Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 24 of 29 FirstFirst ... 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 480 of 565
  1. #461
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think it is a hard moral case to make to say that people should cut back on food for a policy that reduces employment (especially of minorities), especially when the group that has to cut back most are the poor.
    Sure, if thatís what the goal was, that would be immoral. But thatís not the goal. The goal is to get more money into the hands of people on minimum wage jobs.

    We can agree that a minimum wage policy does not create money a la the Fed, right?
    I meant that it gives people a living salary; money they otherwise wouldnít have.

    So we should probably alter your argument to say that it redistributes money in the economy away from investment and savings and into consumption. You seem to be making a similar point at the end of the quoted text.
    OK, I see that.

    You ignore however, the role savings and investment play in economic growth, worker income, and price deflation.
    Sure but morality aside, why donít we just go back to slavery or better still, invest in technology? Whatís the point of paying people the absolute minimum the could possibly bear? Without the power or strength to fight back, minimum wage workers are the weakest and most easily replaceable. Morally, since thatís your argument now, the government should step in to fight on their behalf.

    And somewhere in your explanation you may be missing the fact that this extra money spent that will offset all reductions youíre claiming.

    Finally, if it does legitimately reduce the other areas then that does seem to be a new fair equilibrium. Thatís ultimately what youíre saying: itís a zero sum game and it boils down to seeing the consequences and adjusting.

    First, remember that for some portion of them, the real minimum wage is $0/hour. About 4% of them will lose their job for every 10% of minimum wage increase. Those workers will face a dramatic reduction in salary and higher living expenses.
    How do they have a reduction in salary?

    Even for employees that kept their jobs, their hours worked were reduced to minimize the impact of the higher wage.

    So in Seattle, minimum wage workers who kept their jobs were faced with increased prices and a decreased income of about $125 a month.
    Or they were being overpaid originally or employers were paying for work that wasnít needed or it was being done inefficiently, this requiring more hours.

    Now that the minimum wage is higher everything has to rebalance.




    However, the consumer also has limits too so they could shop less if the prices are too high.

    Very few industries can pass along 100% of their cost increases to consumers.
    Then thatís good - it means we have been overpaying for the goods in the first place. Obviously, theyíre going to cut their profits to accommodate this but theyíve been getting cheap labor before.


    In summary, Iím not disputing facts, I would expect various responses to minimum wage increases and some workers will be better off, others might lose their jobs or have reduced hours; services and quality will have to be balanced against profitability; and companies will have to decide whether their workers are really part of their success and therefore deserve a living wage or whether those workers are tolerated as a burden to run their business.

    A new equilibrium isnít necessarily bad and itís not universally bad. It just is what it is: ensuring a fair living wage for workers.
    Last edited by SharmaK; January 19th, 2018 at 05:45 AM.

  2. #462
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,478
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Sure, if thatís what the goal was, that would be immoral. But thatís not the goal. The goal is to get more money into the hands of people on minimum wage jobs.
    I'm not sure the "goal" is what makes an action moral or immoral. As someone once said, no one gets out of bed every morning aiming to do evil. Mao was making a "better China" that doesn't mean his actions were moral does it?

    I would propose we should be less concerned with the motivations of MW proponents and more concerned with their effects on the economically marginalized.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Sure but morality aside, why donít we just go back to slavery or better still, invest in technology?
    This is a false dichotomy fallacy. Because I am pointing out that the policy reduces investment does not mean that I'm arguing all investment is good. There is a balance between consumption and investment. Capital is spent in either of those two manners. The primary question in all of economics is what is the proper ratio?

