, and if that's your argument feel free to make it. The rest is bullshit, though. Living wage is championed in this thread not as the best policy, but as an improvement over what we have today that just might have enough political traction to be possible.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:maximum wage and should 5% appear too small, they can be thankful we're not taking it all eta: i make minimum wage and i keep waiting for the title to come true byob historian fucked around with this message at 17:54 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
tsa posted:Mcdonalds will have completely automated systems rolling out This is a pretty big thing in and of itself (which is probably why it has its own thread)..but the two topics are inextricably linked. Very soon we will need to really start valuing human beings as something more than workers.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
i am harry posted:This is a pretty big thing in and of itself (which is probably why it has its own thread)..but the two topics are inextricably linked. Very soon we will need to really start valuing human beings as something more than workers. That and people who are saying it have absolutely no idea what percentage of the work at McDonalds/etc is done by people who can be replaced by a kiosk, or of what small a percentage of their costs are labor. The people soon to be replaced by automation and the people at minimum wage have some overlap but it's less than you'd think.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/do..._Employment.pdf This study reaches the opposite conclusion. Low-wage, low-education requirement jobs are at the highest risk of being automated, particularly jobs that require manual dexterity but not high social intelligence -- fast-food prep. Jobs that would be affected by a rise in the minimum wage are the most likely to be automated.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/do..._Employment.pdf You keep ignoring my question: if you are opposed to a minimum wage increase because it will increase the rate at which jobs are automated, then are you in favor of a minimum wage decrease so as to save jobs that are on the verge of being automated? Surely dropping back to $5.15 will save some number of jobs that are about to be stolen by robots, so do you think we should do that?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
I guess I can imagine a dystopian future where automation has replaced a significant portion of jobs at a 7.25 minimum wage. In that situation, lowering the minimum wage to 5.50 might marginally help the massive number of unemployed people. There's clearly no reason to do it now. The minimum wage works because it's expensive for companies to substitute capital for labor. If technological change makes it less expensive for companies to substitute capital for labor (automation), then the minimum wage might stop working. There's a political feasibility component here too. Raising the minimum wage is popular. Lowering the minimum wage is not. If we're trying to set the minimum wage at a level that maximizes benefits to the poor, it might be impossible to fix the problem if we aim too high and need to correct downward. This is particularly concerning if technological change-- automation-- is constantly driving down the minimum wage price which maximizes benefits to the poor. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 19:21 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay, are you in favor of a Universal Basic Income?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I guess I can imagine a dystopian future where automation has replaced a significant portion of jobs at a 7.25 minimum wage. In that situation, lowering the minimum wage to 5.50 might marginally help the massive number of unemployed people. There's clearly no reason to do it now. Why not? There are countless minimum wage jobs that could be automated, but they aren't being automated because the capital expense is too great. But the cost of automation decreases every year. If your primary concern is saving jobs from automation, then doesn't it follow that we should decrease the minimum wage in order to stay ahead of falling automation costs? e: For this segment that you added: JeffersonClay posted:There's a political feasibility component here too. Raising the minimum wage is popular. Lowering the minimum wage is not. If we're trying to set the minimum wage at a level that maximizes benefits to the poor, it might be impossible to fix the problem if we aim too high and need to correct downward. This is particularly concerning if technological change-- automation-- is constantly driving down the minimum wage price which maximizes benefits to the poor. What would you do to mitigate this situation, then? Clearly driving wages downward is a losing game. Driving wages upward doesn't save jobs from the machines. Perhaps a basic income for everyone is what's necessary, which would allow humans to go out and innovate or start new non-automated businesses or *whatever* while having their basic necessities paid for by progressive taxation. Or we could take hammers to all of the machines, I guess. What do you think? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 19:26 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:JeffersonClay, are you in favor of a Universal Basic Income? Yes. QuarkJets posted:Why not? There are countless minimum wage jobs that could be automated, but they aren't being automated because the capital expense is too great. But the cost of automation decreases every year. If your primary concern is saving jobs from automation, then doesn't it follow that we should decrease the minimum wage in order to stay ahead of falling automation costs? It wouldn't make sense to do that until automation is actually causing significant unemployment at that wage. QuarkJets posted:What would you do to mitigate this situation, then? Clearly driving wages downward is a losing game. Driving wages upward doesn't save jobs from the machines. Perhaps a basic income for everyone is what's necessary, which would allow humans to go out and innovate or start new non-automated businesses or *whatever* while having their basic necessities paid for by progressive taxation. Or we could take hammers to all of the machines, I guess. What do you think? I think replacing human labor with machines is a good thing. I don't think there's any noble virtue in hard work. A world where machines do all the work and humans explore the frontiers of hedonism sounds a lot like utopia to me, but only if the production of those machines is distributed to everyone. So a guaranteed income. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 19:36 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It wouldn't make sense to do that until automation is actually causing significant unemployment at that wage. Isn't it already too late at that point? The cost of automation is mostly up front. If McDonalds has purchased and installed a bunch of burger-making machines that have displaced thousands of workers, it's not like they're going to throw those away and re-hire all of the previous workers just because the minimum wage was decreased.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The minimum wage works because it's expensive for companies to substitute capital for labor. If technological change makes it less expensive for companies to substitute capital for labor (automation), then the minimum wage might stop working. What do you think the purpose of a minimum wage is? Seriously, I'm finding your comments to be a bit confusing and I think it's because you have a different idea of what it's for. JeffersonClay posted:it might be impossible to fix the problem if we aim too high and need to correct downward. Inflation can and does handle disparities like these in short order, if we go "too high" (though honestly I'm not sure what the negative impact you imagine would be) inflation will take care of the problem pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Do you vote socialist/communist? Edit: Let me rephrase... Which politicians or political parties do you support that have UBI as a platform item? archangelwar fucked around with this message at 19:41 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It wouldn't make sense to do that until automation is actually causing significant unemployment at that wage. How many millions of jobs do you think have been outsourced already? At what number do you think we should reduce our own wages to compete with that, is outsourcing a different concern than automation? What do you think keeps jobs in the US or non-automated? Certainly the cost of the labor is a factor, but is that the only reason?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
mrbradlymrmartin posted:i get what youre saying here but george was my favorite beatle so i think having the highest tax bracket be 95% would be enough I've never been a fan of the Beatles as too many of my weekend sleep-ins were ruined by them during high school. I can appreciate their influence on music and their personal talent, but hearing a Beatles song makes me angry most of the time.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Isn't it already too late at that point? The cost of automation is mostly up front. If McDonalds has purchased and installed a bunch of burger-making machines that have displaced thousands of workers, it's not like they're going to throw those away and re-hire all of the previous workers just because the minimum wage was decreased. If we had perfect information, we'd lower the minimum wage right before McDonalds made that decision, because we want to maximize the time that the higher minimum wage provides an overall benefit. But we don't-- the only way to know when automation is leading to job losses is when we see it start to happen. When it does start to happen, lowering the minimum wage would staunch the bleeding. ElCondemn posted:Inflation can and does handle disparities like these in short order, if we go "too high" (though honestly I'm not sure what the negative impact you imagine would be) inflation will take care of the problem pretty quickly. I was assuming an inflation-indexed minimum wage. quote:Do you vote socialist/communist? No, but if there were a socialist candidate with a chance in an election I would. quote:How many millions of jobs do you think have been outsourced already? At what number do you think we should reduce our own wages to compete with that, is outsourcing a different concern than automation? What do you think keeps jobs in the US or non-automated? Certainly the cost of the labor is a factor, but is that the only reason? Well, outsourcing isn't really feasible for a lot of jobs-- we're not going to import Big Macs from india. Automation, on the other hand, can affect the industries which cannot be outsourced. And unions which represent workers in industries at risk of outsourcing have repeatedly offered to lower their wage demands in order to keep jobs. The two factors in the decision a company makes to outsource or automate are the cost of labor and the cost of automation/outsourcing. A rise in the cost of labor would increase automation/outsourcing. A fall in the cost of automation/outsourcing will increase automation/outsourcing.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, but if there were a socialist candidate with a chance in an election I would. So you don't actually support a UBI nor do you support a compromise solution.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:So you don't actually support a UBI nor do you support a compromise solution. How would protest votes for socialists with no chance of winning make any difference whatsoever in achieving a UBI?