|
We should just start tallying the wage differences between LA/Seattle and the rest of the country so in 10 years when humans still haven't been replaced by robo-cashiers there we can have a running account of how much has been stolen from workers for their own good.
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:We should just start tallying the wage differences between LA/Seattle and the rest of the country so in 10 years when humans still haven't been replaced by robo-cashiers there we can have a running account of how much has been stolen from workers for their own good. I don't think you understand, edit: LA and Seattle can do it because... poor people don't exist in those cities?!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
"But what if the robot apocalypse had come last year and put those entitled Seattlans out of a job? Then you'd be glad that you haven't been able to afford your kid's insulin, wouldn't you?"
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:50 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
archangelwar posted: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. Who here is arguing for the status quo? I'm arguing for a minimum wage that maximizes benefits to the poor. QuarkJets posted: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? No because I think the minimum wage which maximizes benefits to the poor is probably above 7.25 nationally and above the higher rates established by many states and cities. I think that value is probably around half the average local wage. I think that's the point which employment losses will start to swamp the redistributive benefits. But as automation improves, the employment losses will become greater and greater as employers find it cheaper to substitute capital for labor. So in the future, the minimum wage value that maximizes benefits to the poor is pretty likely to go down. 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. http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/income/median/neighborhood/list/ I think $15 is an appropriate minimum wage for the majority of los angeles where average yearly income is at or above 60,000 per year, but might have negative overall effects in neighborhoods like Koreatown and Watts and Pico-Union where the average wage is half that or less.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No because I think the minimum wage which maximizes benefits to the poor is probably above 7.25 nationally and above the higher rates established by many states and cities. I think that value is probably around half the average local wage. I think that's the point which employment losses will start to swamp the redistributive benefits. But as automation improves, the employment losses will become greater and greater as employers find it cheaper to substitute capital for labor. So in the future, the minimum wage value that maximizes benefits to the poor is pretty likely to go down. So you basically want to trade between jobs lost to automation and a higher minimum wage, and based on your gut feeling you've decided that the optimal value is greater than 7.25 but less than 15. At what point do you feel that competition with the machines warrants a minimum wage decrease? If we're at $12/hour and every McDonalds has replaced half of their staff with machines, is that a good time to start dropping the minimum wage?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No because I think the minimum wage which maximizes benefits to the poor is probably above 7.25 nationally and above the higher rates established by many states and cities. I think that value is probably around half the average local wage. I think that's the point which employment losses will start to swamp the redistributive benefits. But as automation improves, the employment losses will become greater and greater as employers find it cheaper to substitute capital for labor. So in the future, the minimum wage value that maximizes benefits to the poor is pretty likely to go down. Considering that we have had a higher minimum wage than that inflation adjusted, and there isn't real evidence of it causing significantly higher unemployment, where is the evidence here? In the late 1960s it was over $10 at one point, unemployment at that time was hovering around 4%. This is not to mention examples from other economies. If this is just about automation, then you need to provide evidence especially since technological change is rather inflexible and capital costs for the type of automation people are fearing is high. In addition, many employees are going to be difficult to replace. For example supermarkets got rid of some of their clerks but the rest of the staff as remained because they had to be there. Would they have stopped if wages were even lower or frozen? Probably not The automation that is going to happen will happen one way or another but technological inflexibility is going to reign it in. In comparison, the advantages of higher wages will be immediate and long-lasting. I just haven't heard a good argument against significantly higher wages at this point. As for LA, 40% of the workforce in LA makes between $9 and $15 Los Angeles isn't as wealthy as San Francisco and is a more diverse city, household median income is $56,000 (versus $73,000 for SF) in 2011. In comparison, median nationwide income was $52,000. LA is not real extraordinary and should be a good case example. Furthermore, UC Berkeley did a study along with it, and showed a minimum wage is going to have a minimal effect. If positive effects in LA outweigh negative effects, then it begs the question further of not phasing in a higher minimum wage nation-wide. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:41 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