    The answer economists give is: "the market allocated rate." Why? Because only the actual participants in the market can accurately judge their preferences for current vs future consumption (the same question). And those are the only people who actually know the details behind individual investments and consumption. Assuming we can determine the correct rate of consumption from our couch is what Hayek called "the pretense of knowledge." There is no reason to think that you, or I, or Paul Krugman has a better knowledge of how many pieces of bread to buy than the person actually buying the bread.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And somewhere in your explanation you may be missing the fact that this extra money spent that will offset all reductions youíre claiming.
    Hmm, can you elaborate on the mechanism that this would take? Because if you can, you're up for a Nobel Prize. I think the factor you might be overlooking is the time factor. Any supposed return in capital caused by the influx of wages into the economy (and I've cited peer reviewed papers above saying that there isn't any) doesn't get returned as revenue to a company until some point later. IE you are defering the availability of capital for some period of time, which discounts its relevance.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Finally, if it does legitimately reduce the other areas then that does seem to be a new fair equilibrium. Thatís ultimately what youíre saying: itís a zero sum game and it boils down to seeing the consequences and adjusting.
    When you say "fair" what standard are you assessing? Who determines if it is "fair?" You?


    I'm saying the legislation makes it a zero sum game. Investment does the opposite by growing the economic pie.

    As economist Don Boudreax points out:

    To be upset that ďrichĒ people spend for consumption a smaller percentage of their incomes than do other people is to be upset that ďrichĒ people do not personally gobble down and use up for their own gratification as many resources as their current incomes permit. To be upset at such a thing is to be upset that ďrichĒ people are reserving resources for entrepreneurs and investors to put toward activities that increase outputs for others.

    http://cafehayek.com/2018/01/world-rather-live.html


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    How do they have a reduction in salary?
    Their wages go from, say $7.50/hour to $0/hour since no one is willing to pay them anymore. As I pointed out, the consensus in the literature is that about 4% of them will lose their job for every 10% of minimum wage increase.

    If that isn't a reduction in salary, I'm not sure what else to call it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Or they were being overpaid originally or employers were paying for work that wasnít needed or it was being done inefficiently, this requiring more hours.
    Again, who is best able to make that determination, the business owner and employee who mutually agreed on the wage and workload, or third party voters with no understanding of that business?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Now that the minimum wage is higher everything has to rebalance.
    No argument that things have to find a new equilibrium.

    But that equilibrium is artificial and has the following qualities:

    1) The most vulnerable in our society are less employed than before.

    2) Those that are still employed have smaller take home pay.

    3) The cost of living for the economically marginalized is higher. (both because of wage pass through and because there is less labor being consumed to produce goods and services.)

    4) The economically marginalized have reduced income mobility and will likely stay at a lower income longer during their lives.


    So why are we advocating for that equilibrium rather than the prior equilibrium?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Then thatís good - it means we have been overpaying for the goods in the first place.
    I'm not sure that you quite understood the mechanism. The reason that companies can't pass along 100% of thier cost increases to consumers is because the demand curve slopes downward.



    So if the cost of a good increases because labor is more expensive, people buy (and thus have) less of it. Companies will cut back in other areas (safety, hygiene, hours worked, benefits) to prevent people from buying less. It has nothing to do with us "overpaying." We buy different amounts at different prices, right?

    [Hint: this is also why people lose their jobs when the MW is increased.]



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK
    companies will have to decide whether their workers are really part of their success
    This prompts an interesting question. What do you think should be the relevant metric in determing wage? I'm guessing it isn't Marginal Contribution.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    A new equilibrium isnít necessarily bad and itís not universally bad.
    It certainly isn't universally bad. It is great for middle class teenagers from predominately white neighborhoods (see OP for support). It is horrifically bad for minorities, especially minority youths whose unemployment increases, cost of living increases, income mobility decreases, and working conditions worsen.

    I suppose if that's the desired new equilibrium we can call MW a success, but I'm not sure those are desirable outcomes.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. #463
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I would propose we should be less concerned with the motivations of MW proponents and more concerned with their effects on the economically marginalized.
    Obviously this is all about helping the poor - seems kinda obvious to make poor people less poor, you give them more money. And ideally this would from their own job rather than handouts from charities or the government.

    This is a false dichotomy fallacy. Because I am pointing out that the policy reduces investment does not mean that I'm arguing all investment is good.
    Sure, but you're suggesting that investment provides a better outcome than paying employees.