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:How would protest votes for socialists with no chance of winning make any difference whatsoever in achieving a UBI? Well, what have you done to support a UBI, then?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:How would protest votes for socialists with no chance of winning make any difference whatsoever in achieving a UBI? Understanding this is why the rest of us are willing to consider compromise solutions rather than wring our hands in concern while the status quo continues to create unacceptable results.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I was assuming an inflation-indexed minimum wage. That's assuming the current rate is the "ideal" rate to aim for? JeffersonClay posted:Well, outsourcing isn't really feasible for a lot of jobs-- we're not going to import Big Macs from india. Automation, on the other hand, can affect the industries which cannot be outsourced. And unions which represent workers in industries at risk of outsourcing have repeatedly offered to lower their wage demands in order to keep jobs. Quality of service is a major factor here you're not taking into account. If McDonald's replaced their cashiers with robots that did a poor job of replacing humans do you think they'd keep using them just because they're cheaper? Quality of service is also a huge factor in mid to high skilled jobs, we outsource things that have been trivialized to such a degree that a drop in quality of service is unnoticeable or is offset by the savings/growth. If it were truly a cost/price decision nobody would make more than minimum wage, we pay higher wages to attract higher quality workers, we also don't outsource and don't automate jobs that require a certain level of quality that only human employees can provide right now. GlyphGryph posted:Well, what have you done to support a UBI, then? He just spent his whole time in this thread arguing to keep the status quo, duh! if that's not support I don't know what is!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Workers lack political representation and therefore political power, which is the real root cause of worsening working conditions and increasing inequality (proximate causes like automation or globalization are just tools used to give one group advantage over another). A higher minimum wage is worth supporting because it's one of the demands of workers who have been organizing themselves outside the broken framework of the electoral system, which is historically the only solution to these kinds of conditions. Gaining a higher minimum wage would not only help people who struggle to make ends meet in their McJobs, it would also give greater self confidence and momentum to workers who have been poo poo on for generations. People always want to talk about policies like the minimum wage from a technocratic standpoint but honestly that's kind of naive. If there were some actual evidence that the minimum wage would increase unemployment substantially then it might make sense to be cautious about this particular demand but most evidence suggests the impact on employment would be marginal at best.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
So it looks like LA is going to raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour, I guess the impossible is now immediately possible. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/us/los-angeles-expected-to-raise-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:So it looks like LA is going to raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour, I guess the impossible is now immediately possible. Countdown until California slides into the sea
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If we had perfect information, we'd lower the minimum wage right before McDonalds made that decision, because we want to maximize the time that the higher minimum wage provides an overall benefit. But we don't-- the only way to know when automation is leading to job losses is when we see it start to happen. When it does start to happen, lowering the minimum wage would staunch the bleeding. Good news, we have the information that you require: jobs are lost every year due to the cost of automation decreasing every year. The losses are happening right now. Do you support decreasing the minimum wage to stop these losses?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:So it looks like LA is going to raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour, I guess the impossible is now immediately possible. The NDP (the vaguely Social Democratic party that unexpectedly won an election in Alberta earlier this month) included bumping the minimum wage up to $15 an hour by 2018. They might conceivably reneg on the promise since the election platform was developing at a time when they thought they had no chance of winning and the NDP in other provinces has broken promises before but it will be interesting to see how that particular election pledge plays out.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:So it looks like LA is going to raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour, I guess the impossible is now immediately possible. Oh look, it will be 15$/hr in 2020, when it will actually be worth around 12.50 after inflation. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:24 |
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Oh look, it will be 15$/hr in 2020, when it will actually be worth around 12.50 after inflation. I thought most people were fine with phased in wage hikes? All things considered, it is acceptable. Also, inflation is probably not going to be that high (cumulative inflation over 5 years would probably be closer to 8-10%). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:37 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:33
|
|