McJobs pay $20/hr in Denmark, so we're free to raise it to whatever, just as long as we stay below that they can be our canary. Once they have androids manning the grills and upselling apple pies at the drive-thru, we can call an all-hands meeting here in America and go "welp it was a good run, time to work for 50 cents an hour here to keep the machines at bay for a few decades, throw out your prescriptions and I hope you stocked up on Cup Noodle during the good times" There doesn't seem to be much point in getting a head start on loving ourselves with poverty wages as long as those treacherous Danes are inviting in the robot apocalypse with their reckless attitude of "full-time workers shouldn't starve" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:52 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Denmark is ~culturally homogenous~ which is skynet kryptonite.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Considering that we have had a higher minimum wage than that inflation adjusted, and there isn't real evidence of it causing significantly higher unemployment, where is the evidence here? In the late 1960s it was over $10 at one point, unemployment at that time was hovering around 4%. This is not to mention examples from other economies. This is the dumbest argument. The economy of the late 60's was totally different and that money meant something totally different.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:This is the dumbest argument. The economy of the late 60's was totally different and that money meant something totally different. No, I'm pretty sure that money bought people food, shelter and similar basics. Much like money does today. The dumbest argument is to say that things are really different now and that thing that happened in the past means nothing. VVV 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
Humans were like a totally different species then
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:This is the dumbest argument. The economy of the late 60's was totally different and that money meant something totally different. Yeah, you're right, in the late sixties our society hadn't yet fallen completely into the hands of greedy sociopaths and there were unions and regulations in place that protected the working classes.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Who here is arguing for the status quo? I'm arguing for a minimum wage that maximizes benefits to the poor. Well don't be shy, what would it be?!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Yeah, you're right, in the late sixties our society hadn't yet fallen completely into the hands of greedy sociopaths and there were unions and regulations in place that protected the working classes. You mean the start of the large-scale off-shoring of low-skill labor jobs and the collapse of the American manufacturing sector in the early 70's?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You mean the start of the large-scale off-shoring of low-skill labor jobs and the collapse of the American manufacturing sector in the early 70's? quote:Yet here we are with low unemployment and a growing economy so perhaps the answer in the face of automation is not to push wages (remember, these were middle class blue collar jobs) as low as possible out of fear.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I thought most people were fine with phased in wage hikes? All things considered, it is acceptable. Phasing in wage hikes is just a way to appease the crowd of doomsayers who think everything will collapse if workers are paid a decent wage at the time they actually need it. A phase-in of a minimum wage increase should take a year, maybe two, at the most. The longer it takes to phase in a minimum wage increase, the less that minimum wage is worth.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Considering that we have had a higher minimum wage than that inflation adjusted, and there isn't real evidence of it causing significantly higher unemployment, where is the evidence here? In the late 1960s it was over $10 at one point, unemployment at that time was hovering around 4%. This is not to mention examples from other economies.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Europeans should all work for $2/hr to bring back all-important Wal-Mart greeter jobs, can wealth and prosperity be far behind?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Has it ever occurred to people that certain jobs, or at least their execution, might be cultural and differ across populations?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Has it ever occurred to people that certain jobs, or at least their execution, might be cultural and differ across populations? Cultural differences are only important in explaining why the richest country on earth can't pay decent wages or have a functioning health care system. All cultures would choose to hire people to stand in department stores and say hi if only they weren't cursed with greedy poor people who won't let plucky Wal-Mart pay starvation wages.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
It will be funny to see San Francisco go hardcore on building tech that forces minimum wage workers into dehumanizing conditions to justify the high minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
on the left posted:It will be funny to see San Francisco go hardcore on building tech that forces minimum wage workers into dehumanizing conditions to justify the high minimum wage. Truly it is technology that forces workers into dehumanizing conditions, and not choices made by people who could easily reach for more human alternatives.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Phasing in wage hikes is just a way to appease the crowd of doomsayers who think everything will collapse if workers are paid a decent wage at the time they actually need it. A phase-in of a minimum wage increase should take a year, maybe two, at the most. The longer it takes to phase in a minimum wage increase, the less that minimum wage is worth. It's just a technique of lowering the absolute wage gain that the worker has by trying to stretch it out over time. Ha ha, jokes on you, we're in stagflation because of a demand collapse and people aren't earning anything - inflation will be negligible. Also, business owners deal with price fluctuations as a regular course of their business. Hamburger meat goes up and down several times per year. They can tolerate a fluctuation in labor prices.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
They're already well on your way with "disruptions" like Uber, AirBNB, Lyft, Taskrabbit, etc that are little more innovation than simply using "contractors" instead of employees
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Waiting on the counter billboards asking if you want your burger flipped by a robot.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
BigPaddy posted:Waiting on the counter billboards asking if you want your burger flipped by a robot. only if it's a sexy robot like the ones in BSG
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:It's just a technique of lowering the absolute wage gain that the worker has by trying to stretch it out over time. Ha ha, jokes on you, we're in stagflation because of a demand collapse and people aren't earning anything - inflation will be negligible.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