    The answer economists give is: "the market allocated rate." Why? Because only the actual participants in the market can accurately judge their preferences for current vs future consumption (the same question). And those are the only people who actually know the details behind individual investments and consumption. Assuming we can determine the correct rate of consumption from our couch is what Hayek called "the pretense of knowledge." There is no reason to think that you, or I, or Paul Krugman has a better knowledge of how many pieces of bread to buy than the person actually buying the bread.
    What you're missing is that power imbalances means that a MW-worker does not have as much say in their salary: that is dictated by the companies as to how much they are willing to pay. And to expect that MW-workers are happy with their lot, working multiple jobs to make ends meet doesn't need any kind of armchair pretense of knowledge - it's objectively obvious.


    Any supposed return in capital caused by the influx of wages into the economy (and I've cited peer reviewed papers above saying that there isn't any) doesn't get returned as revenue to a company until some point later. IE you are defering the availability of capital for some period of time, which discounts its relevance.
    Of course there's a time lapse but how could that period be long - we're talking about a few dollars that will straight back into the economy.

    When you say "fair" what standard are you assessing? Who determines if it is "fair?" You?
    Let's not forget that the minimum is the lowest that a company will pay - they have no reason to pay more than that, otherwise we wouldn't need a minimum to begin with. So what's not fair is that people have to work multiple jobs, and we, the taxpayer, has to pay to supplement their life via food programs and such. And all because a company won't pay a living wage. The only entity gaining here is the company on the backs of the workers and taxpayers.


    I'm saying the legislation makes it a zero sum game. Investment does the opposite by growing the economic pie.
    Then companies have to decide whether to take more profit vs investing their profits given a decent minimum wage! It's simple: if investment is better than taking profits then a company should direct its funds there. Shareholders will lose out on money upfront for higher gains. I don't see the problem here.

    Their wages go from, say $7.50/hour to $0/hour since no one is willing to pay them anymore. As I pointed out, the consensus in the literature is that about 4% of them will lose their job for every 10% of minimum wage increase.
    That's fallacious - if there are no jobs then there is no company! There will always be a need for workers and a higher MW just means that the company has to decide what to do - they are fully in control of what to do with their money. And if some jobs are lost then surely, they couldn't have been necessary in the first place - or companies are probably deliberately firing people as a warning back to the government.

    Again, who is best able to make that determination, the business owner and employee who mutually agreed on the wage and workload, or third party voters with no understanding of that business?
    Firstly, 'mutually agreed' just means that the worker accepts whatever the owner pays - that's why the MW has to exist because it will be as low as the owner can possible force. A business isn't interested in the welfare of their employees so it takes an outside organization, the government (of and by the people) to step in. It's irrelevant what the business is because any shortfall in income is made up by the government and the taxpayers anyway. Why should I subsidize a business that won't pay it's people properly?

    No argument that things have to find a new equilibrium.

    But that equilibrium is artificial and has the following qualities:

    1) The most vulnerable in our society are less employed than before.

    2) Those that are still employed have smaller take home pay.

    3) The cost of living for the economically marginalized is higher. (both because of wage pass through and because there is less labor being consumed to produce goods and services.)

    4) The economically marginalized have reduced income mobility and will likely stay at a lower income longer during their lives.
    Of course the equilibrium is artificial - the entire system is invented by people: there's nothing 'natural' about it. However:
    1. the less employed have assistance programs to help them get back on their feet. perhaps we should be focusing on getting people out the MW jobs altogether and spend money on educating them.
    2. I don't see that if the MW is higher and they're working the same hours. It seems that if a company fires a bunch of people and reduces hours, they couldn't have been running that efficient a company to begin with. And it sounds fishy that losing at least 1 person and reducing hours of the remaining staff far more then compensates the rising of the minimum wage. I'd like to see a real breakdown on that - the math doesn't make sense.
    3. So companies also get to pass through their higher wage bill AND fire people AND reduce hours! Seems to me they're gaining much more in this deal!
    4. Or they have to retool - staying in an MW-job doesn't allow you much time to reinvent yourself. Perhaps losing that job may convince them not to be a wage slave.

    So why are we advocating for that equilibrium rather than the prior equilibrium?
    I disagree with the outcomes you suggest but MW makes sense for same reasons why we're not advocating for slavery or removing MW altogether




    I'm not sure that you quite understood the mechanism. The reason that companies can't pass along 100% of thier cost increases to consumers is because the demand curve slopes downward.


    So if the cost of a good increases because labor is more expensive, people buy (and thus have) less of it. Companies will cut back in other areas (safety, hygiene, hours worked, benefits) to prevent people from buying less. It has nothing to do with us "overpaying." We buy different amounts at different prices, right?

    [Hint: this is also why people lose their jobs when the MW is increased.]
    Then they just have to take less profit. There's no magic to it - either pay people a decent wage or not have a business. It's much better than having a bunch of MW-workers that we have to supplement.
    Or they have to work harder increasing their sales.

    This prompts an interesting question. What do you think should be the relevant metric in determing wage? I'm guessing it isn't Marginal Contribution.
    It doesn't matter what the metric is because whatever the companies paying MW is higher than whatever they feel is fair anyway. If we lowered MW, I'm pretty sure those companies are going to adjust salaries downward. This is an irrelevant line of inquiry, we're not talking about software engineering jobs here, we're talking about cleaners.

    It certainly isn't universally bad. It is great for middle class teenagers from predominately white neighborhoods (see OP for support). It is horrifically bad for minorities, especially minority youths whose unemployment increases, cost of living increases, income mobility decreases, and working conditions worsen.

    I suppose if that's the desired new equilibrium we can call MW a success, but I'm not sure those are desirable outcomes.
    Or we get to a decent living wage and a fair one (to the taxpayers, government, etc.) for the remaining workers. Poverty will always exist and it seems to be an artificial falsehood to say that having more low paying jobs will help them out of it: low paying jobs are for sustaining life, not improving life. We just have to find other ways to help those people with better training programs.
    Last edited by SharmaK; January 20th, 2018 at 07:41 AM.

  4. #464
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    572
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Obviously this is all about helping the poor - seems kinda obvious to make poor people less poor, you give them more money. And ideally this would from their own job rather than handouts from charities or the government.
    Sorry to butt in mid stream, and I have only read the last couple posts, so if this has been brought up, please disregard and no need to respond at all.

    We already can see technology is going to replace many of these jobs. Fast food is going to kiosks, there is a store in Seattle that has no check out clerks. All purchases are billed thru your phone.
    Robots at Amazon whse's.
    Self driving cars (no cab drivers)

    Between AI and robots, they are going to cause the biggest shift in employment since people left farms for jobs in the city.

    Higher minimum wages are currently leading to less minimum wage jobs and will continue to at an ever faster pace, as health care, gov't reg's, a new tax every other day and most importantly NEW TECH comes online.
    If the majority of minimum wage jobs disappear, and I think it seems likely (unless new jobs come about that AI/robots can't do), what then will these people do to live??....

  5. #465
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Sorry to butt in mid stream, and I have only read the last couple posts, so if this has been brought up, please disregard and no need to respond at all.

    We already can see technology is going to replace many of these jobs. Fast food is going to kiosks, there is a store in Seattle that has no check out clerks. All purchases are billed thru your phone.
    Robots at Amazon whse's.
    Self driving cars (no cab drivers)

    Between AI and robots, they are going to cause the biggest shift in employment since people left farms for jobs in the city.

    Higher minimum wages are currently leading to less minimum wage jobs and will continue to at an ever faster pace, as health care, gov't reg's, a new tax every other day and most importantly NEW TECH comes online.
    If the majority of minimum wage jobs disappear, and I think it seems likely (unless new jobs come about that AI/robots can't do), what then will these people do to live??....
    Thatís a tough one that weíll have to solve. I donít think that creating a permanent underclass of people whose sole purpose is to work the terrible jobs is a good idea either. And that is what is happening now with the taxpayer having to supplement their lives.