etalian posted:only if it's a sexy robot like the ones in BSG Given, but they can't be clingy like the one in Exmachina.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:Prices go up and down sure, but just because prices go up and down doesn't mean business are capable of absorbing arbitrary price changes. If you're going to make this argument, you need to figure out the volatility of hamburger meat prices, and then argue for a phase in that is at most smaller than the worst case hamburger scenario.   We let the free market run oil prices and tell businesses tough poo poo whenever wild price spikes happen, turns out we only have to protect plucky li'l business from rapacious poors and the living wage. I don't see any advantage to trying to preserve business too poorly run to deal with unexpected price changes, because they'll just go belly-up in the next commodities shock anyway VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:08 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
If the minimum wage is increased substantially then there's a chance that corporations will reduce the hours of work that they demand from the average employee. But even if this happens the employee still gets more money from the hours that they do work. Let's imagine the minimum wage goes up 20% and as a result the employer cuts his employee's hours by 10%. That still still leaves the employees better off since they have more free time on their hands and haven't suffered a drop in purchasing power. And given the extremely high tun over in most minimum wage positions even the people who are made redundant have a very good chance of soon finding a new minimum wage job where they'll be employed at the higher wage. So taking a step back from the situation, we might hypothesize that the average minimum wage worker will work fewer hours while drawing an equivalent or higher pay check. It takes some highly specific assumptions to conclude that a minimum wage hike will reduce hours worked by so much that it completly eliminates any gains in income by working people. For one thing, most McJobs are already as stripped down as possible. If it was possible in the short term to eliminate any more of those jobs then they'd be gone already. For the most part these places already run with the bear minimum amount of labour and raising the price of labour a bit is likely to reduce profits or to reduce the wages of people who already make more than the minimum, because there are only so many frontline McDonald's employees you can get rid of before it start's to impact your sales. And as for increasing automation: that makes society richer in the long run. And presumably the wealth being created by that automation, and by the higher purchasing power of workers, will create new employment opportunities for people to be employed.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
twodot posted:Wait are you saying large commodities price shocks are good? I assumed there was agreement that was a bad thing, which we'd like to avoid. No, read it again.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:They're already well on your way with "disruptions" like Uber, AirBNB, Lyft, Taskrabbit, etc that are little more innovation than simply using "contractors" instead of employees Nah all of those except Taskrabbit are real innovation, even if their ethics leave something to be desired.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:20
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Nah all of those except Taskrabbit are real innovation, even if their ethics leave something to be desired. the only reason that those companies are able to compete is that they are built to explicitly evade regulatory structures that the existing players have to operate under where's the innovation exactly
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:the only reason that those companies are able to compete is that they are built to explicitly evade regulatory structures that the existing players have to operate under Mobile apps that let you see where cars are, get estimated fares, etc. For airbnb, it's lowering barriers to entry so that someone with a spare bedroom or w/e can put it on the market.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:This is the dumbest argument. The economy of the late 60's was totally different and that money meant something totally different. Is this where you reveal you're a gold bug raging against the Nixon shock?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It takes some highly specific assumptions to conclude that a minimum wage hike will reduce hours worked by so much that it completly eliminates any gains in income by working people. For one thing, most McJobs are already as stripped down as possible. If it was possible in the short term to eliminate any more of those jobs then they'd be gone already. For the most part these places already run with the bear minimum amount of labour and raising the price of labour a bit is likely to reduce profits or to reduce the wages of people who already make more than the minimum, because there are only so many frontline McDonald's employees you can get rid of before it start's to impact your sales. Also keep in mind, while theoretically companies will hire part time over full time workers when labor costs rise the reality might be a bit different. You have to include the cost of training, management, and employment taxes/benefits for the additional workforce. In many cases a full time employee might be cheaper and/or more efficient than two part time workers.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
You're right! We should instate policies that make more companies fail because having them fail for reasons outside of our control is not enough! No need to worry about those workers losing jobs, they'll get their Cost of Living Adjustment. (Also companies can hedge against oil price changes for relatively low cost without changing the amount of oil they use)
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
I am just spit balling here, but perhaps in the minimum wage legislation we could set a date for it to take effect at some point in the future so that companies could prepare for the increase. I know this is a huge departure from how things are done now, where laws are passed and take effect immediately without any means of preparation, but surely we can sacrifice just this once for the sake of profit.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 19:55
|
|