    A living wage, again funded by the taxpayer, might help those people focus on improving themselves and getting more valuable skills.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  6. #466
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    The major problem in all of these discussions on this topic is that most of us are supposing that there will always be enough "jobs" that pay a living wage for all the people who need and want one.

    Anyone who cannot see that it is almost certain there will never be enough jobs of that kind for everyone who needs and wants one...is probably being willfully blind.

    In fact, if there ARE enough jobs that pay a "living wage" for everyone who needs and wants one...we are probably an even worse failure as a species than we would be if there ARE NOT.

    We should be aiming for almost NO WORK by humans...except for the work that absolutely, positively MUST be done by humans...and all the rest should be done by machines, robots, computers, and such.

    We should be aiming, at WORST, for one hour work weeks for most people (zero hour work weeks for the unproductive)...and still have those people be able to live a meaningful, comfortable life.

    Instead, we aim at creating more jobs...which in a technologically advanced society, essentially is just creating more work.

    Eventually, unless we change our philosophy about work as the means of "earning a living" to something different... we are going to have people digging holes in the morning and filling them in during the afternoon.

  7. #467
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,559
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Frank Apisa.. I think the general response to your assertion is that more jobs are created by technology. For example, most people had to farm, but when tec freed people from the farming jobs (basically putting many people out of work in living wage jobs), then whole new industries arose.

    Also, the world you are talking about aiming certainly doesn't sound very good or edifying to humanity. It seems to me that it would alter human consciousness, making the population less creative, more lazy, less productive, and more entitled to the labors of others. i have no doubt that people with intelligent and drive would be the slaves of your vision. The ones fixing the machines that do everything for everyone. Or maybe worse, make them the masters of everyone else.
    To serve man.

  8. #468
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Frank Apisa.. I think the general response to your assertion is that more jobs are created by technology. For example, most people had to farm, but when tec freed people from the farming jobs (basically putting many people out of work in living wage jobs), then whole new industries arose.

    Also, the world you are talking about aiming certainly doesn't sound very good or edifying to humanity. It seems to me that it would alter human consciousness, making the population less creative, more lazy, less productive, and more entitled to the labors of others. i have no doubt that people with intelligent and drive would be the slaves of your vision. The ones fixing the machines that do everything for everyone. Or maybe worse, make them the masters of everyone else.
    Perhaps you last thought describes the next stage of evolution for humans.

    In any case, if you think the need for human labor will be sufficient to provide decent paying jobs for everyone who needs and wants one...fine with me.

    I just strongly disagree.

  9. #469
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    The major problem in all of these discussions on this topic is that most of us are supposing that there will always be enough "jobs" that pay a living wage for all the people who need and want one.
    There arenít enough jobs paying a living wage *now* never mind the future. Thatís why people are working multiple MW jobs to make ends meet.

    We should be aiming for almost NO WORK by humans...except for the work that absolutely, positively MUST be done by humans...and all the rest should be done by machines, robots, computers, and such.
    There will always be crappy jobs that canít be done by machines but automation should always be pursued. Itís it the only way we can survive as a species.

    We should be aiming, at WORST, for one hour work weeks for most people (zero hour work weeks for the unproductive)...and still have those people be able to live a meaningful, comfortable life.

    Instead, we aim at creating more jobs...which in a technologically advanced society, essentially is just creating more work.

    Eventually, unless we change our philosophy about work as the means of "earning a living" to something different... we are going to have people digging holes in the morning and filling them in during the afternoon.
    We will always need mechanics and fixers of machines. We will aways require engineers and software developers and support staff for software. And we will always be blessed with the artists, musicians and content makers. Iím sure thereíre other jobs that are both rewarding and interesting and necessary for our society so not working seems to be a bit pointless: what are people going to do?

  10. #470
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    There aren’t enough jobs paying a living wage *now* never mind the future. That’s why people are working multiple MW jobs to make ends meet.


    There will always be crappy jobs that can’t be done by machines but automation should always be pursued. It’s it the only way we can survive as a species.


    We will always need mechanics and fixers of machines. We will aways require engineers and software developers and support staff for software. And we will always be blessed with the artists, musicians and content makers. I’m sure there’re other jobs that are both rewarding and interesting and necessary for our society so not working seems to be a bit pointless: what are people going to do?
    I am fairly sure all the "jobs" you mentioned in your last paragraph will be available, but the bottom line, in my opinion, is that in the not too distant future it will make no sense to pay lots of humans to do the jobs that need doing...especially not in the numbers that have to be met.

    There are not enough jobs available now paying a living wage for everyone who needs and wants one. In the future, there will be fewer...MUCH FEWER.

    We have to figure a way to insure everyone has "sufficient" without having to "earn their living"...because soon, "earning a living" is not going to be an option.

    As for what people will do if they do not have jobs...well, they could better tend to their lawns and gardens, spend more time with their kids and spouses, tend more industriously to their houses (inside and outside), play more golf or tennis; do more bowling; read more books (to improve our minds or just for entertainment), do more writing, do more swimming, do more fishing, wash and detail our cars, do more painting, do more sculpting, paint more pictures, write more poems, create more music, or dozens upon dozens of other things most of us would rather be doing than "earning a living"...including something so mundane as training a couple of trees to bend toward each other by resting in a hammock strung between them.

  11. #471
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    572
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    That’s a tough one that we’ll have to solve. I don’t think that creating a permanent underclass of people whose sole purpose is to work the terrible jobs is a good idea either.
    Who is arguing that?

    ---------- Post added at 04:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And that is what is happening now with the taxpayer having to supplement their lives.

    A living wage, again funded by the taxpayer, might help those people focus on improving themselves and getting more valuable skills.
    Um, either way seems funded by the tax payer???

    But to the former point, I have seen estimates that 50% of current jobs may be filled by AI/robots by 2050 and maybe 90% by 2100. This really is just a guess since the "future" changes so fast, but the question is: would it be surprising? I don't think so. Minimum wage jobs in a number of business categories (fast food comes to mind) are already disappearing and it is accelerating. Is there any reason this trend will not continue? I don't really see any.

    So, I just ask, is it possible that where (like in WA St) the MW is progressive (can go up every year), does this add to the acceleration of the loss of MW jobs?

    Either way, the jobs that you are fighting for higher wages largely won't exist in the relative near future.

    I like Frank's idea of a society more like "Star Trek the Next Generation". Wants needs/taken care of by "replicators" and an abundance of energy. People spend their days trying to "improve themselves" (as Riker would say).

    However the "slothly" attitude in the US now leads me to believe all that free time might be spent in other avenues than self improvement, but we can hope

  12. Thanks Frank Apisa thanked for this post
  13. #472
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Who is arguing that?
    I guess anyone arguing against a living minimum wage is.


    Um, either way seems funded by the tax payer???
    Indeed but the difference is that then it's more of an investment rather than just throwing money into a hole to barely keep people alive.

    But to the former point, I have seen estimates that 50% of current jobs may be filled by AI/robots by 2050 and maybe 90% by 2100. This really is just a guess since the "future" changes so fast, but the question is: would it be surprising? I don't think so. Minimum wage jobs in a number of business categories (fast food comes to mind) are already disappearing and it is accelerating. Is there any reason this trend will not continue? I don't really see any.

    So, I just ask, is it possible that where (like in WA St) the MW is progressive (can go up every year), does this add to the acceleration of the loss of MW jobs?
    Either way, the jobs that you are fighting for higher wages largely won't exist in the relative near future.
    Yes, it most certainly does but it does so by putting a fair value on those jobs. Fair, being, a living wage, and one that prevents businesses from taking into account the weak position of the MW-workers. Is MW cheaper than automating some jobs? Perhaps, but those jobs would be automated away anyway: machines don't have health issues, they don't sue, they work 24x7 and they can be maintained cheaply. I think automation is inevitable, it's more convenient for the customer, nearly everyone has a phone to put their orders in, and is a positive direction. If raising MW gives it a nudge thaen that has to be a positive thing.


    I like Frank's idea of a society more like "Star Trek the Next Generation". Wants needs/taken care of by "replicators" and an abundance of energy. People spend their days trying to "improve themselves" (as Riker would say).

    However the "slothly" attitude in the US now leads me to believe all that free time might be spent in other avenues than self improvement, but we can hope
    I imagine, a world much like WALL-E, is probably more likely. It's happening in Japan where an electronic life is better than a real one.

  14. #473
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    572
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I guess anyone arguing against a living minimum wage is.
    Support please

    ---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Indeed but the difference is that then it's more of an investment rather than just throwing money into a hole to barely keep people alive.
    I am not seeing the difference. Looks like throwing taxpayer money either way...

  15. #474
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Support please
    Support what exactly? The MW is minimum for a reason - itís the bare minimum that companies are compelled by law to pay. Itís not meant to be a living wage.

    I am not seeing the difference. Looks like throwing taxpayer money either way...
    You donít think the education and job training and apprenticeships and other programs canít help?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  16. #475
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    572
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Yes, it most certainly does but it does so by putting a fair value on those jobs. Fair, being, a living wage, and one that prevents businesses from taking into account the weak position of the MW-workers.
    So the MW workers that get to keep their job are better off at the expense of the ones laid off.
    Some are better off, the rest are on welfare?

    ---------- Post added at 08:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Support what exactly?
    You said people that don't support a higher MW want a permanent low class of people.

  17. #476
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So the MW workers that get to keep their job are better off at the expense of the ones laid off.
    Some are better off, the rest are on welfare?
    Itís up to companies to determine how they want to react to raising the MW. They can also choose to reduce their profits too.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

    ---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You said people that don't support a higher MW want a permanent low class of people.
    I donít know if they ďwantĒ one but the result of not having a living MW is to cause one. To argue against increasing the MW is literally saying that MW is as high as it should go and if that amount doesnít provide a proper living wage then *that* is *maintaining* a permanent lower class that we *currently* have.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  18. #477
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    572
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It’s up to companies to determine how they want to react to raising the MW. They can also choose to reduce their profits too.
    And you still have not said how to care for the laid off people in your "caring" scenario...

    Tell me, what is a fair profit?

    ---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don’t know if they “want” one but the result of not having a living MW is to cause one. To argue against increasing the MW is literally saying that MW is as high as it should go and if that amount doesn’t provide a proper living wage then *that* is *maintaining* a permanent lower class that we *currently* have.
    Maybe the minimum wage should be $100,000 per year??

  19. #478
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And you still have not said how to care for the laid off people in your "caring" scenario...
    We have existing programs to take ďcareĒ of these people (SNAP, CHIP, etc.).

    Tell me, what is a fair profit?
    Whatever is left over after paying a fair wage.

    Maybe the minimum wage should be $100,000 per year??
    Maybe in 2050, after adjusting for inflation.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  20. #479
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    572
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Whatever is left over after paying a fair wage.


    Maybe in 2050, after adjusting for inflation.
    Why not now???


    ---------------

    "Some of the scariest words in the English language are; we are from the Federal Gov't, and we are here to help"

  21. #480
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Why not now???
    Because we’re discussing a living wage not a luxurious one!
    Last edited by Squatch347; January 22nd, 2018 at 05:46 AM. Reason: Tag edit

 

 
Page 24 of 29 FirstFirst ... 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Minimum wage is better than nothing
    By Wolf Myth in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 28th, 2010, 10:50 AM
  2. Welfare vs. Minimum Wage
    By KevinBrowning in forum Politics
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2007, 01:59 AM
  3. Minimum Wage Hike?
    By market state in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: December 7th, 2006, 08:02 PM
  4. Minimum Wage
    By Dr. Gonzo in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 14th, 2006, 06:27 PM
  5. Minimum Wage
    By emtee10 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2004, 07:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •