Posted the stuff in the monthly expense thread, but Atlantic has summed it up best, so here's a bonus topic about Evöl Korpöräte AmeriKKKa:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/07/mcdonalds-literally-cannot-imagine-how-its-workers-would-survive-on-the-minimum-wage/277845/
QuoteMcDonald's Can't Figure Out How Its Workers Survive On Minimum Wage
In a financial planning guide for its workers, the company accidentally illustrates precisely how impossible it is to scrape by making minimum wage.
Well this is both embarrassing and deeply telling.
In what appears to have been a gesture of goodwill gone haywire, McDonald's recently teamed up with Visa to create a financial planning site for its low-pay workforce. Unfortunately, whoever wrote the thing seems to have been literally incapable of imagining of how a fast food employee could survive on a minimum wage income. As ThinkProgress and other outlets have reported, the site includes a sample budget that, among other laughable assumptions, presumes that workers will have a second job.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2Fmcdonaldssamplemonthlybudget.jpg&hash=d2aa00792ef3703caee3c9d7ed93ff68d444409f)
As Jim Cook at Irregular Times notes, the $1,105 figure up top is roughly what the average McDonald's cashier earning $7.72 an hour would take home each month after payroll taxes, if they worked 40 hours a week. So this budget applies to someone just about working two full-time jobs at normal fast-food pay. (The federal minimum wage is just $7.25 an hour, by the way, but 19 states and DC set theirs higher).
A few of the other ridiculous conceits here: This hypothetical worker doesn't pay a heating bill. I guess some utilities are included in their $600 a month rent? (At the end of 2012, average rent in the U.S. was $1,048). Gas and groceries are bundled into $27 a day spending money. And this individual apparently has access to $20 a month healthcare. McDonald's, for its part, charges employees $12.58 a week for the company's most basic health plan. Well, that's if they've been with the company for a year. Otherwise, it's $14.
Now, it's possible that McDonald's and Visa meant this sample budget to reflect a two-person household. That would be a tad more realistic, after all. Unfortunately, the brochure doesn't give any indication that's the case. Nor does it change the fact that most of these expenses would apply to a single person.
Of course, minimum wage workers aren't really entirely on their own, especially if they have children. There are programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and the earned income tax credit to help them along. But that's sort of the point. When large companies make profits by paying their workers unlivable wages, we end up subsidizing their bottom lines.
They missed a trick. With a 3rd job paying $1000 a month the worker wouldn't need a home at all and would have $2400 a month spending money, the rich bastard! :lol:
Well fortunately when you are working 80 hours a week you will never have time to spend that $800.00 and thus the savings will really pile up.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/10/audio-mcdonalds-tells-its-employees-to-sign-up-for-food-stamps/280812/
QuoteAudio: McDonald's Tells Its Employees to Sign Up for Food Stamps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olUsgn-Ubh0
For the past week, labor groups have been publicizing a new study that finds the federal government spends roughly $7 billion a year on benefits like food stamps and Medicaid for fast-food workers. Taxpayers, they say, are subsidizing the industry's profits.
In other words, Burger King is a Welfare Queen.
Now, activists have followed up with a nifty little PR stunt in the form of the video above. It's an edited recording* of a staffer on the McDonald's employee helpline explaining to a restaurant crew worker how they can sign up for food stamps, among other government benefits.
"McDonald's doesn't want to pay its workers more," the clip concludes. "Instead, it wants you to pay its workers more."
Just as there's nothing technically wrong with McDonald's telling workers they'll probably need a second job, there's also nothing technically wrong with fast-food companies explaining how to get federal benefits. And yet, here we have a terrifically profitable international corporation refusing to raise wages while acknowledging that it pays too little for its workers to comfortably survive.
And videos like this one aren't going to change its attitude. There too many incentives for fast food chains, and especially individual franchise owners, not to up what they pay. McDonald's, Dominos, Taco Bell and their ilk compete on rock bottom prices. It's a hot, greasy war fought with $5.99 two-topping pizzas, $1 beefy burritos and $5, 20-piece McNuggets. The battle to keep meals cheap is so fierce that McDonald's was willing to spend years battling its own franchisees over its dollar menu—a one-buck double cheeseburger was worth a measly 6 cents profit at some stores—until finally giving some ground this week. And while McDonald's has proven it's capable of making a profit abroad while paying workers $15 an hour or more, in the end, the recipe for success usually includes higher prices. Fast food restaurants in the U.S. aren't going to risk emulating it and losing customers to the competition.
What that means is this: If you think low-wage workers deserve a raise, there are three realistic routes. First, you can support changes to labor laws that might make it easier to organize sprawling, franchised chains like McDonald's. Second, you can double down on federal government's role in redistributing wealth, and perhaps push for a more generous version of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which boosts the after-tax earnings of low-wage workers and has proven to be a great tool for fighting poverty. Which is to say, you can accept that the fast food industry will pretty directly benefit from U.S. welfare policy, and hopefully employ more workers as a result. Or finally, you can support a higher minimum wage and possibly risk some number of job losses.
*Upon request, a labor group spokeswoman provided me with an unedited copy of the recording, which she asked me not to post because it included some of the caller's personal information. The edited version struck me as a fair but much shortened representation of conversation.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/the-magical-world-where-mcdonalds-pays-15-an-hour-its-australia/278313/
QuoteThe Magical World Where McDonald's Pays $15 an Hour? It's Australia
Last week, fast-food workers around the United States yet again walked off the job to protest their low pay and demand a wage hike to $15 an hour, about double what many of them earn today. In doing so, they added another symbolic chapter to an eight-month-old campaign of one-day strikes that, so far, has yielded lots of news coverage, but not much in terms of tangible results.
So there's a certain irony that in Australia, where the minimum wage for full-time adult workers already comes out to about $14.50 an hour, McDonald's staffers were busy scoring an actual raise. On July 24, the country's Fair Work Commission approved a new labor agreement between the company and its employees guaranteeing them up to a 15 percent pay increase by 2017.
And here's the kicker: Many Australian McDonald's workers were already making more than the minimum to begin with.
The land down under is, of course, not the only high-wage country in the world where McDonald's does lucrative business. The company actually earns more revenue out of Europe than than it does from the United States. France, with its roughly $12.00 hourly minimum, has more than 1,200 locations. (Australia has about 900).
So how exactly do McDonald's and other chains manage to turn a profit abroad while paying an hourly wage their American workers can only fantasize about while picketing? Part of the answer, as you might expect, boils down to higher prices. Academic estimates have suggested that, worldwide, worker pay accounts for at least 45 percent of a Big Mac's cost. In the United States, industry analysts tend to peg the figure a bit lower -- labor might make up anywhere from about a quarter of all expenses at your average franchise to about a third.* But generally speaking, in countries where pay is higher, so is the cost of two all beef patties, as shown in the chart below by Princeton economist Orley Ashenfelter. Note Western Europe way up there in the upper-right hand corner, with its high McWages and high Big Mac prices.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2Fassets_c%2F2013%2F08%2FMcWage_Big_Mac_Curve-thumb-570x434-128674.jpg&hash=eea9c44f44f3f77b6f0391992f02ec538a01cfc8)
That said, not every extra dollar of worker compensation seems to get passed onto the consumer. Again, take Australia. According to the The Economist, Aussies have paid anywhere from 6 cents to 70 cents extra for their Big Macs compared to Americans over the past two years, a 1 percent to 17 percent premium. If you were to simply double the cost of labor at your average U.S. Mickey D's and tack it onto the price of a sandwich, you'd expect customers to be paying at least a dollar more.
Why don't they?
To start, some Australians actually make less than the adult minimum wage. The country allows lower pay for teenagers, and the labor deal McDonald's struck with its employees currently pays 16-year-olds roughly US$8-an-hour, not altogether different from what they'd make in the states. In an email, Greg Bamber, a professor at Australia's Monash University who has studied labor relations in the country's fast food industry, told me that as a result, McDonald's relies heavily on young workers in Australia. It's a specific quirk of the country's wage system. But it goes to show that even in generally high-pay countries, restaurants try to save on labor where they can.
It's also possible that McDonald's keeps its prices down overseas by squeezing more productivity out of its workers. Researchers studying the impact of minimum wage increases on American fast food chains in the Deep South have found that while restaurants mostly cope by their raising prices, they also respond by handing their employees more responsibility. It stands to reason that in places like Europe and Australia, managers have found ways to get more mileage out of their staff as well.
Or if not, they've at least managed to replace a few of them with computers. As Michael Schaefer, an analyst with Euromonitor International, told me, fast food franchises in Europe have been some of the earliest adopters of touchscreen kiosks that let customers order without a cashier. As always, the peril of making employees more expensive is that machines become cheaper in comparison.
Finally, McDonald's has also helped its bottom line abroad by experimenting with higher margin menu items while trying to court more affluent customers. Way back in 1993, for instance, Australia became home to the first McCafe coffee shops, which sell highly profitable espresso drinks. During the last decade, meanwhile, the company gave its European restaurants a designer make-over and began offering more localized menus meant to draw a higher spending crowd.
So if President Obama waved a magic wand tomorrow and raised the minimum wage to $10 or $15, does this all mean that U.S. fast food chains would be able to cope? "Were that to happen overnight, it would be a hugely traumatic process," Schaefer told me. After all, virtually every fast food franchise in the country would have to rethink its business model as their profits evaporated. But as the international market shows, the models are out there. It would certainly mean more expensive burgers. It would almost definitely mean fewer workers, as restaurants found ways to streamline their staffs, either through better management or technology. And it might mean fewer chains catering to the bottom of the market.
But in some people's eyes, it might also be worth it.
___________________________
*Ron Paul, president of the food industry consulting firm Technomic, told me that as a rule of thumb fast food franchises assume labor will make up 30-to-35 percent of their expenses. As Columbia Journalism Review's Ryan Chittum noted last week, McDonald' s reports that worker pay makes up about 30 percent of expenses at its corporate-owned restaurants. He also dug up a handy chart from Janney Capital Markets, which estimates that labor makes up 26 percent of all expenses for an average McDonald's franchisee.
Australia is better than America? Jesus wept.
Ya, but everything is super expensive in Australia. Chicken or the egg argument can be as to whether things are expensive there because wages are high are wages are high because everything is expensive.
Jeez, the average rent in the US is over $1000 a month? I thought the $600 in the sample budget was high until I read more of the article.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 23, 2013, 10:37:35 PM
Australia is better than America? Jesus wept.
The Empire is generally preferable to the traitor state.
Quote from: HVC on October 23, 2013, 10:55:44 PM
Ya, but everything is super expensive in Australia. Chicken or the egg argument can be as to whether things are expensive there because wages are high are wages are high because everything is expensive.
It's probably because of the added transportation costs due to road wars.
Ron Paul now works for fast food industry? :huh:
How many people work 2 jobs at the same McDonald's?
I simply do not understand this issue.
Where is it written that a job serving french fries ought to pay a salary that someone can live comfortably on?
When did that assumption become the paradigm to judge this kind of stuff on?
I certainly never expected that to be the case - when a job at minimum wage is the best you can get, you aren't living alone, you have roomates to share expenses, and they probably have shitty jobs as well, and you guys all live in some shitty apartment and think "Wow, my job sucks I really should get a better one so I can afford a car and a non-shitty apartment and won't have to put up with these assholes anymore".
A full time job flipping burgers at McDonalds doesn't pay enough to live an "average" lifestyle? No fucking shit! That is why you should aspire to a bit more.
It isn't why we should just ignore the market rates and decide everyone must make enough to live an average lifestyle with a far below average job.
And btw, when I was working in the restauraunt business...I was working two jobs. Only way to make ends meet.
And it sucked, so I got a job as the manager instead. Much better pay.
I think it's a disgrace that people in work should need benefit money.
Berk's right that a minimum wage isn't going to pay for an 'average' life and that's fine. But it should be sufficient to cover the minimums. It shouldn't include, according to that study, $1 billion of state money going to people in employment on food assistance.
I mentioned in the tax thread but I think that in the UK and, apparently, in the US we've nationalised pay rises for those on low incomes. The money from employers is stagnating and instead they're depending on benefits that we're all paying for. In effect it's a massive subsidy to companies who don't pay their employees enough.
QuoteIt isn't why we should just ignore the market rates and decide everyone must make enough to live an average lifestyle with a far below average job.
That's not the point though. There's a sort of minimum lifestyle that you can have in most developed countries. My view is if you're working you should be able to afford that off your wages alone because welfare system should be those who can't work or aren't in work. Instead you've got, according to that study, over 50% of fast-food employees receiving some form of benefit to reach that minimum life that we guarantee even the feckless and lazy far less those working poor who want to do more than sit on the dole.
I kind of agree with the conservative idea that there's something enervating about being on long-term welfare. To be on it while working is even worse.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 24, 2013, 01:46:38 AM
I think it's a disgrace that people in work should need benefit money.
Don't working folks in the UK get various benefits?
"In work?" :wacko:
QuoteBut it should be sufficient to cover the minimums.
Why?
A franchise owner is willing to pay someone $7.25 an hour to flip burgers. Many people are currently willing to flip burgers at that wage. Why should we tell them they cannot?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2013, 02:24:54 AMDon't working folks in the UK get various benefits?
Like what?
QuoteWhy?
A franchise owner is willing to pay someone $7.25 an hour to flip burgers. Many people are currently willing to flip burgers at that wage. Why should we tell them they cannot?
Because if it isn't enough to cover minimums then the state steps in to cover the difference. Many people are willing to work at that rate because they've little to no choice and we've got a system that doesn't let them live under that minimum level. But why should all taxpayers bear the costs of bringing wages up to a minimum level for a few employers?
Clicking through Syt's article I see this:
Quote"I think the system seems to be working the way it is — not that it's working perfectly," he says, adding, "In general, the government is making sure these people's basic needs are met, which is an appropriate role of government."
And I disagree fundamentally. I don't think an appropriate role for government is subsidising low wages.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 24, 2013, 02:38:41 AM
Like what?
I dunno. Housing allowance, child raising allowance, big blocks of cheese, whatever.
QuoteBecause if it isn't enough to cover minimums then the state steps in to cover the difference. Many people are willing to work at that rate because they've little to no choice and we've got a system that doesn't let them live under that minimum level. But why should all taxpayers bear the costs of bringing wages up to a minimum level for a few employers?
I don't see how the taxpayer is better off giving free money to an unemployed person rather than to a working person.
You definitely should be able to survive on minimum wage and anyone who says different deserves shooting. Or at least a life on minimum wage.
This doesn't eliminate people then wanting to get a better job; since when has mere survival been a goal to aim for?
Quote
I don't see how the taxpayer is better off giving free money to an unemployed person rather than to a working person.
That's not what he said at all.
Quote from: Tyr on October 24, 2013, 02:51:18 AM
That's not what he said at all.
Right. It's what I said.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2013, 02:59:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 24, 2013, 02:51:18 AM
That's not what he said at all.
Right. It's what I said.
...:huh:
In that case...
Vanilla coke is the greatest of all cokes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2013, 02:24:54 AM"In work?" :wacko:
"To hospital."
Quote from: BerkutWhere is it written that a job serving french fries ought to pay a salary that someone can live comfortably on?
Critique of the Gotha Program.
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
I simply do not understand this issue.
Where is it written that a job serving french fries ought to pay a salary that someone can live comfortably on?
When did that assumption become the paradigm to judge this kind of stuff on?
I certainly never expected that to be the case - when a job at minimum wage is the best you can get, you aren't living alone, you have roomates to share expenses, and they probably have shitty jobs as well, and you guys all live in some shitty apartment and think "Wow, my job sucks I really should get a better one so I can afford a car and a non-shitty apartment and won't have to put up with these assholes anymore".
A full time job flipping burgers at McDonalds doesn't pay enough to live an "average" lifestyle? No fucking shit! That is why you should aspire to a bit more.
It isn't why we should just ignore the market rates and decide everyone must make enough to live an average lifestyle with a far below average job.
Yes, and nor should one live in a tornado prone region. ^_^
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on October 24, 2013, 03:15:38 AM
Yes, and nor should one live in a tornado prone region. ^_^
I don't see the connection.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2013, 03:28:42 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on October 24, 2013, 03:15:38 AM
Yes, and nor should one live in a tornado prone region. ^_^
I don't see the connection.
Me neither. At least you leave Kansas. Good luck trying to leave penury.
The basic welfare programs in the US are food stamps and Section 8 housing vouchers. Both are means tested, meaning you have to be earning under some threshold amount per year. Note that you don't have to be earning *zero.* In fact, arguably our most successful welfare program is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which tops off income. That one is specifically designed to reward work, and you get zero if you don't work at all.
So this really seems like a case of leaping to damn the fast food industry without thinking through the issue.
Markets work both ways, Yi. It appearsthat a lot of workers on minimum wage woudl not be able to work without top up benefits. Does it not follow that the state is effectively subsidising McDonalds and other companies by making up the difference.
E.g Company A pays a worker $7.50 per hour. Company B pays a worker £12.50 an hour. The Gubbermint tops up workers at company A so that they earn the equivalent of £12.50.
Company B will soon reduce its wages. It is paying more for the same thing and does not even have a recruitment advantage since workers are no better off at company B.
Quote from: Gups on October 24, 2013, 04:14:19 AM
Markets work both ways, Yi. It appearsthat a lot of workers on minimum wage woudl not be able to work without top up benefits. Does it not follow that the state is effectively subsidising McDonalds and other companies by making up the difference.
E.g Company A pays a worker $7.50 per hour. Company B pays a worker £12.50 an hour. The Gubbermint tops up workers at company A so that they earn the equivalent of £12.50.
Company B will soon reduce its wages. It is paying more for the same thing and does not even have a recruitment advantage since workers are no better off at company B.
Now I'm not an expert on these programs, so I could be wrong, but my understanding is they "fade out" as your income climbs, so that employees are not disincentivized from seeking higher paying work. So no, I don't think your conclusion obtains. Otherwise, we'd have a lot of people earning minimum wage then a giant dead zone of no one earning $7.50><$12.50 or whatever, which is not the case.
Quote from: Tyr on October 24, 2013, 03:08:29 AM
Vanilla coke is the greatest of all cokes.
The first time I've agreed with Tyr on something in a long time. It's disconcerting to say the least. :hmm:
Sure. That deals with extreme example but not the general principle that taxpayers should not have to subsidise companies utilising cheap labour and that such subsidies distorts the labour market.
And the phase out brings its own problems, at least in the UK, where the benefit of earning an extra £ an hour is heavily reduced by a reduction in top up welfare. I xcan't be bothered to look it up but I recall that at certain points on the scale the effective "tax" rate was 90%.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 24, 2013, 04:39:13 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 24, 2013, 03:08:29 AM
Vanilla coke is the greatest of all cokes.
The first time I've agreed with Tyr on something in a long time. It's disconcerting to say the least. :hmm:
Imagine how he feels.
Quote from: Gups on October 24, 2013, 04:39:20 AM
Sure. That deals with extreme example but not the general principle that taxpayers should not have to subsidise companies utilising cheap labour and that such subsidies distorts the labour market.
Of course welfare distorts the labor market.
Whether it subsidizes cheap labor is a debateable issue. I don't see how the market wage would rise in the absence of welfare.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2013, 03:28:42 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on October 24, 2013, 03:15:38 AM
Yes, and nor should one live in a tornado prone region. ^_^
I don't see the connection.
It's a reference to Hamilcar's famous troll. Both are guilty of unrealistically elitist criticism. If you've met the majority of fast food workers, expecting them to suddenly become managers or whatever is rather unrealistic.
I'd also submit that in a first world country with the level of wealth as the USA has, it shouldn't be the case that the poorest members of society still need to work two full time jobs to make ends meet. My comment is IMO necessary in that it addresses (what I perceive to be) Berkut's comment that it's OK that the lowest level employees make such crap wages.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on October 24, 2013, 05:13:22 AM
I'd also submit that in a first world country with the level of wealth as the USA has, it shouldn't be the case that the poorest members of society still need to work two full time jobs to make ends meet.
But it's not written anywhere that they shouldn't, so fuck 'em.
Man, you Euros just don't get the concept of America at all. If you work hard, you'll be rewarded in life. If you're not rewarded, you obviously didn't work hard enough or didn't borrow money from your parents to start your own business.
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
I certainly never expected that to be the case - when a job at minimum wage is the best you can get, you aren't living alone, you have roomates to share expenses, and they probably have shitty jobs as well, and you guys all live in some shitty apartment and think "Wow, my job sucks I really should get a better one so I can afford a car and a non-shitty apartment and won't have to put up with these assholes anymore".
I had no idea so many of the nation's working poor are really trapped in a buddy sitcom. :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
Where is it written that a job serving french fries ought to pay a salary that someone can live comfortably on?
The day those jobs became the only option.
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
I simply do not understand this issue.
Where is it written that a job serving french fries ought to pay a salary that someone can live comfortably on?
When did that assumption become the paradigm to judge this kind of stuff on?
I certainly never expected that to be the case - when a job at minimum wage is the best you can get, you aren't living alone, you have roomates to share expenses, and they probably have shitty jobs as well, and you guys all live in some shitty apartment and think "Wow, my job sucks I really should get a better one so I can afford a car and a non-shitty apartment and won't have to put up with these assholes anymore".
A full time job flipping burgers at McDonalds doesn't pay enough to live an "average" lifestyle? No fucking shit! That is why you should aspire to a bit more.
It isn't why we should just ignore the market rates and decide everyone must make enough to live an average lifestyle with a far below average job.
While I don't entirely disagree with you, I think that the social welfare system is acting like a subsidy for the companies in that regard. By encouraging their employees to go on food stamps, they feel they can get away with paying their employees less and still retain them.
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2013, 07:36:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
I simply do not understand this issue.
Where is it written that a job serving french fries ought to pay a salary that someone can live comfortably on?
When did that assumption become the paradigm to judge this kind of stuff on?
I certainly never expected that to be the case - when a job at minimum wage is the best you can get, you aren't living alone, you have roomates to share expenses, and they probably have shitty jobs as well, and you guys all live in some shitty apartment and think "Wow, my job sucks I really should get a better one so I can afford a car and a non-shitty apartment and won't have to put up with these assholes anymore".
A full time job flipping burgers at McDonalds doesn't pay enough to live an "average" lifestyle? No fucking shit! That is why you should aspire to a bit more.
It isn't why we should just ignore the market rates and decide everyone must make enough to live an average lifestyle with a far below average job.
While I don't entirely disagree with you, I think that the social welfare system is acting like a subsidy for the companies in that regard. By encouraging their employees to go on food stamps, they feel they can get away with paying their employees less and still retain them.
But would they not be able to do that if welfare didn't exist? Would those individuals just give up entirely.
I don't think the labor market works like that. There are lots of jobs out there of the McBurger flipper variety. McDonalds has to pay enough to attract decent employees from those other jobs. They aren't sitting around calculating how much they can pay someone based on some formula that includes how much public assistance they may get.
I've managed restaurants that paid at that scale. And it simply does not work in the manner described, and I had, that I can recall, very, very few employees who were using their near minimum wage job as any kind of actual career.
Instead I employed
1. Students - most of the labor force by far, probably 75%.
2. People for whom this job was a second job, working part time evenings to help make ends meet.
3. Retirees looking to supplement their retirement or simply bored (awesome employees, btw)
4. People who just need any job, and I know they won't stay long, or they will move to category 2 once they find a better job, or will move into management.
What is interesting about this debate is the basic problem I have with the liberal mindset. It never, ever stops. No matter what service or tax break or assistance is given, the moment it is established, they just then move the bar for another group that needs "help" from the gentle hand of the state. McJobs have been around forever, and yet never before was their this argument that minimum wage ought to provide a living salary for your typical adult American. What has changed about our society such that now minimum wage should actually be equal to median wage?
Now we want to define minimum wage at a level such that someone on it would not qualify for any type of welfare???? How can that make sense - is the definition for how to qualify for ANY kind of assistance driven at all by minimum wage? Of course not, because the type of assistance in question is too variable. We give child tax care credit to people making very median salaries.
Minimum wage should be the minimum that a business can pay people based on something, but that something should absolutely have nothing to do with what it takes to actually support oneself in some median level of comfort. That is just wholesale abandoning any semblance of a market in labor at all. Not all jobs are "livable salary" jobs, nor should they be.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 24, 2013, 07:29:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
Where is it written that a job serving french fries ought to pay a salary that someone can live comfortably on?
The day those jobs became the only option.
Let me know when that happens and I will start worrying about it.
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 07:58:52 AM
What has changed about our society such that now minimum wage should actually be equal to median wage?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that it "be equal to median wage". Rather, it's been suggested that it be enough for the average person to work one job and meet all of the bare necessities: housing, food, and clothes.
At a guess, I'd say the change in perspectives comes from the fact that in several other countries, that's what it means. Australia, as an example.
I'm not saying that I agree or disagree. I'm only suggesting that the reason it's become an area of contention in the US is that it has evolved elsewhere to mean "livable wage" rather than simply "minimum wage".
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
A full time job flipping burgers at McDonalds doesn't pay enough to live an "average" lifestyle? No fucking shit! That is why you should aspire to a bit more.
Wow that is what you took away from that? It looked like McDonalds is abusing the tax payers to get away with paying their workers below market wages, to the point they are actually recommending that to employees. As in, people would not be working these jobs without the tax payers stepping in to make their wages livable. It is corporate welfare. But maybe this is not unexpected or necessarily a bad thing.
As to your last point our economy is a pretty dismal failure at providing sufficient employment above the McJobs level for all of the average and below average Joes and Janes. But we KNEW this was going to happen when we did the whole globalization thing. We knew that a short term consequence of this was going to be high unemployment as things evened out but in the end we would all benefit. But, sure enough, we have had huge increases in unemployment and wage stagnation, you know, like we thought. But this is hardly the workers fault, or that they should be 'aspiring for more', it is the predictable result of our policies. It seems weird to suggest everybody can have a good job when we clearly do not have a demand for labor Stateside. I was thinking the welfare state would have to see us through this transition time and perhaps this is just what we have to do.
If I was a Franchisee, I'd fight that until my legs were bloody stumps. Then again, I'd never be a franchisee, as that shit is hard work and I'd end up smelling like mustard.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2013, 08:12:15 AM
If I was a Franchisee, I'd fight that until my legs were bloody stumps.
There's a joke in there somewhere.
Mmm mustard
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 07:59:19 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 24, 2013, 07:29:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
Where is it written that a job serving french fries ought to pay a salary that someone can live comfortably on?
The day those jobs became the only option.
Let me know when that happens and I will start worrying about it.
For a vast portion of the American work force it has become the only option.
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 07:58:52 AM
I've managed restaurants that paid at that scale. And it simply does not work in the manner described, and I had, that I can recall, very, very few employees who were using their near minimum wage job as any kind of actual career.
Instead I employed
1. Students - most of the labor force by far, probably 75%.
2. People for whom this job was a second job, working part time evenings to help make ends meet.
3. Retirees looking to supplement their retirement or simply bored (awesome employees, btw)
4. People who just need any job, and I know they won't stay long, or they will move to category 2 once they find a better job, or will move into management.
This is what people are missing. These jobs are not intended to be positions filled by people who live alone and have no other income, or who are heads of households. They're jobs for people, for example full-time students, who
want to work part time to pick up some extra spending money.
QuoteWhat is interesting about this debate is the basic problem I have with the liberal mindset. It never, ever stops. No matter what service or tax break or assistance is given, the moment it is established, they just then move the bar for another group that needs "help" from the gentle hand of the state. McJobs have been around forever, and yet never before was their this argument that minimum wage ought to provide a living salary for your typical adult American. What has changed about our society such that now minimum wage should actually be equal to median wage?
Are you sure?
Maybe it was mainly a British thing and didn't really get a look in over in the US (I doubt it...) but during the 19th century the exploitation of the work force was a pretty big deal and it let to a lot of reforms we now take for granted.
Hell, the very idea of a minimum wage stems from this sort of thinking
Quote from: dps on October 24, 2013, 08:29:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 07:58:52 AM
I've managed restaurants that paid at that scale. And it simply does not work in the manner described, and I had, that I can recall, very, very few employees who were using their near minimum wage job as any kind of actual career.
Instead I employed
1. Students - most of the labor force by far, probably 75%.
2. People for whom this job was a second job, working part time evenings to help make ends meet.
3. Retirees looking to supplement their retirement or simply bored (awesome employees, btw)
4. People who just need any job, and I know they won't stay long, or they will move to category 2 once they find a better job, or will move into management.
This is what people are missing. These jobs are not intended to be positions filled by people who live alone and have no other income, or who are heads of households. They're jobs for people, for example full-time students, who want to work part time to pick up some extra spending money.
And this fails to take in account the realignment that happen in the US job markets. You have no manufacturing jobs for those kind of workers anymore.
Quote from: dps on October 24, 2013, 08:29:06 AM
This is what people are missing. These jobs are not intended to be positions filled by people who live alone and have no other income, or who are heads of households. They're jobs for people, for example full-time students, who want to work part time to pick up some extra spending money.
I don't think people are missing that. However if that was, in fact, the vast majority of their workforce I do not think they would be recommending they go on foodstamps.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 24, 2013, 08:36:41 AM
And this fails to take in account the realignment that happen in the US job markets. You have no manufacturing jobs for those kind of workers anymore.
Well we have a few and they are coming back...of course they do not pay that much more than the McJobs. That kind of worries me a bit actually.
Quote from: dps on October 24, 2013, 08:29:06 AM
This is what people are missing. These jobs are not intended to be positions filled by people who live alone and have no other income, or who are heads of households. They're jobs for people, for example full-time students, who want to work part time to pick up some extra spending money.
That may fly in the suburbs, but there aren't too many full-time students who want to work part time to pick up some extra spending money at the McD's on North and Maryland in the 'hood.
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2013, 08:37:24 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 24, 2013, 08:36:41 AM
And this fails to take in account the realignment that happen in the US job markets. You have no manufacturing jobs for those kind of workers anymore.
Well we have a few and they are coming back...of course they do not pay that much more than the McJobs. That kind of worries me a bit actually.
This is not true, in my experience. Factory jobs are coming back, and they pay pretty damn well around here. Most start at $15/hour in this area.
Yeah, factory jobs tend to pay pretty well. They have to because the shifts and tedious work involved is so unpleasant.
Quote from: dps on October 24, 2013, 08:29:06 AM
This is what people are missing. These jobs are not intended to be positions filled by people who live alone and have no other income, or who are heads of households. They're jobs for people, for example full-time students, who want to work part time to pick up some extra spending money.
In an ideal world that's how things would be.
In the world we do live in howevever many people have no choice but to take on these jobs full time. Its a tough world, you can't choose what job to do, you have to take whatever you can get.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 08:39:37 AM
This is not true, in my experience. Factory jobs are coming back, and they pay pretty damn well around here. Most start at $15/hour in this area.
Well that is fantastic news. From what I have read they tend to be around $10.00. If we have manufacturing coming back in at sufficient rates at $15.00 an hour our problems would be over.
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2013, 08:41:15 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 08:39:37 AM
This is not true, in my experience. Factory jobs are coming back, and they pay pretty damn well around here. Most start at $15/hour in this area.
Well that is fantastic news. From what I have read they tend to be around $10.00.
Even that's far better than minimum wage. Two people earning that amount would be able to live together and raise a family. Not easily, but the bare necessities would be met.
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2013, 08:41:15 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 08:39:37 AM
This is not true, in my experience. Factory jobs are coming back, and they pay pretty damn well around here. Most start at $15/hour in this area.
Well that is fantastic news. From what I have read they tend to be around $10.00. If we have manufacturing coming back in at sufficient rates at $15.00 an hour our problems would be over.
Hell, US Steel is expanding in Lorain. OHIO NEEDS PIPES.
From my experience in manufacturing (limited though it may be) you have a few guys making ok money and a bunch of temps making fuck all.
US Steel needs to stop putting gates on their properties that have good off roading trails, they are making it a bit difficult to trespass.
$10 per hour is what I earned in the pottery studeo as an apprentice ... more than two decades ago. :(
Quote from: HVC on October 24, 2013, 08:45:48 AM
From my experience in manufacturing (limited though it may be) you have a few guys making ok money and a bunch of temps making fuck all.
Maybe that's it. Those that I know work for the companies outright. I don't know anyone who temps for them.
Quote from: Malthus on October 24, 2013, 08:47:44 AM
$10 per hour is what I earned in the pottery studeo as an apprentice ... more than two decades ago. :(
Jackson just got a promotion and raise at Einstein Bagels. As a shift manager working full-time hours, he makes $9.50/hour.
Quote from: Malthus on October 24, 2013, 08:47:44 AM
$10 per hour is what I earned in the pottery studeo as an apprentice ... more than two decades ago. :(
Yep. Got to love wage stagnation.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 08:49:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 24, 2013, 08:47:44 AM
$10 per hour is what I earned in the pottery studeo as an apprentice ... more than two decades ago. :(
Jackson just got a promotion and raise at Einstein Bagels. As a shift manager working full-time hours, he makes $9.50/hour.
it's all relative...
I'll get my coat
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 24, 2013, 08:47:00 AM
US Steel needs to stop putting gates on their properties that have good off roading trails, they are making it a bit difficult to trespass.
Huh, a property owner protecting its property. How dare they.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2013, 08:52:18 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 24, 2013, 08:47:00 AM
US Steel needs to stop putting gates on their properties that have good off roading trails, they are making it a bit difficult to trespass.
Huh, a property owner protecting its property. How dare they.
Yeap <_<
You might be as bad as hunters. :glare:
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 08:49:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 24, 2013, 08:47:44 AM
$10 per hour is what I earned in the pottery studeo as an apprentice ... more than two decades ago. :(
Jackson just got a promotion and raise at Einstein Bagels. As a shift manager working full-time hours, he makes $9.50/hour.
I just did the math. Because he doesn't pay for any insurance or other benefits, his take home is roughly the same as mine before my promotion. :blink: That's enough for one person to cover living expenses, food, and clothing, and have a little left over.
It's also $1.25/hr over the state of Illinois' minimum wage.
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2013, 08:10:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
A full time job flipping burgers at McDonalds doesn't pay enough to live an "average" lifestyle? No fucking shit! That is why you should aspire to a bit more.
Wow that is what you took away from that? It looked like McDonalds is abusing the tax payers to get away with paying their workers below market wages, to the point they are actually recommending that to employees. As in, people would not be working these jobs without the tax payers stepping in to make their wages livable. It is corporate welfare. But maybe this is not unexpected or necessarily a bad thing.
As to your last point our economy is a pretty dismal failure at providing sufficient employment above the McJobs level for all of the average and below average Joes and Janes. But we KNEW this was going to happen when we did the whole globalization thing. We knew that a short term consequence of this was going to be high unemployment as things evened out but in the end we would all benefit. But, sure enough, we have had huge increases in unemployment and wage stagnation, you know, like we thought. But this is hardly the workers fault, or that they should be 'aspiring for more', it is the predictable result of our policies. It seems weird to suggest everybody can have a good job when we clearly do not have a demand for labor Stateside. I was thinking the welfare state would have to see us through this transition time and perhaps this is just what we have to do.
But which is it - should the welfare state make up the difference, or should we just stomp on the labor market and have the state set wages?
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2013, 08:54:57 AM
You might be as bad as hunters. :glare:
Irresponsible off roaders are worst than poachers, I've seen trash and pure destruction you cannot imagine.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 24, 2013, 08:58:44 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2013, 08:54:57 AM
You might be as bad as hunters. :glare:
Irresponsible off roaders are worst than poachers, I've seen trash and pure destruction you cannot imagine.
They're also more responsible for medivacs. Lots of head and spine injuries doing Snake Canyon bullshit.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 24, 2013, 08:58:44 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2013, 08:54:57 AM
You might be as bad as hunters. :glare:
Irresponsible off roaders are worst than poachers, I've seen trash and pure destruction you cannot imagine.
Oh, I've seen the damage they've done.
I might let you on mah land Lusti. You seem like a good egg.
Quote from: Tyr on October 24, 2013, 08:40:23 AM
Yeah, factory jobs tend to pay pretty well. They have to because the shifts and tedious work involved is so unpleasant.
Quote from: dps on October 24, 2013, 08:29:06 AM
This is what people are missing. These jobs are not intended to be positions filled by people who live alone and have no other income, or who are heads of households. They're jobs for people, for example full-time students, who want to work part time to pick up some extra spending money.
In an ideal world that's how things would be.
In the world we do live in howevever many people have no choice but to take on these jobs full time. Its a tough world, you can't choose what job to do, you have to take whatever you can get.
I don't buy the argument that there has been such a shift, but even assuming it was true, how is the state defining that businesses pay people more than the market rate (potentially MUCH MUCH more) going to make things better? Has the state setting wages ever made it better? Can someone provide some actual arguments from actual economists stating that the state really should have a part in deciding how much private business pay private individuals at the macro level, and that this will HELP the problem of not enough median income jobs?
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2013, 09:00:44 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 24, 2013, 08:58:44 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2013, 08:54:57 AM
You might be as bad as hunters. :glare:
Irresponsible off roaders are worst than poachers, I've seen trash and pure destruction you cannot imagine.
Oh, I've seen the damage they've done.
I might let you on mah land Lusti. You seem like a good egg.
Be carefull, I may take you up on that. :)
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 08:58:12 AM
But which is it - should the welfare state make up the difference, or should we just stomp on the labor market and have the state set wages?
Well we sort of do both don't we? As I said it may just be what we need to do before the jobs have come back in sufficient numbers.
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2013, 09:05:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 08:58:12 AM
But which is it - should the welfare state make up the difference, or should we just stomp on the labor market and have the state set wages?
Well we sort of do both don't we? As I said it may just be what we need to do before the jobs have come back in sufficient numbers.
A good way to make sure jobs don't come back is to have the state step up and decide what everyone should be paid.
I would MUCH rather see that difference made up with the welfare state. At least then we don't have the fucking government trying to decide what everyone should make - that is classic liberal fucked up interference in the market that will inevitably backfire in the long run, just like all that kind of crap does, every single time.
"Everyone should be able to afford a college education! Lets give out grants and guaranteed loans to all! What can go wrong?" "Hey, how is it that average tuition costs are going up 10% a year every single year forever and ever? I don't understand!"
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 08:43:50 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2013, 08:41:15 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 08:39:37 AM
This is not true, in my experience. Factory jobs are coming back, and they pay pretty damn well around here. Most start at $15/hour in this area.
Well that is fantastic news. From what I have read they tend to be around $10.00.
Even that's far better than minimum wage. Two people earning that amount would be able to live together and raise a family. Not easily, but the bare necessities would be met.
You live in a crazy world tho. 10$ is minimum wage here.
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 09:08:59 AM
A good way to make sure jobs don't come back is to have the state step up and decide what everyone should be paid.
I would MUCH rather see that difference made up with the welfare state. At least then we don't have the fucking government trying to decide what everyone should make - that is classic liberal fucked up interference in the market that will inevitably backfire in the long run, just like all that kind of crap does, every single time.
"Everyone should be able to afford a college education! Lets give out grants and guaranteed loans to all! What can go wrong?" "Hey, how is it that average tuition costs are going up 10% a year every single year forever and ever? I don't understand!"
Except that there are plenty of people working to cut those welfare benefits.
Note: I am NOT against the basic idea that there is such a thing as a minimum wage.
I am very, VERY much opposed to the idea that what that wage ought to be should be driven by the idea that every single job in America ought to provide a living wage to anyone willing to do it 40 hours a week, and no more than 40 hours a week.
You have to work more than 40 hours/week (ie two jobs if one is only 40) to make a living wage? Tough shit. Most people who make living wages work more than 40 hours a week already - how is this a problem that the state needs to solve?
Because it's not 1716 anymore?
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 24, 2013, 09:12:38 AM
Because it's not 1716 anymore?
:hmm:
I'm sure most people work much longer hours now than they did in 1716.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 09:10:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 09:08:59 AM
A good way to make sure jobs don't come back is to have the state step up and decide what everyone should be paid.
I would MUCH rather see that difference made up with the welfare state. At least then we don't have the fucking government trying to decide what everyone should make - that is classic liberal fucked up interference in the market that will inevitably backfire in the long run, just like all that kind of crap does, every single time.
"Everyone should be able to afford a college education! Lets give out grants and guaranteed loans to all! What can go wrong?" "Hey, how is it that average tuition costs are going up 10% a year every single year forever and ever? I don't understand!"
Except that there are plenty of people working to cut those welfare benefits.
Then fight against them.
Raising the minimum wage is a terrible way to try to solve that problem.
The MINIMUM WAGE is the MINIMUM. The least. The very least. The smallest. The lowest. The crappiest, most lame ass jobs that cannot attract anyone except those who cannot do any better.
You can't just raise it only for those people who have decided that they want to raise a family working the fry machine at Wendy's, if you raise it you are raising it for everyone, and most people making minimum wage are not doing so as their career as a single earner.
If the only job you can get, and the very best you can do, is minimum wage, then the problem is not with the minimum wage, the problem is with you.
I absolutely reject the notion that this is a problem that the gentle hand of government needs to solve. In fact, to the extent that it is a problem, the government CANNOT solve it, and will only make things worse.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 24, 2013, 09:12:38 AM
Because it's not 1716 anymore?
We've had a minimum wage for a long time. That isn't even the question.
The more they try to fix things, the more they mess it up.
Quote from: Caliga on October 24, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 24, 2013, 09:12:38 AM
Because it's not 1716 anymore?
:hmm:
I'm sure most people work much longer hours now than they did in 1716.
It's random date.
Modern, western, society is based on a 8/8/8 daily split. You cannot just change that overnight.
If we are willing to simply ignore any kind of basic economic principles when it comes to setting things like minimum wage, and we are since this entire argument at no point ever once even raises any actual economic risks or costs associated with the claim (apparently there is zero downside to setting the minimum wage equal to some state defined "living wage" level) why not just set the minimum wage to a really decent living wage?
If you need to make $15/hour to not need any kind of assitance, and this is no risk, no cost, no reason not to just set this by fiat, why go with %15? Why not $20?
Hell, median household income in the US is something like $50k/year, and we all agree that the need for two workers in the family kind of sucks, so how about we set the minimum at $25/hour, so that one person working alone can make enough to match the median income, and their spouse won't even need to work?
There are no negatives to the state simply setting wages, so why not set them at a level we all know people really deserve, regardless of their capability, education, intelligence, drive, interest in working, availability, etc., etc.?
Or is there in fact some good reason to NOT set wages at $25/hour for everyone?
If so, why should we assume those reason don't apply for $20/hour, or $15/hour?
How about we actually make ECONOMIC argument for what minimum wage ought to be based on a rational evaluation of what a minimum wage job actually is, rather than bullshit metrics like "Hey, everyone should be able to make enough working 40 hours week at the lowest paying job anywhere to not need any kind of assistance and be able to live a reasonably comfortable life".
If the problem is that the lack of median income jobs means that there are people out there who would like to work a median income job who are forced instead to work minimum income jobs, then the solution is to create more median income jobs, not magically turn minimal income jobs into median income jobs by the state waving it's magic wand to just raise salaries, like that kind of direct intervention into the job market comes at no cost.
QuoteI don't buy the argument that there has been such a shift, but even assuming it was true, how is the state defining that businesses pay people more than the market rate (potentially MUCH MUCH more) going to make things better? Has the state setting wages ever made it better? Can someone provide some actual arguments from actual economists stating that the state really should have a part in deciding how much private business pay private individuals at the macro level, and that this will HELP the problem of not enough median income jobs?
It being good for the economy isn't particularly part of the argument as to why people should be paid a living wage. It's certainly nothing I mentioned in the post you quoted. The concerns are far more social and humanitarian.
However there probably is a good argument to be made that it could be good for the economy too, more people spending, more people dragged out of living situations liable to lead into crime, etc... But that's a digression. I'm not going to go out and do your research for you.
The problem is that rich folks like yourself just don't understand how things are for people on the bottom rungs. Its not as simple as "If you don't like the pay at your job then go work somewhere else", people have to take what they can get, in today's world it is often pretty damn difficult to even get a full time minimum wage shop-job; zero hours contracts are a increasingly big issue.
The corporations make millions on the backs of these people who can't even afford to live a normal life, who can't afford to try and get themselves out of a minimum wage job. Given there's plenty of people who want the jobs if we left it up to companies to decide market rate then people would be absolutely screwed over. It is thoroughly immoral to let them do this, a minimum needs to be set.
QuoteIf the problem is that the lack of median income jobs means that there are people out there who would like to work a median income job who are forced instead to work minimum income jobs, then the solution is to create more median income jobs, not magically turn minimal income jobs into median income jobs by the state waving it's magic wand to just raise salaries, like that kind of direct intervention into the job market comes at no cost.
And you think the state and left wingers wouldn't want to wave your magic wand and suddenly make a bunch of decent median income jobs?
The world is what it is, you have to work with the shit you're given.
Quote from: Tyr
The problem is that rich folks like yourself just don't understand how things are for people on the bottom rungs.
Your right, I have no ability to understand what it is like for people on the "bottom rungs". I am one of 5 kids, two older brothers who are lifetime career drug addicts and criminals, a mother who is a drug addict, and at no point in my childhood did my father ever make more than $20k a year trying to raise a family of seven people with a mother who spent most of her time beating the shit out of her kids rather than working.I have no fucking clue what it is like to work a minimum wage job, even though I got my first minimum wage job at the age of 14 by lying about my age so I could work.
You don't have any idea what I do or do not understand. I suspect I understand much better than you do, in fact.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 24, 2013, 09:24:43 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 24, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 24, 2013, 09:12:38 AM
Because it's not 1716 anymore?
:hmm:
I'm sure most people work much longer hours now than they did in 1716.
It's random date.
Modern, western, society is based on a 8/8/8 daily split.
:hmm:
Quote from: Tyr on October 24, 2013, 09:29:42 AM
And you think the state and left wingers wouldn't want to wave your magic wand and suddenly make a bunch of decent median income jobs?
The world is what it is, you have to work with the shit you're given.
I think everyone would like to do so, but it is no more an actual solution than waving the magic wand and trying to turn minimum wage jobs into median income jobs.
Like I said in the rest of the post you simply cut out, it would sure be nice if every job everywhere paid $15/hour. It would be more nice if they paid $20 though, and even better if they all paid $25. If we are going to define the wages based on what we wish to be true, why stop at $15?
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 09:08:59 AM
A good way to make sure jobs don't come back is to have the state step up and decide what everyone should be paid.
I meant the welfare state part.
QuoteI would MUCH rather see that difference made up with the welfare state. At least then we don't have the fucking government trying to decide what everyone should make - that is classic liberal fucked up interference in the market that will inevitably backfire in the long run, just like all that kind of crap does, every single time.
"Everyone should be able to afford a college education! Lets give out grants and guaranteed loans to all! What can go wrong?" "Hey, how is it that average tuition costs are going up 10% a year every single year forever and ever? I don't understand!"
If I wanted set wages I would probably not have been for the free-trade globalization stuff :P
All I was saying is that McDonalds (and similar paying jobs) may be the best a significant part of the work force can get right now. So hammering them for not aspiring to more was my primary gripe. I mean it was policies that we supported that are were going to do this in the short term. Probably is a necessary evil that we have these people on welfare right now.
What I am vastly more concerned about in the meta economy that we are experiencing is this:
The basis of the welfrare state is increased productivity. This is clear from history - as we produce more, we allocate some of that additional production to social services.
200 years ago nobody ever considered that perhaps old people should get a stipend from the government, now it is standard. 100 years ago nobody would contemplate the idea that health care is anything other than something that people who can afford it are entitled to, and the poor had poor healthcare. Etc., etc. I think this is a pretty fundamental truth, and is the primary reason why I am no longer much of a economic conservative, much less a libertarian. Not because I believe that socialism is the best way to go, but rather I believe that human society has made it clear that it is the way we have decided to go, and hence arguments about how we ought to do otherwise are not that interesting to me anymore.
But the problem I see right now is that the system to distribute increased productivity has broken down for some reason.
Using simply numbers, in the last couple decades if we increased the amount we produce per capita from a base level of 100 to, say, 150, it seems like all of that extra 50 "stuff" ought to be distributed throughout society, and some portion of it would (just like as has always happened) go towards expanding the scope of the welfare state in some fashion.
But instead, 49 our of the 50 appears to have gone towards making the very richest a lot richer, and there is nothing left for anyone not in the 1% of the wealthiest, much less any to allocate to increase social scope.
Ideally, one would think that out of our 50 units of increased productivity, we would be spread (say) 35 of it across all income levels, and we would "agree" that 15 would go towards expanding social services into areas that were previously not considered, like healthcare or education or even just straight out welfare payments to the poor.
THAT is the problem, the fundamental problem. Raising the minimum wage does absolutely NOTHING to address it, and in fact would likely make the entire mess worse, not better.
It is treating the symptom of a symptom of a symptom.
The funny thing about where I've ended up politically, is that I think I am pretty much a socialist.
I support the basic idea that humans have, and will continue, to allocate resources towards the social assistance of humans as a group, rather than the individual concept that people ought to just get what they can out of the system.
The difference I have with what I see out of most of the left though is that I think we should base what level of social spending we want to engage in on the principles of what we can actually afford, what actually works, and what reasoned and careful *economic* evaluation of the factors involved will allow.
Whereas most of the left seems to want to base what we should do on purely emotive rationalization. People should be able to make a living wage, therefore lets just raise the minimum wage! Wallah! People should get healthcare, therefore we should provide it to them, and who cares if we can actually afford to do so. People should be able to go to college, so lets just dump billions into the system so they can, and then act SHOCKED! SHOCKED I SAY when the entire thing backfires and college costs simply increase to absorb that money, as an competent economist would tell you is going to happen.
I guess it isn't really a solvable problem though, it is just how the human system works.
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 10:12:42 AM
What I am vastly more concerned about in the meta economy that we are experiencing is this:
The basis of the welfrare state is increased productivity. This is clear from history - as we produce more, we allocate some of that additional production to social services.
200 years ago nobody ever considered that perhaps old people should get a stipend from the government, now it is standard. 100 years ago nobody would contemplate the idea that health care is anything other than something that people who can afford it are entitled to, and the poor had poor healthcare. Etc., etc. I think this is a pretty fundamental truth, and is the primary reason why I am no longer much of a economic conservative, much less a libertarian. Not because I believe that socialism is the best way to go, but rather I believe that human society has made it clear that it is the way we have decided to go, and hence arguments about how we ought to do otherwise are not that interesting to me anymore.
But the problem I see right now is that the system to distribute increased productivity has broken down for some reason.
Using simply numbers, in the last couple decades if we increased the amount we produce per capita from a base level of 100 to, say, 150, it seems like all of that extra 50 "stuff" ought to be distributed throughout society, and some portion of it would (just like as has always happened) go towards expanding the scope of the welfare state in some fashion.
But instead, 49 our of the 50 appears to have gone towards making the very richest a lot richer, and there is nothing left for anyone not in the 1% of the wealthiest, much less any to allocate to increase social scope.
Ideally, one would think that out of our 50 units of increased productivity, we would be spread (say) 35 of it across all income levels, and we would "agree" that 15 would go towards expanding social services into areas that were previously not considered, like healthcare or education or even just straight out welfare payments to the poor.
THAT is the problem, the fundamental problem. Raising the minimum wage does absolutely NOTHING to address it, and in fact would likely make the entire mess worse, not better.
It is treating the symptom of a symptom of a symptom.
What would, in your opinion, address it?
I don't know.
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 10:12:42 AM
What I am vastly more concerned about in the meta economy that we are experiencing is this:
The basis of the welfrare state is increased productivity. This is clear from history - as we produce more, we allocate some of that additional production to social services.
200 years ago nobody ever considered that perhaps old people should get a stipend from the government, now it is standard. 100 years ago nobody would contemplate the idea that health care is anything other than something that people who can afford it are entitled to, and the poor had poor healthcare. Etc., etc. I think this is a pretty fundamental truth, and is the primary reason why I am no longer much of a economic conservative, much less a libertarian. Not because I believe that socialism is the best way to go, but rather I believe that human society has made it clear that it is the way we have decided to go, and hence arguments about how we ought to do otherwise are not that interesting to me anymore.
But the problem I see right now is that the system to distribute increased productivity has broken down for some reason.
Using simply numbers, in the last couple decades if we increased the amount we produce per capita from a base level of 100 to, say, 150, it seems like all of that extra 50 "stuff" ought to be distributed throughout society, and some portion of it would (just like as has always happened) go towards expanding the scope of the welfare state in some fashion.
But instead, 49 our of the 50 appears to have gone towards making the very richest a lot richer, and there is nothing left for anyone not in the 1% of the wealthiest, much less any to allocate to increase social scope.
Ideally, one would think that out of our 50 units of increased productivity, we would be spread (say) 35 of it across all income levels, and we would "agree" that 15 would go towards expanding social services into areas that were previously not considered, like healthcare or education or even just straight out welfare payments to the poor.
THAT is the problem, the fundamental problem. Raising the minimum wage does absolutely NOTHING to address it, and in fact would likely make the entire mess worse, not better.
It is treating the symptom of a symptom of a symptom.
I think raising the minimum wage is a way to address that disparity by making them reduce their profits margins to raise workers wages.
But you know, shareholder value above all else.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 24, 2013, 10:23:27 AM
But you know, shareholder value above all else.
No, cheap McD breakfast for me above all else. And fries. ;)
I think Berkut has a point here. The solution isn't an increase in minimum wage. It's a confiscatory taxation scheme to allow the government to create more middle income jobs.
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 10:17:55 AM
The funny thing about where I've ended up politically, is that I think I am pretty much a socialist.
I support the basic idea that humans have, and will continue, to allocate resources towards the social assistance of humans as a group, rather than the individual concept that people ought to just get what they can out of the system.
The difference I have with what I see out of most of the left though is that I think we should base what level of social spending we want to engage in on the principles of what we can actually afford, what actually works, and what reasoned and careful *economic* evaluation of the factors involved will allow.
Whereas most of the left seems to want to base what we should do on purely emotive rationalization. People should be able to make a living wage, therefore lets just raise the minimum wage! Wallah! People should get healthcare, therefore we should provide it to them, and who cares if we can actually afford to do so. People should be able to go to college, so lets just dump billions into the system so they can, and then act SHOCKED! SHOCKED I SAY when the entire thing backfires and college costs simply increase to absorb that money, as an competent economist would tell you is going to happen.
I guess it isn't really a solvable problem though, it is just how the human system works.
Most people are not economists. They
know something is wrong when weathly corporations earn a tiny percentage of the wealthy vast profits while paying their employees a wage not sufficient to actually live on - particularly when such jobs are the only ones available to an increasing percentage of people - but they have no real clue what is best to be done about it.
Unfortunately, from what I've seen, the economists aren't too clear on what the solution is, either. In that situation, it isn't surprising that people reach for simple solutions to complex problems - as offering no solution is essentially agreeing to continue the present trajectory.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 24, 2013, 10:23:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 10:12:42 AM
What I am vastly more concerned about in the meta economy that we are experiencing is this:
The basis of the welfrare state is increased productivity. This is clear from history - as we produce more, we allocate some of that additional production to social services.
200 years ago nobody ever considered that perhaps old people should get a stipend from the government, now it is standard. 100 years ago nobody would contemplate the idea that health care is anything other than something that people who can afford it are entitled to, and the poor had poor healthcare. Etc., etc. I think this is a pretty fundamental truth, and is the primary reason why I am no longer much of a economic conservative, much less a libertarian. Not because I believe that socialism is the best way to go, but rather I believe that human society has made it clear that it is the way we have decided to go, and hence arguments about how we ought to do otherwise are not that interesting to me anymore.
But the problem I see right now is that the system to distribute increased productivity has broken down for some reason.
Using simply numbers, in the last couple decades if we increased the amount we produce per capita from a base level of 100 to, say, 150, it seems like all of that extra 50 "stuff" ought to be distributed throughout society, and some portion of it would (just like as has always happened) go towards expanding the scope of the welfare state in some fashion.
But instead, 49 our of the 50 appears to have gone towards making the very richest a lot richer, and there is nothing left for anyone not in the 1% of the wealthiest, much less any to allocate to increase social scope.
Ideally, one would think that out of our 50 units of increased productivity, we would be spread (say) 35 of it across all income levels, and we would "agree" that 15 would go towards expanding social services into areas that were previously not considered, like healthcare or education or even just straight out welfare payments to the poor.
THAT is the problem, the fundamental problem. Raising the minimum wage does absolutely NOTHING to address it, and in fact would likely make the entire mess worse, not better.
It is treating the symptom of a symptom of a symptom.
I think raising the minimum wage is a way to address that disparity by making them reduce their profits margins to raise workers wages.
But you know, shareholder value above all else.
It only addresses it for those who happen to own businesses that employ people who make minimum wage though. I don't think the 1% are going to be impacted one bit, and this doesn't address the core problem at all.
The uber rich are not getting more uber rich because they don't pay the lowest level wage earners more - that has been true all along, and if anything minimum wages have been steadily increasing while the uber rich get uber richer.
And my objections to raising minimum wage have zero to do with concern about shareholder value. I could not care less about that.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 24, 2013, 10:23:27 AM
I think raising the minimum wage is a way to address that disparity by making them reduce their profits margins to raise workers wages.
And it does do that to some degree. Higher minimum wages do seem to improve quality of life for the working poor, but after a point it becomes counterproductive.
I'd be all for capping maximum wage. Is that an option? :D
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 10:42:33 AM
I'd be all for capping maximum wage. Is that an option? :D
The people at the high end don't earn a "wage", or if they do, it's a small part of their compensation ... ;)
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 10:42:33 AM
I'd be all for capping maximum wage. Is that an option? :D
:rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2013, 10:54:44 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 10:42:33 AM
I'd be all for capping maximum wage. Is that an option? :D
:rolleyes:
We've ahd something pretty close to that in the past, haven't we?
Didn't the US at one point have a 90% marginal tax rate at the upper end or something like that?
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 11:09:22 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2013, 10:54:44 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 10:42:33 AM
I'd be all for capping maximum wage. Is that an option? :D
:rolleyes:
We've ahd something pretty close to that in the past, haven't we?
Didn't the US at one point have a 90% marginal tax rate at the upper end or something like that?
Yep. Did wonders for productivity.
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2013, 11:10:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2013, 11:09:22 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2013, 10:54:44 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 10:42:33 AM
I'd be all for capping maximum wage. Is that an option? :D
:rolleyes:
We've ahd something pretty close to that in the past, haven't we?
Didn't the US at one point have a 90% marginal tax rate at the upper end or something like that?
Yep. Did wonders for productivity.
I take it that you just spewed off an ideological talking point, and not checked with statistical resources like BLS?
Whatever languish decides is the way to fix this, don't mess with the McD fries, thank you.
Quote from: Malthus on October 24, 2013, 10:44:14 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 10:42:33 AM
I'd be all for capping maximum wage. Is that an option? :D
The people at the high end don't earn a "wage", or if they do, it's a small part of their compensation ... ;)
I meant by having a massive tax on income. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2013, 08:10:48 AM
Wow that is what you took away from that? It looked like McDonalds is abusing the tax payers to get away with paying their workers below market wages, to the point they are actually recommending that to employees. As in, people would not be working these jobs without the tax payers stepping in to make their wages livable. It is corporate welfare. But maybe this is not unexpected or necessarily a bad thing.
I don't think you understand what "market wages" are, if you are arguing that the market causes wages to be "below market wages."
I see that you are actually arguing that welfare, food stamps, and the like distort the job market, but surely this isn't news, and isn't "corporate welfare."
QuoteAs to your last point our economy is a pretty dismal failure at providing sufficient employment above the McJobs level for all of the average and below average Joes and Janes. But we KNEW this was going to happen when we did the whole globalization thing. We knew that a short term consequence of this was going to be high unemployment as things evened out but in the end we would all benefit. But, sure enough, we have had huge increases in unemployment and wage stagnation, you know, like we thought. But this is hardly the workers fault, or that they should be 'aspiring for more', it is the predictable result of our policies. It seems weird to suggest everybody can have a good job when we clearly do not have a demand for labor Stateside. I was thinking the welfare state would have to see us through this transition time and perhaps this is just what we have to do.
Globalization isn't something a country decides to "do." It is the outcome of a long historical process of decreasing transportation costs. One could opt out of the free trade system and perhaps ameliorate the effects of globalization, but that still wouldn't create living-wage jobs in one's country, it would simply increase the cost of everything except labor, and thus depress living standards while increasing employment (hello, USSR!).
Ooooh, demonstrate your mastery of law with your next post, then explain how you are the only one who understands physics after that!
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 11:16:41 AM
I take it that you just spewed off an ideological talking point, and not checked with statistical resources like BLS?
:nerd:
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2013, 11:48:19 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 11:16:41 AM
I take it that you just spewed off an ideological talking point, and not checked with statistical resources like BLS?
:nerd:
That was a rhetorical question. I never expect you to be either willing or able to fact-check anything you shit out.
I don't know about America, maybe Socialism is swell there, but in Sweden if you didn't bother to get enough skills to negotiate a wage you can live comfortably on then you're simply a lazy bum.
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 12:01:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2013, 11:48:19 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 11:16:41 AM
I take it that you just spewed off an ideological talking point, and not checked with statistical resources like BLS?
:nerd:
That was a rhetorical question. I never expect you to be either willing or able to fact-check anything you shit out.
Of course, since there are a million graphs out there that track minimum wage increases vs. productivity, would have taken him two seconds googling even if one had to be skeptical about provenance of some of the charts.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 12:15:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 12:01:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2013, 11:48:19 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 11:16:41 AM
I take it that you just spewed off an ideological talking point, and not checked with statistical resources like BLS?
:nerd:
That was a rhetorical question. I never expect you to be either willing or able to fact-check anything you shit out.
Of course, since there are a million graphs out there that track minimum wage increases vs. productivity, would have taken him two seconds googling even if one had to be skeptical about provenance of some of the charts.
Yes, but it wouldn't do him any good.
An important point that has been made already in this thread is that with Socialists it will never ever be enough. No matter how many billions you pour on the failures of society Socialists will always call for more more more! So you may as well give nothing and save your money, cause the whining will be there no matter how much you waste.
Interesting article from CEPR (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/the-minimum-wage-and-economic-growth) on the topic.
QuoteThe Minimum Wage and Economic Growth
Written by Dean Baker and Will Kimball
Tuesday, 12 February 2013 22:26
In his State of the Union address to Congress President Obama called for a higher minimum wage. The purchasing power of the minimum wage peaked in the late 1960s at $9.22 an hour in 2012 dollars. That is almost two dollars above the current level of $7.25 an hour. Most of the efforts to raise the minimum wage focus on restoring its purchasing power to its late 1960s level, setting a target of around $10 an hour for 2015 or 2016, when inflation will have brought this sum closer to its previous peak in 2012 dollars.
While this increase would lead to a large improvement in living standards for millions of workers who are currently paid at or near the minimum wage, it is worth asking a slightly different question. Suppose the minimum wage had kept in step with productivity growth over the last 44 years. In other words, rather than just keeping purchasing power constant at the 1969 level, suppose that our lowest paid workers shared evenly in the economic growth over the intervening years.
This should not seem like a far-fetched idea. In the years from 1947 to 1969 the minimum wage actually did keep pace with productivity growth. (This is probably also true for the decade from when the federal minimum wage was first established in 1937 to 1947, but we don't have good data on productivity for this period.)
As the graph below shows, the minimum wage generally was increased in step with productivity over these years. This led to 170 percent increase in the real value of the minimum wage over the years from 1948 to 1968. If this pattern of wage increases for those at the bottom was supposed to stifle growth, the economy didn't get the message. Growth averaged 4.0 percent annually from 1947 to 1969 and the unemployment rate for the year 1969 averaged less than 4.0 percent.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cepr.net%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fblogs%2Fbaker-2013-02-12.jpg&hash=b9e192dde8e468370077410b53bea14506b1bf5a)
This link between productivity and the minimum wage ended with the 1970s. During that decade the minimum wage roughly kept pace with inflation, meaning that its purchasing power changed little over the course of the decade. The real value of the minimum then fell sharply in the 1980s as we went most of the decade without any increase in the nominal value of the wage, allowing it to be eroded by inflation. Since the early 1990s the real value of the minimum wage has roughly stayed constant, which means that it has further fallen behind productivity growth.
How was it decided to break the link between productivity growth and the minimum wage? It is not as though we had a major national debate and it was decided that low-wage workers did not deserve to share in the benefits of economic growth. This was a major policy shift that was put in place with little, if any, public debate.
If the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity growth it would be $16.54 in 2012 dollars. It is important to note that this is a very conservative measure of productivity growth. Rather than taking the conventional data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the non-farm business sector, it uses the broader measure for economy-wide productivity.[1] This lowers average growth by 0.2-0.3 percentage points.
This measure also includes an adjustment for net rather than gross output. It also uses a CPI deflator rather than a GDP deflator, which further lowers the measure of productivity growth.[2] Even with making these adjustments the $16.54 minimum wage would exceed the hourly wage of more than 40 percent of men and more than 50 percent of women . We would have a very different society if all workers were earning a wage above this productivity linked minimum wage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] If we just used non-farm productivity as the basis for indexing the minimum wage, the most commonly used measure of productivity, the minimum wage would have been $21.75 in 2012 [http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/new-cepr-issue-brief-shows-minimum-wage-has-room-to-grow].
[2] These adjustments are explained in Baker, 2007. For the years since 2006 we assumed that the difference in the growth rate of non-farm productivity and the growth of this adjusted measure is the same as it was on average for the years 2000-2006.
I'm not sure I agree that minimum wage should increase with increase productivity. I mean isn't part of that because many tasks have been getting easier to do?
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 12:15:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 12:01:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2013, 11:48:19 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 11:16:41 AM
I take it that you just spewed off an ideological talking point, and not checked with statistical resources like BLS?
:nerd:
That was a rhetorical question. I never expect you to be either willing or able to fact-check anything you shit out.
Of course, since there are a million graphs out there that track minimum wage increases vs. productivity, would have taken him two seconds googling even if one had to be skeptical about provenance of some of the charts.
Which is not even what I was talking about.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 12:46:24 PM
I'm not sure I agree that minimum wage should increase with increase productivity. I mean isn't part of that because many tasks have been getting easier to do?
What do you mean by "easier"? Physically? Mentally?
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 12:46:24 PM
I'm not sure I agree that minimum wage should increase with increase productivity. I mean isn't part of that because many tasks have been getting easier to do?
You shouldn't get paid more because you produce more?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 01:00:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 12:46:24 PM
I'm not sure I agree that minimum wage should increase with increase productivity. I mean isn't part of that because many tasks have been getting easier to do?
You shouldn't get paid more because you produce more?
No, not strictly. I mean I'm coming at this from someone on salary and producing more doesn't change my pay - apart from if I've produced enough of higher quality that then gets me a raise/promotion.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:20:24 PM
No, not strictly. I mean I'm coming at this from someone on salary and producing more doesn't change my pay - apart from if I've produced enough of higher quality that then gets me a raise/promotion.
But if your company increases production, you would hope to share in that increase, yes?
Supply and demand decides my pay. If I want to share the success of the company I can buy shares.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 12:58:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 12:46:24 PM
I'm not sure I agree that minimum wage should increase with increase productivity. I mean isn't part of that because many tasks have been getting easier to do?
What do you mean by "easier"? Physically? Mentally?
I was primarily thinking mentally / time to complete those sorts of tasks as brought upon by the computer revolution.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:22:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:20:24 PM
No, not strictly. I mean I'm coming at this from someone on salary and producing more doesn't change my pay - apart from if I've produced enough of higher quality that then gets me a raise/promotion.
But if your company increases production, you would hope to share in that increase, yes?
Perhaps if I worked at a small co or a startup. I don't expect anything like that working in a corporation. Besides if the increase was due to them investing in infrastructure (better, faster computers, networks, etc.) why would they want to pay me more?
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:23:52 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 12:58:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 12:46:24 PM
I'm not sure I agree that minimum wage should increase with increase productivity. I mean isn't part of that because many tasks have been getting easier to do?
What do you mean by "easier"? Physically? Mentally?
I was primarily thinking mentally / time to complete those sorts of tasks as brought upon by the computer revolution.
I wondered if that's what you meant. It can be argued that computers have actually made jobs that were done by manual laborers much more difficult. They now require rudimentary computer knowledge, a minimum of reading skills, etc.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:25:24 PM
Perhaps if I worked at a small co or a startup. I don't expect anything like that working in a corporation. Besides if the increase was due to them investing in infrastructure (better, faster computers, networks, etc.) why would they want to pay me more?
We're not talking over a year or two, here. We're talking about a trend that's gone back 50 years. If your company was seeing a regular increase in production - and it generally follows that includes more money in their coffers - but you received no raise at all over that time, it would probably be a problem for you.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:20:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 01:00:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 12:46:24 PM
I'm not sure I agree that minimum wage should increase with increase productivity. I mean isn't part of that because many tasks have been getting easier to do?
You shouldn't get paid more because you produce more?
No, not strictly. I mean I'm coming at this from someone on salary and producing more doesn't change my pay - apart from if I've produced enough of higher quality that then gets me a raise/promotion.
Sounds like s disincentive to being more productive. I wonder how much productivity has been pushed by fear. Employers threatening their employees that if they don't "do less with more", they'll be out of a job.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:29:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:25:24 PM
Perhaps if I worked at a small co or a startup. I don't expect anything like that working in a corporation. Besides if the increase was due to them investing in infrastructure (better, faster computers, networks, etc.) why would they want to pay me more?
We're not talking over a year or two, here. We're talking about a trend that's gone back 50 years. If your company was seeing a regular increase in production - and it generally follows that includes more money in their coffers - but you received no raise at all over that time, it would probably be a problem for you.
Well sure, that's why I wouldn't stay for life at one company. :)
Besides, if I was working a minimum wage job and never managed to get to a position or job where I could make more than minimum wage, I'd fear that the problem was me.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:20:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 01:00:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 12:46:24 PM
I'm not sure I agree that minimum wage should increase with increase productivity. I mean isn't part of that because many tasks have been getting easier to do?
You shouldn't get paid more because you produce more?
No, not strictly. I mean I'm coming at this from someone on salary and producing more doesn't change my pay - apart from if I've produced enough of higher quality that then gets me a raise/promotion.
Sounds like s disincentive to being more productive.
Agreed when they are stingy on the wage front. Not agreed that just because the company makes more that I should automatically make more. Then you would have to happily accept that if the company makes less or sees slow growth (which many end up doing at times) then my wages should follow that too - even though I'm kicking ass.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 01:30:24 PMI wonder how much productivity has been pushed by fear. Employers threatening their employees that if they don't "do less with more", they'll be out of a job.
I'm not quite sure what you mean as I'm not sure what the doing less bit is hear. I thought we were saying employees were doing more?
What kind of freak would accept a pay cut if the company was doing poorly? You just eject.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:27:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:23:52 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 12:58:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 12:46:24 PM
I'm not sure I agree that minimum wage should increase with increase productivity. I mean isn't part of that because many tasks have been getting easier to do?
What do you mean by "easier"? Physically? Mentally?
I was primarily thinking mentally / time to complete those sorts of tasks as brought upon by the computer revolution.
I wondered if that's what you meant. It can be argued that computers have actually made jobs that were done by manual laborers much more difficult. They now require rudimentary computer knowledge, a minimum of reading skills, etc.
I don't know. I mean if you were a cashier (let's say) and you were bad at math, did a computer make that more difficult?
Quote from: The Brain on October 24, 2013, 01:36:10 PM
What kind of freak would accept a pay cut if the company was doing poorly? You just eject.
Yep.
I was raised to be a cashier, a great cashier.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:20:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 01:00:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 12:46:24 PM
I'm not sure I agree that minimum wage should increase with increase productivity. I mean isn't part of that because many tasks have been getting easier to do?
You shouldn't get paid more because you produce more?
No, not strictly. I mean I'm coming at this from someone on salary and producing more doesn't change my pay - apart from if I've produced enough of higher quality that then gets me a raise/promotion.
Sounds like s disincentive to being more productive.
Agreed when they are stingy on the wage front. Not agreed that just because the company makes more that I should automatically make more. Then you would have to happily accept that if the company makes less or sees slow growth (which many end up doing at times) then my wages should follow that too - even though I'm kicking ass.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 01:30:24 PMI wonder how much productivity has been pushed by fear. Employers threatening their employees that if they don't "do less with more", they'll be out of a job.
I'm not quite sure what you mean as I'm not sure what the doing less bit is hear. I thought we were saying employees were doing more?
I got that last part backwards. Do more with less.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:36:22 PM
I don't know. I mean if you were a cashier (let's say) and you were bad at math, did a computer make that more difficult?
Yes. One doesn't have to be good at math to be good at giving change back. That's what counting back change is for; so you don't have to do math. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 01:39:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:20:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 01:00:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 12:46:24 PM
I'm not sure I agree that minimum wage should increase with increase productivity. I mean isn't part of that because many tasks have been getting easier to do?
You shouldn't get paid more because you produce more?
No, not strictly. I mean I'm coming at this from someone on salary and producing more doesn't change my pay - apart from if I've produced enough of higher quality that then gets me a raise/promotion.
Sounds like s disincentive to being more productive.
Agreed when they are stingy on the wage front. Not agreed that just because the company makes more that I should automatically make more. Then you would have to happily accept that if the company makes less or sees slow growth (which many end up doing at times) then my wages should follow that too - even though I'm kicking ass.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 01:30:24 PMI wonder how much productivity has been pushed by fear. Employers threatening their employees that if they don't "do less with more", they'll be out of a job.
I'm not quite sure what you mean as I'm not sure what the doing less bit is hear. I thought we were saying employees were doing more?
I got that last part backwards. Do more with less.
Ah, maybe. My first boss tried to pull that one on me when I was working 90-100 hour weeks but being compensated for 40-50. I was young and naive. -_-
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:36:22 PM
I don't know. I mean if you were a cashier (let's say) and you were bad at math, did a computer make that more difficult?
Yes. One doesn't have to be good at math to be good at giving change back. That's what counting back change is for; so you don't have to do math. ;)
I didn't realize counting wasn't a part of math... So how did the computer make it more difficult when it tells them exactly what to give back?
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:27:26 PM
I wondered if that's what you meant. It can be argued that computers have actually made jobs that were done by manual laborers much more difficult. They now require rudimentary computer knowledge, a minimum of reading skills, etc.
When this happens, jobs move from being minimum-wage jobs to being more-than-minimum-wage jobs, because employers have to be more picky and are willing to pay a premium for retention.
I suspect that this is seldom the case, however, in the fast-food business, where computers are designed to be operated by people with minimal English language skills.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:33:22 PM
Well sure, that's why I wouldn't stay for life at one company. :)
Besides, if I was working a minimum wage job and never managed to get to a position or job where I could make more than minimum wage, I'd fear that the problem was me.
That's fine, but we're not talking about you, in particular. We're talking about people who do not have the option of just jumping ship or finding a new job that pays more. The minimum wage is The Pay that they will get no matter what company they go to if they stay in the same industry, ie fast food. And it may well be that the problem is them.
The point is that as a society, it is in our best interest to make life sustainable for these people at the bottom rung because it makes our society a better place to be. Historically speaking, minimum wages were a way to help them get the bare minimum necessary to survive. That's no long an option. Something changed in the 1970s that shifted what "minimum" was supposed to do, and for whom. It worked well for, what? 30-40 years to keep these people's heads above water so long as they had a job, any job. Now, that's not the case.
I don't know what changed, or why. Nor do I know that raising minimum wage back to the same levels will have the desired affect. It just seems rather odd to completely disregard how well it worked before by saying that we can't go back, without looking at why it worked before and what's changed since.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:44:32 PM
I didn't realize counting wasn't a part of math... So how did the computer make it more difficult when it tells them exactly what to give back?
You have to learn how the computer works. A register isn't just a big calculator.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:29:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:25:24 PM
Perhaps if I worked at a small co or a startup. I don't expect anything like that working in a corporation. Besides if the increase was due to them investing in infrastructure (better, faster computers, networks, etc.) why would they want to pay me more?
We're not talking over a year or two, here. We're talking about a trend that's gone back 50 years. If your company was seeing a regular increase in production - and it generally follows that includes more money in their coffers - but you received no raise at all over that time, it would probably be a problem for you.
but those increases are due to capital investments, not more efficient works. So companies are already paying more for increased production in that they're buying better machines.
Quote from: grumbler on October 24, 2013, 01:46:58 PM
When this happens, jobs move from being minimum-wage jobs to being more-than-minimum-wage jobs, because employers have to be more picky and are willing to pay a premium for retention.
I suspect that this is seldom the case, however, in the fast-food business, where computers are designed to be operated by people with minimal English language skills.
The register that I worked on at Hardee's in college was not a simple tool. It took quite a bit of time to learn how to work it, what to do if you made a mistake, how to make changes to menu items, etc. They may be designed to be more simple than the software that I use today, but they are not simple tools.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:50:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:44:32 PM
I didn't realize counting wasn't a part of math... So how did the computer make it more difficult when it tells them exactly what to give back?
You have to learn how to computer works. A register isn't just a big calculator.
I'm going to differ to what grumbler said. I don't think those ones are super complex to learn because if they were, no one would be taking those crummy McJobs and/or they would have to increase pay to get people who could handle it.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:52:48 PM
I'm going to differ to what grumbler said. I don't think those ones are super complex to learn because if they were, no one would be taking those crummy McJobs and/or they would have to increase pay to get people who could handle it.
They're more complex than the simple ring-up registers of the 1960s and 1970s. That was my point.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:52:10 PM
The register that I worked on at Hardee's in college was not a simple tool. It took quite a bit of time to learn how to work it, what to do if you made a mistake, how to make changes to menu items, etc. They may be designed to be more simple than the software that I use today, but they are not simple tools.
The register I see when I go into a fast food place is quite a simple machine, with just pictures on it for the food choices, and an automatic change dispenser. It is possible that such a thing wasn't possible back when you were in college, but then cashiers haven't always been minimum-wage workers, either.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:48:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:33:22 PM
Well sure, that's why I wouldn't stay for life at one company. :)
Besides, if I was working a minimum wage job and never managed to get to a position or job where I could make more than minimum wage, I'd fear that the problem was me.
That's fine, but we're not talking about you, in particular.
Then garbon does not understand the question, and won't respond to it.
Though I'll point out to Meri et al that POS systems are in fact extremely simple applications.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2013, 08:59:42 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 24, 2013, 08:58:44 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2013, 08:54:57 AM
You might be as bad as hunters. :glare:
Irresponsible off roaders are worst than poachers, I've seen trash and pure destruction you cannot imagine.
They're also more responsible for medivacs. Lots of head and spine injuries doing Snake Canyon bullshit.
So those are literally tossers ?
Quote from: grumbler on October 24, 2013, 01:56:22 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:52:10 PM
The register that I worked on at Hardee's in college was not a simple tool. It took quite a bit of time to learn how to work it, what to do if you made a mistake, how to make changes to menu items, etc. They may be designed to be more simple than the software that I use today, but they are not simple tools.
The register I see when I go into a fast food place is quite a simple machine, with just pictures on it for the food choices, and an automatic change dispenser. It is possible that such a thing wasn't possible back when you were in college, but then cashiers haven't always been minimum-wage workers, either.
None of which addresses the bolded part.
You've seen them. I've worked with them (within the last few years as a bookstore clerk). They are not simple tools. They require a modicum of ability to be able to use them. They are not as simple as the calculator/registers of the 1960s and 1970s. There is an increased level of skill required to do the cashier's job.
That was the entire point. Garbon claimed that minimum wage jobs today are easier, mentally, than they were before. I disagree. I've explained why I disagree.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 24, 2013, 02:06:45 PM
Though I'll point out to Meri et al that POS systems are in fact extremely simple applications.
For someone who just graduated from law school, yes. For someone who probably didn't graduate from high school? Not so much.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 24, 2013, 02:06:45 PM
Though I'll point out to Meri et al that POS systems are in fact extremely simple applications.
Then why do the workers always screw something up and need to call a manager?
I suddenly want a Happy Meal.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:48:52 PM
We're talking about people who do not have the option of just jumping ship or finding a new job that pays more. The minimum wage is The Pay that they will get no matter what company they go to if they stay in the same industry, ie fast food. And it may well be that the problem is them.
I guess I'm of mixed feelings here. Most of my paternal family is rather poor for American standards and while certainly their wages haven't improved much during the course of the lives - many of them have changed to better careers. And then there are certainly plenty who were lazy / had ideas in their head that they deserved better and have fucked themselves over - particularly in the case of numerous children with different women / drugs-drink.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:48:52 PM
The point is that as a society, it is in our best interest to make life sustainable for these people at the bottom rung because it makes our society a better place to be. Historically speaking, minimum wages were a way to help them get the bare minimum necessary to survive. That's no long an option.
Isn't that welfare? Now you can mention again that people have tried to kill that, but that doesn't change the fact that such exists for that exact reason.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:48:52 PMSomething changed in the 1970s that shifted what "minimum" was supposed to do, and for whom. It worked well for, what? 30-40 years to keep these people's heads above water so long as they had a job, any job. Now, that's not the case.
I don't know what changed, or why. Nor do I know that raising minimum wage back to the same levels will have the desired affect. It just seems rather odd to completely disregard how well it worked before by saying that we can't go back, without looking at why it worked before and what's changed since.
To be honest, I can't really speak to this as I don't know enough to speak well to the minimum wage and its history. Though my gut feeling is that the bit in bold wasn't true.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 24, 2013, 02:04:11 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:48:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:33:22 PM
Well sure, that's why I wouldn't stay for life at one company. :)
Besides, if I was working a minimum wage job and never managed to get to a position or job where I could make more than minimum wage, I'd fear that the problem was me.
That's fine, but we're not talking about you, in particular.
Then garbon does not understand the question, and won't respond to it.
:rolleyes:
I won't do more than that though - as I'm being polite. :)
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 02:10:00 PM
That was the entire point. Garbon claimed that minimum wage jobs today are easier, mentally, than they were before. I disagree. I've explained why I disagree.
I'd say though that more people are computer literate so I think you are overstating that claim. Perhaps it is a wash but I'm rather unconvinced giving that I've had young cashiers fall apart when the computer systems are down. Suddenly handed back cash becomes a huge ordeal.
Also, I wonder does that chart account for how minimum wage positions added to productivity or just on the whole? It could be that some of that productivity came at the expense of making some minimum wage jobs obsolete. Not sure though.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 02:13:46 PM
I guess I'm of mixed feelings here. Most of my paternal family is rather poor for American standards and while certainly their wages haven't improved much during the course of the lives - many of them have changed to better careers. And then there are certainly plenty who were lazy / had ideas in their head that they deserved better and have fucked themselves over - particularly in the case of numerous children with different women / drugs-drink.
The whys and wherefores aren't my concern. There will be those who are poor because they choose a particular way of life, and those who are poor because it's all they know, and a whole lot of people who are poor because of the circumstances that they're in. I don't really care much why. What I care about is that we, as a society, make sure that each of them has the bare minimum to survive, because we're wealthy enough to do so, and it's the right thing to do.
Quote
Isn't that welfare? Now you can mention again that people have tried to kill that, but that doesn't change the fact that such exists for that exact reason.
It is now, yes. It didn't used to be. The question is: Are we willing to maintain the status quo of using welfare to fill the gaps that businesses aren't doing? Or did what we have before work better?
I don't have an answer on which is better or worse. I don't have enough information to make an informed opinion. But I do think that those are the questions we need to be asking before we decide yay or nay to raising the minimum wage.
Quote
To be honest, I can't really speak to this as I don't know enough to speak well to the minimum wage and its history. Though my gut feeling is that the bit in bold wasn't true.
I don't know, either. It's possible that it wasn't. It's possible that it was. I know that my family was dirt poor growing up, and we still didn't qualify for any support because my mom had a job. (At the time, any job meant no welfare.) She made minimum wage as an LPN, and managed to put a roof over our heads, feed us (most of the time), and give us clothes. Today, she wouldn't have been able to do that, but she would have had more access to welfare.
Maybe it's a wash and there isn't one that's better than the other for the poor, at which point, it's worth looking at which is better for society as a whole, ie businesses, lower-income folks who make more than minimum wage but not by much, etc.
Mostly, I have a lot of questions because I don't think that any of this has a simple fix, ie raising the minimum wage. I don't know that it will help, but I don't know that it will hurt. Something has to give, though.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 02:16:16 PM
I'd say though that more people are computer literate so I think you are overstating that claim. Perhaps it is a wash but I'm rather unconvinced giving that I've had young cashiers fall apart when the computer systems are down. Suddenly handed back cash becomes a huge ordeal.
Also, I wonder does that chart account for how minimum wage positions added to productivity or just on the whole? It could be that some of that productivity came at the expense of making some minimum wage jobs obsolete. Not sure though.
Yeah, I'd wondered that, too. Maybe not obsolete, but possibly shipped overseas? That chart doesn't give a whole of real information.
I must break you.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 01:48:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 01:33:22 PM
.....
Besides, if I was working a minimum wage job and never managed to get to a position or job where I could make more than minimum wage, I'd fear that the problem was me.
......
The point is that as a society, it is in our best interest to make life sustainable for these people at the bottom rung because it makes our society a better place to be. Historically speaking, minimum wages were a way to help them get the bare minimum necessary to survive. That's no long an option. Something changed in the 1970s that shifted what "minimum" was supposed to do, and for whom. It worked well for, what? 30-40 years to keep these people's heads above water so long as they had a job, any job. Now, that's not the case.
.....
I think this is the wider and more important point.
This is part where I tell everybody to read Milton Friedman, and no one does. :(
He's one of those actual economists Berkut wanted to know about.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 24, 2013, 02:56:26 PM
This is part where I tell everybody to read Milton Friedman, and no one does. :(
He's one of those actual economists Berkut wanted to know about.
Isn't he the guy that wanted to get rid of medical licenses and such?
Yeah... no thanks. :P
Quote from: The Brain on October 24, 2013, 01:36:10 PM
What kind of freak would accept a pay cut if the company was doing poorly? You just eject.
The employees of HP did, a few years ago.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2013, 02:13:38 PM
I suddenly want a Happy Meal.
Me too. Lets see what toys they have now...
www.happymeal.com
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 03:02:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 24, 2013, 02:56:26 PM
This is part where I tell everybody to read Milton Friedman, and no one does. :(
He's one of those actual economists Berkut wanted to know about.
Isn't he the guy that wanted to get rid of medical licenses and such?
Yeah... no thanks. :P
Why do you love monopolistic practices and the associated, demonstrated rise in prices and decrease in access? :P
Anyway, my main point is that even a mega-conservative, who is wrong about much, cannot, if he or she is intellectually honest, fail to appreciate that there can be no such thing as a truly free market so long as people are lashed to their biological and basic social needs. The result is depressed wages. The true market price of a McJob would out if people didn't fear starvation and eviction.
That said, I'd prefer that a Friedmanesque NIT were established directly rather than the minwage raised to try to awkwardly approximate it. Berk is right on that score to be sure, since the end result of increasing wages to preposterous levels (though we may reasonably disagree on what constitutes "preposterous") is automation and cutback until like four people run a whole McDonald's, probably from home, and the other thirty employees don't have $15/hr jobs because they don't have jobs at all. And no one buys McDonald's food, because 80% of the population is unemployed.
An NIT would do the same job, more elegantly, and lead to the same results--with the caveat that the bounty of the Player Piano economy to come would be shared by all.
In the short term, it would also be a great way to restart demand. But that's a secondary concern.
That's goofy Ide.
I opened this thread (which had sprouted extra pages) expecting to read a large number of posts in need of refutation, but I see that Throbby has done a pretty complete job of it. :)
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 02:25:14 PM
The whys and wherefores aren't my concern. There will be those who are poor because they choose a particular way of life, and those who are poor because it's all they know, and a whole lot of people who are poor because of the circumstances that they're in. I don't really care much why. What I care about is that we, as a society, make sure that each of them has the bare minimum to survive, because we're wealthy enough to do so, and it's the right thing to do.
I guess the question gets raised when money isn't being spent properly and suddenly more is required to survive. Also, and probably more common, is that I think different people have different ideas on what is the bare minimum to survive.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 02:25:14 PM
It is now, yes. It didn't used to be. The question is: Are we willing to maintain the status quo of using welfare to fill the gaps that businesses aren't doing? Or did what we have before work better?
I don't have an answer on which is better or worse. I don't have enough information to make an informed opinion. But I do think that those are the questions we need to be asking before we decide yay or nay to raising the minimum wage.
Perhaps but it doesn't seem like anyone is interested in that question. :(
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 02:25:14 PM
Maybe it's a wash and there isn't one that's better than the other for the poor, at which point, it's worth looking at which is better for society as a whole, ie businesses, lower-income folks who make more than minimum wage but not by much, etc.
Well I suppose to start that investigation though, you would want to know if one system was worse than the other, no?
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 03:42:05 PM
I guess the question gets raised when money isn't being spent properly and suddenly more is required to survive. Also, and probably more common, is that I think different people have different ideas on what is the bare minimum to survive.
The "money being spent properly" isn't an issue if it's money that the individual earns. It is, however, usually an area of contention when it's money that is given as welfare.
I don't think it would be hard to come to a consensus on what's needed for a person to live, eat, and clothe themselves. The argument would be on if that's all that we want to do. I'd argue yes, but I'm sure others would argue no.
Quote
Well I suppose to start that investigation though, you would want to know if one system was worse than the other, no?
Absolutely. Has anyone done so? I wasn't able to find anything on it.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 24, 2013, 03:32:12 PM
Anyway, my main point is that even a mega-conservative, who is wrong about much, cannot, if he or she is intellectually honest, fail to appreciate that there can be no such thing as a truly free market so long as people are lashed to their biological and basic social needs. The result is depressed wages. The true market price of a McJob would out if people didn't fear starvation and eviction.
Would there even be McJobs? If food was so plentiful (and easy to prepare as that's often part of the reason that junk food reigns supreme - price would be out in your world since we're all not starving), how many people would be strolling to McD's? Seems most of its customer basis would have moved on.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 12:40:08 PM
Interesting article from CEPR (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/the-minimum-wage-and-economic-growth) on the topic.
QuoteThe Minimum Wage and Economic Growth
Written by Dean Baker and Will Kimball
Tuesday, 12 February 2013 22:26
In his State of the Union address to Congress President Obama called for a higher minimum wage. The purchasing power of the minimum wage peaked in the late 1960s at $9.22 an hour in 2012 dollars. That is almost two dollars above the current level of $7.25 an hour. Most of the efforts to raise the minimum wage focus on restoring its purchasing power to its late 1960s level, setting a target of around $10 an hour for 2015 or 2016, when inflation will have brought this sum closer to its previous peak in 2012 dollars.
While this increase would lead to a large improvement in living standards for millions of workers who are currently paid at or near the minimum wage, it is worth asking a slightly different question. Suppose the minimum wage had kept in step with productivity growth over the last 44 years. In other words, rather than just keeping purchasing power constant at the 1969 level, suppose that our lowest paid workers shared evenly in the economic growth over the intervening years.
This should not seem like a far-fetched idea. In the years from 1947 to 1969 the minimum wage actually did keep pace with productivity growth. (This is probably also true for the decade from when the federal minimum wage was first established in 1937 to 1947, but we don't have good data on productivity for this period.)
As the graph below shows, the minimum wage generally was increased in step with productivity over these years. This led to 170 percent increase in the real value of the minimum wage over the years from 1948 to 1968. If this pattern of wage increases for those at the bottom was supposed to stifle growth, the economy didn't get the message. Growth averaged 4.0 percent annually from 1947 to 1969 and the unemployment rate for the year 1969 averaged less than 4.0 percent.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cepr.net%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fblogs%2Fbaker-2013-02-12.jpg&hash=b9e192dde8e468370077410b53bea14506b1bf5a)
This link between productivity and the minimum wage ended with the 1970s. During that decade the minimum wage roughly kept pace with inflation, meaning that its purchasing power changed little over the course of the decade. The real value of the minimum then fell sharply in the 1980s as we went most of the decade without any increase in the nominal value of the wage, allowing it to be eroded by inflation. Since the early 1990s the real value of the minimum wage has roughly stayed constant, which means that it has further fallen behind productivity growth.
How was it decided to break the link between productivity growth and the minimum wage? It is not as though we had a major national debate and it was decided that low-wage workers did not deserve to share in the benefits of economic growth. This was a major policy shift that was put in place with little, if any, public debate.
If the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity growth it would be $16.54 in 2012 dollars. It is important to note that this is a very conservative measure of productivity growth. Rather than taking the conventional data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the non-farm business sector, it uses the broader measure for economy-wide productivity.[1] This lowers average growth by 0.2-0.3 percentage points.
This measure also includes an adjustment for net rather than gross output. It also uses a CPI deflator rather than a GDP deflator, which further lowers the measure of productivity growth.[2] Even with making these adjustments the $16.54 minimum wage would exceed the hourly wage of more than 40 percent of men and more than 50 percent of women . We would have a very different society if all workers were earning a wage above this productivity linked minimum wage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] If we just used non-farm productivity as the basis for indexing the minimum wage, the most commonly used measure of productivity, the minimum wage would have been $21.75 in 2012 [http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/new-cepr-issue-brief-shows-minimum-wage-has-room-to-grow].
[2] These adjustments are explained in Baker, 2007. For the years since 2006 we assumed that the difference in the growth rate of non-farm productivity and the growth of this adjusted measure is the same as it was on average for the years 2000-2006.
:hmm: That looks a lot like the graph of productivity and median wages, with a similar sudden divergence. I wonder if those two effects are connected, and whether there is a causal link between them.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 03:45:59 PM
The "money being spent properly" isn't an issue if it's money that the individual earns. It is, however, usually an area of contention when it's money that is given as welfare.
If a person is too lazy (to work enough hours to support themselves) or too profligate with what they get, I think people do see it as an issue if they want a handout. I think the mistake though is that those two bits are generalized to everyone who needs assistance and that's clearly not true.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 03:45:59 PM
I don't think it would be hard to come to a consensus on what's needed for a person to live, eat, and clothe themselves. The argument would be on if that's all that we want to do. I'd argue yes, but I'm sure others would argue no.
Yeah, I don't think that's ever seen as enough. Then there's college and buying a home should be affordable for all schemes.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 03:45:59 PM
Absolutely. Has anyone done so? I wasn't able to find anything on it.
I've no idea.
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 03:52:11 PM
:hmm: That looks a lot like the graph of productivity and median wages, with a similar sudden divergence. I wonder if those two effects are connected, and whether there is a causal link between them.
The bottom lines decrease isn't really that similar to the top line's increase.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2013, 03:40:20 PM
That's goofy Ide.
Well, I think that's what he was getting at. :goodboy:
Quote from: garbonWould there even be McJobs? If food was so plentiful (and easy to prepare as that's often part of the reason that junk food reigns supreme - price would be out in your world since we're all not starving), how many people would be strolling to McD's? Seems most of its customer basis would have moved on.
I dunno. I don't like to cook food, and although one may argue against the merits of fast food regarding its quality, I tend to think of it as pretty decent grub, and there are real economies of scale to be had by centralized food dispensaries such as a McD's or a Pizza Hut or whatever.
Making your own food is kind of expensive, even in terms of cash money, and in my experience involves enormous wastage. But that really could be just me. -_-
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 03:52:11 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 12:40:08 PM
Interesting article from CEPR (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/the-minimum-wage-and-economic-growth) on the topic.
QuoteThe Minimum Wage and Economic Growth
Written by Dean Baker and Will Kimball
Tuesday, 12 February 2013 22:26
In his State of the Union address to Congress President Obama called for a higher minimum wage. The purchasing power of the minimum wage peaked in the late 1960s at $9.22 an hour in 2012 dollars. That is almost two dollars above the current level of $7.25 an hour. Most of the efforts to raise the minimum wage focus on restoring its purchasing power to its late 1960s level, setting a target of around $10 an hour for 2015 or 2016, when inflation will have brought this sum closer to its previous peak in 2012 dollars.
While this increase would lead to a large improvement in living standards for millions of workers who are currently paid at or near the minimum wage, it is worth asking a slightly different question. Suppose the minimum wage had kept in step with productivity growth over the last 44 years. In other words, rather than just keeping purchasing power constant at the 1969 level, suppose that our lowest paid workers shared evenly in the economic growth over the intervening years.
This should not seem like a far-fetched idea. In the years from 1947 to 1969 the minimum wage actually did keep pace with productivity growth. (This is probably also true for the decade from when the federal minimum wage was first established in 1937 to 1947, but we don't have good data on productivity for this period.)
As the graph below shows, the minimum wage generally was increased in step with productivity over these years. This led to 170 percent increase in the real value of the minimum wage over the years from 1948 to 1968. If this pattern of wage increases for those at the bottom was supposed to stifle growth, the economy didn't get the message. Growth averaged 4.0 percent annually from 1947 to 1969 and the unemployment rate for the year 1969 averaged less than 4.0 percent.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cepr.net%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fblogs%2Fbaker-2013-02-12.jpg&hash=b9e192dde8e468370077410b53bea14506b1bf5a)
This link between productivity and the minimum wage ended with the 1970s. During that decade the minimum wage roughly kept pace with inflation, meaning that its purchasing power changed little over the course of the decade. The real value of the minimum then fell sharply in the 1980s as we went most of the decade without any increase in the nominal value of the wage, allowing it to be eroded by inflation. Since the early 1990s the real value of the minimum wage has roughly stayed constant, which means that it has further fallen behind productivity growth.
How was it decided to break the link between productivity growth and the minimum wage? It is not as though we had a major national debate and it was decided that low-wage workers did not deserve to share in the benefits of economic growth. This was a major policy shift that was put in place with little, if any, public debate.
If the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity growth it would be $16.54 in 2012 dollars. It is important to note that this is a very conservative measure of productivity growth. Rather than taking the conventional data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the non-farm business sector, it uses the broader measure for economy-wide productivity.[1] This lowers average growth by 0.2-0.3 percentage points.
This measure also includes an adjustment for net rather than gross output. It also uses a CPI deflator rather than a GDP deflator, which further lowers the measure of productivity growth.[2] Even with making these adjustments the $16.54 minimum wage would exceed the hourly wage of more than 40 percent of men and more than 50 percent of women . We would have a very different society if all workers were earning a wage above this productivity linked minimum wage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] If we just used non-farm productivity as the basis for indexing the minimum wage, the most commonly used measure of productivity, the minimum wage would have been $21.75 in 2012 [http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/new-cepr-issue-brief-shows-minimum-wage-has-room-to-grow].
[2] These adjustments are explained in Baker, 2007. For the years since 2006 we assumed that the difference in the growth rate of non-farm productivity and the growth of this adjusted measure is the same as it was on average for the years 2000-2006.
:hmm: That looks a lot like the graph of productivity and median wages, with a similar sudden divergence. I wonder if those two effects are connected, and whether there is a causal link between them.
It's almost as if some sort of new radical economic ideology took hold in the 1970's.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 03:56:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 03:52:11 PM
:hmm: That looks a lot like the graph of productivity and median wages, with a similar sudden divergence. I wonder if those two effects are connected, and whether there is a causal link between them.
The bottom lines decrease isn't really that similar to the top line's increase.
:huh:
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 04:03:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 03:56:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 03:52:11 PM
:hmm: That looks a lot like the graph of productivity and median wages, with a similar sudden divergence. I wonder if those two effects are connected, and whether there is a causal link between them.
The bottom lines decrease isn't really that similar to the top line's increase.
:huh:
I'd say the top line diverges rather than that they have a similar divergence. :)
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 04:30:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 04:03:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 03:56:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 03:52:11 PM
:hmm: That looks a lot like the graph of productivity and median wages, with a similar sudden divergence. I wonder if those two effects are connected, and whether there is a causal link between them.
The bottom lines decrease isn't really that similar to the top line's increase.
:huh:
I'd say the top line diverges rather than that they have a similar divergence. :)
I'm not comparing these two lines on Meri's graph, I'm comparing the graph Meri posted with the infamous graph of real median income, which likewise goes limp in the 1970ies while productivity line keeps going up.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 03:57:55 PM
It's almost as if some sort of new radical economic ideology took hold in the 1970's.
You blaming the Nixon Shock? :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 24, 2013, 04:36:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 03:57:55 PM
It's almost as if some sort of new radical economic ideology took hold in the 1970's.
You blaming the Nixon Shock? :P
Austrians and the Chicago boys.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 05:05:40 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 24, 2013, 04:36:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 03:57:55 PM
It's almost as if some sort of new radical economic ideology took hold in the 1970's.
You blaming the Nixon Shock? :P
Austrians and the Chicago boys.
That would be off by at least half a dozen years. Earnest deregulation didn't start happening until Ford/Carter years.
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 05:32:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 05:05:40 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 24, 2013, 04:36:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2013, 03:57:55 PM
It's almost as if some sort of new radical economic ideology took hold in the 1970's.
You blaming the Nixon Shock? :P
Austrians and the Chicago boys.
That would be off by at least half a dozen years. Earnest deregulation didn't start happening until Ford/Carter years.
The early part of that dip is due to declining economy from the war, the oil embargo, price controls and other things. You see other dips like that in the chart. Normally wages would jump back up, but in the mid to late 1970's they didn't. That's when we see the Austrians sinking their knives in.
Sinking their knives into what?
Figure of speech. They don't actually use knives. ;)
:thumbsup:
What does the figure of speech signify?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2013, 06:54:29 PM
:thumbsup:
What does the figure of speech signify?
The negative effect of their influence in economic circles and the body politic. The knife statement was a bit pointed, I agree. I was still happy with the knife analogy I made yesterday about the fiscal conservatives. So I'm a bit knife crazy right now.
Can you be a little more specific please? :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2013, 07:02:38 PM
Can you be a little more specific please? :)
By knife crazy I keep thinking about knives.
You win again Raz.
You're getting good at this.
I'd like to think I've gotten sharper with age.
:lol: Well played, everybody.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 02:10:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 24, 2013, 01:56:22 PM
The register I see when I go into a fast food place is quite a simple machine, with just pictures on it for the food choices, and an automatic change dispenser. It is possible that such a thing wasn't possible back when you were in college, but then cashiers haven't always been minimum-wage workers, either.
None of which addresses the bolded part.
You've seen them. I've worked with them (within the last few years as a bookstore clerk). They are not simple tools. They require a modicum of ability to be able to use them. They are not as simple as the calculator/registers of the 1960s and 1970s. There is an increased level of skill required to do the cashier's job.
That was the entire point. Garbon claimed that minimum wage jobs today are easier, mentally, than they were before. I disagree. I've explained why I disagree.
None of which addresses the bolded part. They are so simple that customers can use them, with no training at all. I've used them as a custom,er, and found no problems at all. While you may find them challenging, that is a statement about you, and not the equipment.
I worked retail many times over the years, and POS equipment nowadays is a lot easier to use than it was in the 1970s. Now you can just scan bar codes and the equipment does the rest. Hit the total button, enter the amount given, and the machine pops out the coin change down a chute, while it tells you how much paper money to return in change.
It is a lot easier. Where you find complicated transactions that require training, you don't see minimum-wage workers operating the register, because the employer is willing to pay a premium to avoid having to train your replacement. The actual minimum-wage jobs probably are easier now than in the past, in retail.
Quote from: grumbler on October 24, 2013, 07:19:06 PM
None of which addresses the bolded part. They are so simple that customers can use them, with no training at all. I've used them as a custom,er, and found no problems at all. While you may find them challenging, that is a statement about you, and not the equipment.
I worked retail many times over the years, and POS equipment nowadays is a lot easier to use than it was in the 1970s. Now you can just scan bar codes and the equipment does the rest. Hit the total button, enter the amount given, and the machine pops out the coin change down a chute, while it tells you how much paper money to return in change.
It is a lot easier. Where you find complicated transactions that require training, you don't see minimum-wage workers operating the register, because the employer is willing to pay a premium to avoid having to train your replacement. The actual minimum-wage jobs probably are easier now than in the past, in retail.
Okay, grumbler.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2013, 02:12:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 24, 2013, 02:06:45 PM
Though I'll point out to Meri et al that POS systems are in fact extremely simple applications.
Then why do the workers always screw something up and need to call a manager?
Because the worker imputs the data into the machine. GIGO still holds true. Though often the real problem is the customer. 'Cause when the customer tells the cashier that they want a Whopper with no pickles, the cashier is supposed to magically know that the customer actually meant extra pickle, no onions.
If you think working in fast food is easy, you've either never done it, or you're one of the rare people who have a knack for it.
Quote from: dps on October 24, 2013, 08:50:33 PM
If you think working in fast food is easy, you've either never done it, or you're one of the rare people who have a knack for it.
Very rare indeed. Every time I ask for extra pickles, they give me none instead. :mad:
Quote from: fhdz on October 24, 2013, 07:10:47 PM
:lol: Well played, everybody.
I'll let Ide take over for me, I've just got to fire him up.
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2013, 08:56:58 PM
Quote from: dps on October 24, 2013, 08:50:33 PM
If you think working in fast food is easy, you've either never done it, or you're one of the rare people who have a knack for it.
Very rare indeed. Every time I ask for extra pickles, they give me none instead. :mad:
Pickles are for closers
Quote from: dps on October 24, 2013, 08:50:33 PM
If you think working in fast food is easy, you've either never done it, or you're one of the rare people who have a knack for it.
Clearly, you, like me, are a moron, dps, since everyone knows that it's simple and easy to work minimum wage jobs now that computers are there to help. :(
The registers have icons on them, and make the change for you. I mean, duh.
Quote from: dps on October 24, 2013, 08:50:33 PM
'Cause when the customer tells the cashier that they want a Whopper with no pickles, the cashier is supposed to magically know that the customer actually meant extra pickle, no onions.
If you think working in fast food is easy, you've either never done it, or you're one of the rare people who have a knack for it.
Doesn't negate where this started with my point that if anything things have gotten easier. I doubt it is that customers have gotten stupider/more demanding and have made the job more difficult. Customers being crappy seems pretty constant.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 09:42:16 PM
Quote from: dps on October 24, 2013, 08:50:33 PM
If you think working in fast food is easy, you've either never done it, or you're one of the rare people who have a knack for it.
Clearly, you, like me, are a moron, dps, since everyone knows that it's simple and easy to work minimum wage jobs now that computers are there to help. :(
So you want to play CC now? I never said the jobs were now simple and easy, I said that computers have made many jobs
easier.Besides, I would say that if they are the only jobs that an individual can get and can never ever advance at said job or get another job (but is not an actual slave and by rules not allowed to seek other employment) then yes they might be easy positions.
Is someone seriously claiming that ringing up fast food is hard? :lol:
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 10:24:39 PM
So you want to play CC now? I never said the jobs were now simple and easy, I said that computers have made many jobs easier.
Besides, I would say that if they are the only jobs that an individual can get and can never ever advance at said job or get another job (but is not an actual slave and by rules not allowed to seek other employment) then yes they might be easy positions.
That was aimed at grumbler, not you.
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2013, 11:28:05 PM
Is someone seriously claiming that ringing up fast food is hard? :lol:
The heady days of 2013.
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2013, 11:28:05 PM
Is someone seriously claiming that ringing up fast food is hard? :lol:
No. Someone is claiming that minimum wage jobs today aren't any easier than they were 50 years ago, despite computers. They're just different.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 11:31:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 10:24:39 PM
So you want to play CC now? I never said the jobs were now simple and easy, I said that computers have made many jobs easier.
Besides, I would say that if they are the only jobs that an individual can get and can never ever advance at said job or get another job (but is not an actual slave and by rules not allowed to seek other employment) then yes they might be easy positions.
That was aimed at grumbler, not you.
Quote from: grumblerThe actual minimum-wage jobs probably are easier now than in the past, in retail.
But keep spinning the strawman. :thumbsup:
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 11:32:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2013, 11:28:05 PM
Is someone seriously claiming that ringing up fast food is hard? :lol:
No. Someone is claiming that minimum wage jobs today aren't any easier than they were 50 years ago, despite computers. They're just different.
Yeah and I think that person hasn't shown anything except that at one point in the past, she found computers difficult. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 11:33:51 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 11:32:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2013, 11:28:05 PM
Is someone seriously claiming that ringing up fast food is hard? :lol:
No. Someone is claiming that minimum wage jobs today aren't any easier than they were 50 years ago, despite computers. They're just different.
Yeah and I think that person hasn't shown anything except that at one point in the past, she found computers difficult. :hmm:
Nice job safeguarding the anonymity of that person.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 11:33:51 PM
Yeah and I think that person hasn't shown anything except that at one point in the past, she found computers difficult. :hmm:
:mellow:
I never said that I found them hard. I said that the computers used in fast food and retail are not as simple as you and grumbler are trying to make them sound. We were, as I recall, talking very specifically about people who more than likely had not graduated from high school, and how learning the nuances of the machines are more difficult than you may know or understand.
But hey, you feel like spinning it another way, go for it. I'm kind of done with this, so you can spin it however you feel you need to. I'm not even sure what point you were going for.
I did my time as a fast food cashier in high school, around 1989 & 1990. Was not difficult then, and it doesn't appear to be difficult now. I hated it-- it was the most demeaning thing I ever did-- but it was not hard.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 11:33:04 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 11:31:17 PM
That was aimed at grumbler, not you.
Quote from: grumblerThe actual minimum-wage jobs probably are easier now than in the past, in retail.
But keep spinning the strawman. :thumbsup:
:mellow:
Quote from: grumbler on October 24, 2013, 07:19:06 PM
They are so simple that customers can use them, with no training at all. I've used them as a custom,er, and found no problems at all. While you may find them challenging, that is a statement about you, and not the equipment.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 11:38:27 PM
But hey, you feel like spinning it another way, go for it. I'm kind of done with this, so you can spin it however you feel you need to. I'm not even sure what point you were going for.
Whatever. You constantly accuse CC of dishonesty and then do exactly the same. You apparently though are free to do so and make up claims like "everyone knows that it's simple and easy to work minimum wage jobs now that computers are there to help".
Maybe we can chat again when you stop being a hypocrite. Though do old dogs actually learn new tricks? :(
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2013, 11:39:56 PM
I did my time as a fast food cashier in high school, around 1989 & 1990. Was not difficult then, and it doesn't appear to be difficult now. I hated it-- it was the most demeaning thing I ever did-- but it was not hard.
And 25 years later, you're a college grad making well into the middle-class range for pay.
We're not talking about people like you or me. We're talking about career minimum wage slaves.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2013, 02:12:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 24, 2013, 02:06:45 PM
Though I'll point out to Meri et al that POS systems are in fact extremely simple applications.
Then why do the workers always screw something up and need to call a manager?
Yep. I wish I had a Euro for every time a cashier (who had been at the place for months if not years) made an error (as can happen) and then helplessly prodded various buttons on the cash register, hoping to fix things before a manager or senior employee had to come and walk them through the steps.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 11:41:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 11:38:27 PM
But hey, you feel like spinning it another way, go for it. I'm kind of done with this, so you can spin it however you feel you need to. I'm not even sure what point you were going for.
Whatever. You constantly accuse CC of dishonesty and then do exactly the same. You apparently though are free to do so and make up claims like "everyone knows that it's simple and easy to work minimum wage jobs now that computers are there to help".
Maybe we can chat again when you stop being a hypocrite. Though do old dogs actually learn new tricks? :(
What the fuck are you even talking about? You made the claim that it's easier, mentally, to do minimum wage jobs today than it was before computers. I said that, if anything, computers probably made it harder, mentally, for the people who work their whole lives in minimum wage jobs.
I have no idea where you're even going with any of this. I lost track ages ago, which is why I said to go ahead and spin it (as in making it about my supposedly having a hard time with computers) anyway you feel the need.
We're done, dear. You want to create strawman arguments and then accuse others of spin. Might have been fun at first but when you continue to do it, I am going to label you a liar and move on. Night! :)
Quote from: Syt on October 24, 2013, 11:43:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2013, 02:12:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 24, 2013, 02:06:45 PM
Though I'll point out to Meri et al that POS systems are in fact extremely simple applications.
Then why do the workers always screw something up and need to call a manager?
Yep. I wish I had a Euro for every time a cashier (who had been at the place for months if not years) made an error (as can happen) and then helplessly prodded various buttons on the cash register, hoping to fix things before a manager or senior employee had to come and walk them through the steps.
Really? I guess you get what you pay f--wait a minute. :hmm:
Most of the cashier fuck-ups I've experienced are usually honest errors that any competent operator could make, and if it takes a long time to fix, it's just because not enough responsibility has been delegated to the $8/hr serf to fix it due to shrinkage concerns.
I can't be arsed to lengthily, Glenn Greenwaldily quote and rebut everything that I disagree with in this thread so I'll just make a few points.
Part of the problem I have with this is what welfare's meant for. I've got a bit more expansive a view than most of you, but I've always thought the common view was that it's a safety net. I can't understand how it can be right that people in full-time work are in need of a safety net. I've no issue with low-paid jobs but if they're so low-paid that you need the state to pick up your food bill or your housing then that's a problem. No doubt low-paid jobs will not be anywhere near an average wage, that's not the issue, it's that a minimum wage isn't even a sustenance level wage. That the state has to step in is offensive because work should be enough to live on but also because it's a waste of welfare resources that should be going for those who need a safety net: the elderly, the infirm and those who can't work or are temporarily out of work.
That's distinct in my view from welfare in work schemes like the EITC. I've no strong view on it but that's just income redistribution. If the big objection here were income inequality then that'd be a useful (but probably expensive solution) but it's not it's government money topping up the wages of low-paying employers. Similarly I think you can have legitimate welfare for the employed even up to relative high earners. But that's if you're trying to level out the labour market. So people with kids or disabilities are probably going to have higher costs. It's better that's paid for socially, by us all, than that cost being imposed on employers (who'd be reluctant to hire disabled people or parents) or on the individuals themselves who might just opt out of the job market. All of those schemes seem totally different in purpose and nature than housing or nutritional assistance.
So for all of the hyperventilating about the state getting involved, I want them to do the opposite. If the alternative is a wage that can't be lived on or welfare then that wage will soon increase, unless people do it for charity or fun.
Having said that I do think there can be an argument for raising the minimum wage, I think there is in this country and that state intervention doesn't bother me. We didn't have a minimum wage until 1997 and its introduction had literally no negative effects. And I think philosophically it can be justified because it seems to me the labour markets almost monopolistic in behaviour. Instead of having a single seller who can then fix the market you have, especially in low-wage jobs (especially given immigration levels here) a market with single buyers and numerous sellers. Employers are in a very powerful position. I've worked in the sector and there's never been a shortage of people needing work coming to hand in their CVs.
Also, and again, this may be different in the US but a lot of these jobs are more less immune to international competitiveness worries. The overwhelming majority of minimum wages jobs here are in wholesale and retail, hotels and catering, care work and some low-skilled manufacturing. The jobs exist because of domestic demand, so they can't really be off-shored away. There's worries about automation for sure but that affects every sector and wage point - I imagine we'll need shop assistants long after we do away with the 20% of lawyers who do domestic conveyancing. That's a broader social issue. I mean the automated supermarkets scanners are very common here, from what I understand they haven't actually replaced that many staff and I don't think they will.
More broadly I think what's happened here is a symptom of what's got fucked in our economy to begin with. We've replaced income - tied to economic activity and production - with welfare and cheap credit. I'd suggest wage stagnation is a large part of the high household and government debt we have in the UK and in the US. For low-paid workers especially it's caused some real problems with pay-day loan companies and the like. Similarly I think this is a symptom of record corporate profits and profit-hoarding. The money isn't being recycled through the economy in the way it should, wealth accumulation should trickle down that's part of the system. Obviously its companies rights to hoard their money and that shouldn't be touched lightly. But I think there's a problem when corporate profits are at records high, wages are at a post-war low and investment is, I believe, at a historically low level too. That's a system that's not quite functioning.
So I don't see this as a terribly liberal argument. I don't necessarily think the minimum wage has to rise, I think the welfare available should be cut and the market would fix it. To me it's the flip-side of the idea that you shouldn't be able to live comfortably on benefits that you should always be better off going into work.
Aside from that I'd just say I've not seen any argument about how this isn't a subsidy for the employers and how that's a justified use of state money. And globalisation and free trade are great, they're not part of the problem.
QuoteThe difference I have with what I see out of most of the left though is that I think we should base what level of social spending we want to engage in on the principles of what we can actually afford, what actually works, and what reasoned and careful *economic* evaluation of the factors involved will allow.
So let's cut it. Get rid of welfare for people in work and tax their wages so they're contributing like everyone else. I don't get the problem here.
QuoteCan someone provide some actual arguments from actual economists stating that the state really should have a part in deciding how much private business pay private individuals at the macro level, and that this will HELP the problem of not enough median income jobs?
From what I've read the overwhelming view of modern economists falls into two camps. Raising the minimum wage makes no significant difference to employment levels and trends or it makes a minor difference.
Doubling the minimum wage is rather too rich for my blood but in the UK the minimum wage is currently £6.19 an hour. The living wage supporters - myself included - would like to see that raised to £7.20 an hour and £8.55 an hour in London. I'd keep the current differential for younger workers too.
Similarly I think you could graduate a raise in the US, withdrawing welfare along with it and if you don't desperately need those savings to cut the deficit (which you don't) I'd cut company or payroll taxes.
QuoteDidn't the US at one point have a 90% marginal tax rate at the upper end or something like that?
Yeah, we had confiscatory tax rates too. The French football league are going on strike this week over a new 75% tax on earnings over €1 million :lol:
Personally I think as much as the whole 1% issue a real problem is generational.
Edit: Here's an article in favour it by someone from the right and according to rumours both the Tories and Labour are planning to increase the minimum wage significantly because they're both worried about work not paying:
QuoteA living wage, or a much higher minimum wage, is worth paying
As City profits soar, the low-skilled, service areas of the economy continue to suffer a fall in income. Radical action might avoid a social catastrophe
By Jeremy Warner7:53PM GMT 17 Jan 2013Comments747 Comments
When Sir Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, this week criticised Goldman Sachs for delaying bonus payments so as to take advantage of April's reduction in the top rate of tax, it had the sort of impact of which he could usually only dream. Would that the Bank of England was so effective when it comes to the economy. Within hours, Goldman had run up the white flag.
That Goldman, supposedly home to some of the cleverest brains on the planet, could have allowed itself to become embroiled in such a public relations disaster is perhaps the most surprising thing about the episode. Sometimes it seems that bankers must actively be seeking ways of ensuring that they stay public enemy number one.
Notwithstanding the governor's strictures, investment bankers are very much back in the game. Both Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan this week announced profits that smashed all expectations, and for some this is going to be a record bonus season.
It is small wonder that Sir Mervyn should side so strongly with popular opinion. Much of the rest of society is still suffering badly from the financial crisis. For many bankers, it seems as if nothing really happened. It's back to business as usual.
Yet there is something of a paradox here. One of the reasons Goldman's profits are soaring is that it has put the brakes on remuneration, which fell to "just" 21 per cent of revenues in the final quarter, one of the lowest ratios ever for the Wall Street stalwart. Much of this fall was achieved through headcount reduction, with many of those that are left being paid even more – a kind of survivor-takes-all syndrome. Even so, the renewed surge in banking profits is as good an indicator as any of a fast-recovering financial system, and on a number of levels is precisely what public policy in advanced economies is trying to achieve: allowing capital to be rebuilt and credit expansion to resume.
Some of the wider, macroeconomic benefits of this are already apparent in the US, where the debilitating process of post-crisis private-sector "deleveraging" seems to be essentially over. Bad debts have been largely cleared and, goaded into action by very low interest rates, investors are recovering their appetite for risk. It's too early to be certain, but advanced economies may at last be spluttering back to life.
As for delaying City bonus payments until the tax rate is cut, the fault, it might reasonably be argued, lies not with Goldman Sachs but with George Osborne, the Chancellor. If you believe in the merits of low taxes as an important driver of wealth creation, and ultimately of government revenues, then you can hardly complain when companies and individuals take advantage of them. So as ever, the big picture is more nuanced and complicated than the populist soundbites suggest.
Where Goldman went wrong was in its failure to keep up with public opinion. Ten years ago, virtually every bank and company in the land would have come up with a similar wheeze (and it's a fair bet that many we don't yet know about are still planning to). Yet most publicly accountable companies are avoiding this kind of thing, if only because they recognise the risk to their reputation of being found out. Some banks and businesses are simply failing to move with the times. And they wonder why there is such an extreme regulatory and political backlash.
One of the most startling facts about the Great Recession is that although it has profoundly hit the living standards of millions of people, after-tax corporate profits have continued to surge – save for a brief plunge in the midst of the crisis – and in the US are now at their highest in history as a share of GDP.
Good news, you might think, if only the blighters would invest and spend their gains. Unfortunately, wages have failed to experience the same bounce-back, and are now at their lowest ever share of US GDP. The read-across to Britain and Europe is not precise, but the trend is much the same. This has to be as much a matter of concern to the Right as it is to the Left, for we know from experience that when capital takes too much, it's riding for a fall. Eventually, society will find ways of hemming it in, with potentially catastrophic consequences for everyone.
Which is why I have become persuaded of the case for a "living wage", or at least a much higher minimum wage. The potential negatives from such a policy are almost too numerous to list – surging inflation, higher immigration, rising unemployment, a growing black economy, and so on. These alone might appear to kill the idea stone dead. Yet all these adverse consequences could quite easily be countered, and it is a fact that the great bulk of internationally competitive business in Britain already pays living wages. It is in the low-skilled, service areas of the economy that the problem largely lies.
Set high enough, a living wage would obviate the need for in-work benefits – one of the biggest areas of growth in welfare spending; it would significantly add to demand in the economy; and it would substantially boost tax receipts, enabling the Government partially to compensate business for the extra costs through reductions in payroll taxes and/or corporation tax.
For the moment, the concept is too "out there" to be taken seriously on anything more than a voluntary basis. Yet the banking crisis has turned much conventional thinking on its head. This may be an idea whose time will yet come.
QuoteSo I don't see this as a terribly liberal argument. I don't necessarily think the minimum wage has to rise, I think the welfare available should be cut and the market would fix it. To me it's the flip-side of the idea that you shouldn't be able to live comfortably on benefits that you should always be better off going into work.
It's Leninist. I like it.
Shelf:
1. Your claim of a monopsonistic labor market is patently ridiculous. It makes as much sense as saying all people working low skilled jobs constitute a monopoly.
2. I know of almost no economists who predict a rise in minimum wage would generate zero increase in unemployment.
What I am aware of, is a large number of lay commentators who took a look at the last round of minimum wage increase (under Bubba I think) and gleefully reported that the impact on employment was trivial. What they failed to mention, of course, is that the new national minimum wage was still lower than the state minimum wage in most places. In the few places where it did actually raise the floor, such as Alabama and American Samoa, it did impact employment.
What about all those people who no longer need to work 2 jobs? That would help employment a fair bit.
Given that workers are always needed and companies will usually pay the lowest they can get away with to the fewest people they can get away with it doesn't rally follow that unemployment would rise in many places. The only possible danger zone is with small employers, charity workers and that sort of thing
QuoteI did my time as a fast food cashier in high school, around 1989 & 1990. Was not difficult then, and it doesn't appear to be difficult now. I hated it-- it was the most demeaning thing I ever did-- but it was not hard.
Doing such things as a temporary part time job and doing it all day, day in, day out, for year upon year, are rather different experiences.
Plus times at tougher
Quote from: Tyr on October 25, 2013, 02:03:51 AM
Given that workers are always needed and companies will usually pay the lowest they can get away with to the fewest people they can get away with it doesn't rally follow that unemployment would rise in many places. The only possible danger zone is with small employers, charity workers and that sort of thing
I don't understand your logic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2013, 01:58:23 AM1. Your claim of a monopsonistic labor market is patently ridiculous. It makes as much sense as saying all people working low skilled jobs constitute a monopoly.
Good to know there's a word for it. Why's it patently ridiculous?
Quote2. I know of almost no economists who predict a rise in minimum wage would generate zero increase in unemployment.
Here's a book on the subject:
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5632.html
I believe the other big economist on this is David Neumark who I mischaracterised. He thinks there is a significant enough effect but that it's limited and not across the board.
Here's a piece on possible reasons:
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
From that I see a bit on monopsonistic labour which doesn't seem ridiculous to me:
QuoteDynamic monopsony model
The dynamic monopsony model is a third theoretical approach to the labor market that opens up additional channels of adjustment. The most important new channel is the possibility that the minimum wage reduces the costs of turnover to low-wage employers.
The key difference between the standard competitive model and the monopsony model concerns the circumstances employers face when it comes to recruiting and retaining staff. In the competitive model, employers can hire all the labor they desire by paying the prevailing market wage; and, in the event that a worker quits, employers can instantly replace that worker with an identically productive worker at the same wage. By contrast, in the dynamic monopsony model, employers, even those
operating in low-wage labor markets, face real costs associated with hiring new workers. These costs flow from inevitable frictions in the labor market. Workers incur costs (time, effort, financial expenditures) to find job openings; and, workers must limit their job searches to openings that fit their geographic, transportation, and scheduling constraints. To overcome these frictions, employers must either pay above the going wage (to draw extra attention to the particular vacancy) or wait
(with implied costs in lost output) until they are able to fill the vacancy with a worker willing to accept that particular opening at the going rate.
At first glance, these frictions seem to work against low-wage employers, who must pay higher wages to attract additional workers. In reality, however, these frictions put low-wage workers at a significant disadvantage relative to their employers. Employers must pay above the going rate to fill vacancies quickly (or wait longer until the vacancy is filled at the going rate) because unemployed workers face real barriers (transportation, scheduling, information, financial, and others) to locating
suitable jobs. Low-wage employers are well-positioned to take advantage of these difficulties. Even though employers must pay new workers a higher wage to fill a vacancy quickly, employers are able to pay their current workers – who had to overcome various frictions to find their current job – below their "marginal product."
In the monopsony model, employers are unlikely to pay higher wages in order to fill vacancies because they would then have to raise the pay of their existing workers to match the pay offered to their last hire. As a result, in monopsonistic settings, employers habitually operate with unfilled vacancies, rather than raising the wage for their entire workforce. In this context, raising the minimum wage can actually increase employment by raising the wages of the existing workforce to the "competitive" level (no existing jobs are lost because these workers were being paid below their "marginal product") and filling existing vacancies (which increases overall employment).
Again I don't mind low-paid employees having a low wage, or having to work two jobs to be enjoying an 'average' sort of life. If that were the worry, or income inequality were then I think the EITC would probably be the best solution.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2013, 02:25:39 AM
Good to know there's a word for it. Why's it patently ridiculous?
Because I can walk down the street, or scan the classified ads, and see that there is more than one company in the world that employs people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2013, 02:14:41 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 25, 2013, 02:03:51 AM
Given that workers are always needed and companies will usually pay the lowest they can get away with to the fewest people they can get away with it doesn't rally follow that unemployment would rise in many places. The only possible danger zone is with small employers, charity workers and that sort of thing
I don't understand your logic.
So I'm a business owner. I need a minimum of two guys to staff my business. So I employ 2 guys for minimum wage. That I can afford to pay them more or hire a third guy is irrelevant, I do the minimum I can get away with. If the minimum wage goes up then there's nothing I can do, I have to pay my guys more. I can't fire the extra 3rd guy as I never employed him anyway.
Quote from: Tyr on October 25, 2013, 02:36:29 AM
So I'm a business owner. I need a minimum of two guys to staff my business. So I employ 2 guys for minimum wage. That I can afford to pay them more or hire a third guy is irrelevant, I do the minimum I can get away with. If the minimum wage goes up then there's nothing I can do, I have to pay my guys more. I can't fire the extra 3rd guy as I never employed him anyway.
You can close your shop.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2013, 02:27:53 AM
Because I can walk down the street, or scan the classified ads, and see that there is more than one company in the world that employs people.
I compared in behaviour and said single buyers, I said it was monopsonistic in a sort-of Biden 'literally' not a really 'literally' :P
That doesn't change anything I've said and actually the 'dynamic monopsony' theory up there makes sense to me, I also think the institutional model in that link has something to it and there's something to the competitive model but I think more for higher wage workers.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 24, 2013, 11:52:39 PM
Most of the cashier fuck-ups I've experienced are usually honest errors that any competent operator could make, and if it takes a long time to fix, it's just because not enough responsibility has been delegated to the $8/hr serf to fix it due to shrinkage concerns.
There's a good deal of truth to that. But most of the time, if your sandwich is wrong, it was actually wrung up correctly, and the kitchen staff made it wrong. Or the folks in the back made it right, but you got handed someone else's order instead. And as I said before, often the cashier has wrung up exactly what the customer asked for, and it was made that way, but what the customer asked for wasn't what the customer actually meant.
BTW, contrary to what some posts in this thread have claimed, not all fast food registers have icons on them. Neither of the fast food places I've worked at had registers with icons.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2013, 02:46:26 AM
I compared in behaviour and said single buyers, I said it was monopsonistic in a sort-of Biden 'literally' not a really 'literally' :P
That doesn't change anything I've said and actually the 'dynamic monopsony' theory up there makes sense to me, I also think the institutional model in that link has something to it and there's something to the competitive model but I think more for higher wage workers.
Your article is making a very esoteric point about labor market dynamics which has nothing to do with a single buyer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2013, 03:03:15 AM
Your article is making a very esoteric point about labor market dynamics which has nothing to do with a single buyer.
I used the wrong analogy. Mea culpa.
That piece is about why there isn't a clear link between raising the minimum wage and employment what else is going on. It's discussing different adjustment channels there. One of the models uses the same term of art that I misused. I thought there may be a link.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2013, 03:08:18 AM
I used the wrong analogy. Mea culpa.
That piece is about why there isn't a clear link between raising the minimum wage and employment what else is going on. It's discussing different adjustment channels there. One of the models uses the same term of art that I misused. I thought there may be a link.
It's proposing a theory of how low wage labor might not act like a perfectly competitive market.
Does he back up his theorizing with any data?
Data for what?
Data to substantiate the claim that low wage labor markets act the he says.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2013, 03:17:45 AM
Data to substantiate the claim that low wage labor markets act the he says.
He basically plumps for this argument:
QuoteThe standard competitive model makes stark predictions about the employment effects of the minimum wage: a binding minimum wage will price at least some low-wage workers out of jobs and will unambiguously lower employment. Why, then, does the bulk of the best statistical evidence on the employment effects of the minimum wage cluster at zero or only small employment effects?
This section attempts to answer that question, adopting and adapting the simple "channels of adjustment" framework proposed by Hirsch, Kaufman, and Zelenska. Hirsch, Kaufman, and Zelenska argue for a "channels of adjustment" approach through which cost increases associated with the minimum wage change "...the behavior of firms, with impacts on workers, consumers, owners, and other agents."
Hirsch, Kaufman, and Zelenska analyze the possible channels of adjustment emphasized by three different theoretical approaches to the minimum wage: the standard competitive model; the "institutional" model; and the (dynamic) "monopsony" model.
That's where the 'dynamic monopsony' bit came from.
There are far more aspects that make the environment different now than the one of the pre-70s being used as a comparison. Some of the same issues in the decline of Japan discussions apply also.
For one, the shift away from children supporting their parents later in life is all but gone now. Having children used to be a retirement plan, now it's an expensive hobby. Now, parents have their own assets that perform that task as well as state assistance. That's a big pile of assets that might otherwise have been in the pockets of working people, as well as an additional pressure for investment profits to fund the savings growth of future retirees. Before, that savings might have been put in the family farm or home and be left to the heirs later on.
Information exchange and the certification economy matter too. You can't get a job just because you're good at it. You have to have papers saying so, or a membership in the proper guild, or have taken some tests or attended a school for a certain period of time. What is a job search anyway? It's people looking for a way to occupy their time. If, say, under normal circumstances, 80% of the population is capable of learning and performing any job. The other 20% maybe divided up between those who are only capable of doing 50% of the jobs and another portion not capable of work. There's no way to estimate it well. Anyway, you put up some barriers to entry for a large percentage of those jobs like requiring a degree, union or bar membership or something. Now, a smaller portion of the population has attained qualification to perform a larger number of jobs. The obvious economic impact of that will be that the supply of "qualified" people will diminish and labor glut develops in the "lower-skilled" areas. In other words, low-income people are making less because high-income people are making more--the latter due to constructed barriers to entry that have been constructed to protect them.
I don't think 80% of the population is capable of performing any job anymore; although that may once have been substantially true, perhaps in the early industrial era.
That said, it's a gross defect of modern capitalism that the most remunerative jobs are jobs that a broader section of the population could do (managing crap, being a CEO, if we're being honest most medical services) or that no one should do (most jobs in finance), and the jobs that both require high intellect and are socially valuable pay about what being a failed lawyer does. And I think the certification economy is part of that problem, because certing locks you into a path, and if you choose poorly, too fucking bad; but it also, as you say, provides protection for those lucky/just good enough to be part of a successful guild structure.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2013, 10:24:39 PM
So you want to play CC now? I never said the jobs were now simple and easy, I said that computers have made many jobs easier.
Besides, I would say that if they are the only jobs that an individual can get and can never ever advance at said job or get another job (but is not an actual slave and by rules not allowed to seek other employment) then yes they might be easy positions.
Don't interfere with Meri's emo scene, guy. If she doesn't get to restate her opponent's position into something absurd, she could never convince herself that she (secretly) won every debate. If course no one said that" it's simple and easy to work minimum wage jobs now that computers are there to help." That would be an absurd assertion and has only been made by Meri's straw man.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 11:31:17 PM
That was aimed at grumbler, not you.
And it missed my argument by a mile as well, but if it makes you feel good to set up those emo arguments, have at it. They'll work better if you don't pretend that they were made by anyone but you, though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2013, 02:42:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 25, 2013, 02:36:29 AM
So I'm a business owner. I need a minimum of two guys to staff my business. So I employ 2 guys for minimum wage. That I can afford to pay them more or hire a third guy is irrelevant, I do the minimum I can get away with. If the minimum wage goes up then there's nothing I can do, I have to pay my guys more. I can't fire the extra 3rd guy as I never employed him anyway.
You can close your shop.
That would be pretty dumb and selfish yet self-destroying.
It wouldn't be dumb if you're being forced to pay your employees so much money that you're actually operating at a loss. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on October 25, 2013, 06:52:46 AM
It wouldn't be dumb if you're being forced to pay your employees so much money that you're actually operating at a loss. :sleep:
You mean, like the Twitter board is doing?
I don't know anything about Twitter. It doesn't exist to me.... kind of like Apple. :)
Quote from: Tyr on October 25, 2013, 06:23:28 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2013, 02:42:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 25, 2013, 02:36:29 AM
So I'm a business owner. I need a minimum of two guys to staff my business. So I employ 2 guys for minimum wage. That I can afford to pay them more or hire a third guy is irrelevant, I do the minimum I can get away with. If the minimum wage goes up then there's nothing I can do, I have to pay my guys more. I can't fire the extra 3rd guy as I never employed him anyway.
You can close your shop.
That would be pretty dumb and selfish yet self-destroying.
:wacko:
Quote from: Caliga on October 25, 2013, 06:56:05 AM
I don't know anything about Twitter. It doesn't exist to me.... kind of like Apple. :)
They just giving themselves a 16 millions raise.
:huh:
Does Twitter have any way to make money? :hmm:
Quote from: The Brain on October 25, 2013, 06:56:39 AM
:wacko:
"What do you mean I have to pay £2 more an hour to my workers! That's it! I'm closing my shop and going home! No shop for anybody! Who cares if I destroy my source of income with it..."
Quote from: Caliga on October 25, 2013, 06:52:46 AM
It wouldn't be dumb if you're being forced to pay your employees so much money that you're actually operating at a loss. :sleep:
Nobody is suggesting doing that. And in my example I could afford a third guy if I wanted, paying the other two a little more is affordable.
Quote from: Caliga on October 25, 2013, 06:57:52 AM
:huh:
Does Twitter have any way to make money? :hmm:
Nope, 64 millions lost in the 3rd quarter.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 25, 2013, 07:42:12 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 25, 2013, 06:57:52 AM
:huh:
Does Twitter have any way to make money? :hmm:
Nope, 64 millions lost in the 3rd quarter.
On $169 million in revenue. And, since they spent over half of it on R&D, they could make themselves break even by cutting that expenditure to "normal" SV levels.
That is true.
Quote from: Tyr on October 25, 2013, 07:07:02 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 25, 2013, 06:56:39 AM
:wacko:
"What do you mean I have to pay £2 more an hour to my workers! That's it! I'm closing my shop and going home! No shop for anybody! Who cares if I destroy my source of income with it..."
Quote from: Caliga on October 25, 2013, 06:52:46 AM
It wouldn't be dumb if you're being forced to pay your employees so much money that you're actually operating at a loss. :sleep:
Nobody is suggesting doing that.
When you're talking about fast food restaurants, you very well might be. It's a penny-profit business.
Of course, in the real world, what the owner does is raise his prices to make up the difference--not necessarily on the day the new minimum wage goes into effect, but over time (and, since these things get passed into law before they actually go into effect, perhaps the prices actually go up
before the minimum wage does). So if you want to raise the minimum wage from $7.25/hr to $10/hr, get ready for your $6 value meal to become your $9 value meal. The end result leaves the minimum-wage earners no better off than before. Nobody really benefits, and the people currently making wages in the $9-$12/hr range get screwed, because they'll get raises, too, but whereas the increase in the minimum wage will roughly match the increase in prices, the folks currently making $9-12/hr won't get quite the same increase in their pay.
Tyr, for most businesses the main cost is payroll, so yes, raising salaries even $1 an hour across the board would have a huge impact on operating costs, and as dps points out for something like fast food would have a direct impact on the cost of the food... which you'd probably bitch about too. :)
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 11:42:24 PM
We're not talking about people like you or me. We're talking about career minimum wage slaves.
Who ought to be learning a skill to get a higher paying job. Or, in the absence of that, working their asses off.
Quote from: dps on October 25, 2013, 08:08:03 AM
When you're talking about fast food restaurants, you very well might be. It's a penny-profit business.
Of course, in the real world, what the owner does is raise his prices to make up the difference--not necessarily on the day the new minimum wage goes into effect, but over time (and, since these things get passed into law before they actually go into effect, perhaps the prices actually go up before the minimum wage does). So if you want to raise the minimum wage from $7.25/hr to $10/hr, get ready for your $6 value meal to become your $9 value meal. The end result leaves the minimum-wage earners no better off than before. Nobody really benefits, and the people currently making wages in the $9-$12/hr range get screwed, because they'll get raises, too, but whereas the increase in the minimum wage will roughly match the increase in prices, the folks currently making $9-12/hr won't get quite the same increase in their pay.
They'll benefit from buying more groceries instead of fast food. :cool:
Quote from: derspiess on October 25, 2013, 08:29:31 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 11:42:24 PM
We're not talking about people like you or me. We're talking about career minimum wage slaves.
Who ought to be learning a skill to get a higher paying job. Or, in the absence of that, working their asses off.
...and the better point is that of all the people working minimum wage jobs, the number who are "career minimum wage employees" is very, very small. In fact, as someone who employed minimum wage workers for several years, I would guess the numbers are less than 10% of the workforce, of even that. Nobody gets a job making pizza at the Hut thinking "Sweet! This is it! My job for the next 30 years....!"
But of course raising the minimum wage doesn't just raise it for those people, it raises it for everyone, and that include the vast majority of min wage earners who are NOT doing this for their career, but doing it as a secondary source of income, or, of course, are students, which is the majority of these workers.
I found these charts (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm) showing numbers of workers at or below the minimum wage (change 2012 to the appropriate year). The charts I looked at bear out that it is generally young people just starting out at that level (~50% 16-24 in 2012, with the percentage slowly increasing). Jumping to before the recession the number of people at or below minimum wage was much lower, and the percentage of young people was higher. Year to year the numbers jump around quite a bit more than I was expecting.
Quote from: derspiess on October 25, 2013, 08:29:31 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 11:42:24 PM
We're not talking about people like you or me. We're talking about career minimum wage slaves.
Who ought to be learning a skill to get a higher paying job.
You should go on down to the 'hood and help them with that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2013, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 25, 2013, 08:29:31 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 11:42:24 PM
We're not talking about people like you or me. We're talking about career minimum wage slaves.
Who ought to be learning a skill to get a higher paying job.
You should go on down to the 'hood and help them with that.
Oh look, Seedy playing the race card. How original.
Oh, and on the issue of computers and other technology making jobs easier, it really doesn't work that way. Technology often makes individual job tasks easier, but it also often makes it easier for an individual worker to be assign more tasks. From the worker's POV, it's kind of a wash--productivity may have gone up, but the job hasn't really gotten easier because there's more to do.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2013, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 25, 2013, 08:29:31 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 11:42:24 PM
We're not talking about people like you or me. We're talking about career minimum wage slaves.
Who ought to be learning a skill to get a higher paying job.
You should go on down to the 'hood and help them with that.
How do you know I don't?
Quote from: dps on October 25, 2013, 10:13:01 AM
Oh, and on the issue of computers and other technology making jobs easier, it really doesn't work that way. Technology often makes individual job tasks easier, but it also often makes it easier for an individual worker to be assign more tasks. From the worker's POV, it's kind of a wash--productivity may have gone up, but the job hasn't really gotten easier because there's more to do.
I think we've lost sight of why this was initially brought up. We were discussing how workers (particularly those making minimum wage) were shafted while companies were producing more. I mentioned that if companies were investing to make work easier (/more efficient) so why would they then want to raise everyone's wages?
Quote from: dps on October 25, 2013, 10:13:01 AM
Oh, and on the issue of computers and other technology making jobs easier, it really doesn't work that way. Technology often makes individual job tasks easier, but it also often makes it easier for an individual worker to be assign more tasks. From the worker's POV, it's kind of a wash--productivity may have gone up, but the job hasn't really gotten easier because there's more to do.
I guess.
But the basic idea that computers don't make things easier is, well, ridiculous.
Of course they do - that is the entire point. If it wasn't easier, they wouldn't have them. The point is to make it easier so you can do it faster, and hence get more done - make sure that drive through customer gets through the line in 60 seconds so you can get to the next customer.
Does that make the order takers job easier? Not really - because they will be expected to serve more customers with that decline in each individual customers "work". That is *always* the point of automation. It may make the individual task easier, but if so, that just means you will be expected to perform more of those tasks in the same amount of time.
Nothing gets much easier or harder overall - lets be honest, these are min wage jobs. They CANNOT get harder, because the bar for doing them is, by definition, about as low as possible. If you make some min wage job even nominally harder, then people will get a different min wage job that isn't.
And they aren't going to get easier, because why would they? The employer is trying to get as much productivity out of those workers as possible, not make their job easy. Which is why you see McDonalds with min wage workers running rather impressively automated and computerized shit like a french fry machine. Have you guys seen these things? All the worker does is dump bags of fries into the cage and press a button, then throw some salt on there, and even the fucking salt shaker is made to dispense the same amount of salt per shake!
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2013, 10:26:03 AM
Quote from: dps on October 25, 2013, 10:13:01 AM
Oh, and on the issue of computers and other technology making jobs easier, it really doesn't work that way. Technology often makes individual job tasks easier, but it also often makes it easier for an individual worker to be assign more tasks. From the worker's POV, it's kind of a wash--productivity may have gone up, but the job hasn't really gotten easier because there's more to do.
I guess.
But the basic idea that computers don't make things easier is, well, ridiculous.
Of course they do - that is the entire point. If it wasn't easier, they wouldn't have them. The point is to make it easier so you can do it faster, and hence get more done - make sure that drive through customer gets through the line in 60 seconds so you can get to the next customer.
Does that make the order takers job easier? Not really - because they will be expected to serve more customers with that decline in each individual customers "work". That is *always* the point of automation. It may make the individual task easier, but if so, that just means you will be expected to perform more of those tasks in the same amount of time.
Nothing gets much easier or harder overall - lets be honest, these are min wage jobs. They CANNOT get harder, because the bar for doing them is, by definition, about as low as possible. If you make some min wage job even nominally harder, then people will get a different min wage job that isn't.
And they aren't going to get easier, because why would they? The employer is trying to get as much productivity out of those workers as possible, not make their job easy. Which is why you see McDonalds with min wage workers running rather impressively automated and computerized shit like a french fry machine. Have you guys seen these things? All the worker does is dump bags of fries into the cage and press a button, then throw some salt on there, and even the fucking salt shaker is made to dispense the same amount of salt per shake!
Yeah, that's true, but to a certain extent you're conflating "simple" with "easy". Digging a ditch is a simple job, but it's also hard work--physically much more demanding in general than fast food work. Though even there, in some aspects, ditch digging is easier. For example, if a ditch digging crew is getting tired, the foreman can tell everyone to take 5. You can't do that in fast food. That's really the "hard" aspect of working fast food--it's constant extreme time pressure, with little to no let-up.
I guess the issue appears to be that increasing productivity is benefiting everyone, with the notable exception of the workers.
I can accept that setting wage controls isn't the right way to spread the benefits more evenly through society. But it strikes me as unsustainable to not do it somehow. Otherwise, I suspect what you tend to get is an increasing tendency for more and more to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2013, 10:57:36 AM
I guess the issue appears to be that increasing productivity is benefiting everyone, with the notable exception of the workers.
I can accept that setting wage controls isn't the right way to spread the benefits more evenly through society. But it strikes me as unsustainable to not do it somehow. Otherwise, I suspect what you tend to get is an increasing tendency for more and more to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Seems like that would be fair to say if a sizable chunk of workforce consists of permanent/long-term minimum wage earners. Do we know if that's true?
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2013, 10:26:03 AM
Nothing gets much easier or harder overall - lets be honest, these are min wage jobs. They CANNOT get harder, because the bar for doing them is, by definition, about as low as possible. If you make some min wage job even nominally harder, then people will get a different min wage job that isn't.
I think this assumes a degree of fluidity in the labour market that does not exist. There is also an assumption that people take minimum wage jobs because they are looking for the easiest possible job which is, frankly, offensive.
Here is an interesting stat which support the point Shielbh was making
Quotein 35 states, it's a better deal not to work—and instead, to take advantage of federal welfare programs—than to take a minimum-wage job.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2013, 11:01:50 AM
There is also an assumption that people take minimum wage jobs because they are looking for the easiest possible job which is, frankly, offensive.
I don't think that's true at all.
1) Who wants to work a hard minimum wage job (when one has no prospect of advancing) if you can get the same pay doing something not as hard? That's not offensive that's just common sense.
2) Some of the lifers/people doing that minimum wage job could be doing so as that's their competence level. If you make it harder, they will not be able to do it. Not sure how widespread this is - but I also don't know common holding the same or similar minimum wage job is for life.
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2013, 11:06:46 AM
1) Who wants to work a hard minimum wage job (when one has no prospect of advancing) if you can get the same pay doing something not as hard? That's not offensive that's just common sense.
People who are working at the only job they can find. As I said, he (and you) assume a market fluidity - mobility is a better word - that doesn exist.
Quote2) Some of the lifers/people doing that minimum wage job could be doing so as that's their competence level. If you make it harder, they will not be able to do it. Not sure how widespread this is - but I also don't know common holding the same or similar minimum wage job is for life.
People who are working at minimum wage jobs do so because those are the only jobs available to them. That is why the issue of minimum wage laws is important.
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2013, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2013, 10:57:36 AM
I guess the issue appears to be that increasing productivity is benefiting everyone, with the notable exception of the workers.
I can accept that setting wage controls isn't the right way to spread the benefits more evenly through society. But it strikes me as unsustainable to not do it somehow. Otherwise, I suspect what you tend to get is an increasing tendency for more and more to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Seems like that would be fair to say if a sizable chunk of workforce consists of permanent/long-term minimum wage earners. Do we know if that's true?
Well, I don't know about that. I do know that, in the US and I suspect here to a lesser extent here, wealth has in fact been concerntrating, while the ability of the average person to find jobs other than of the minimum-wage type has been declining.
Much has been written about the demise of the middle class. What I think has been happening, is that below the level of the independently wealthy, the middle class has been dividing - many sinking lower into what amounts to lower-classdom, and a few rising higher.
The difference lies in the ability to be mobile in one's occupation - that is, in barganing power. Those rising have the ability to switch from employer to employer, and the employers know it. Those sinking have, increasingly, to take what they are given - meaning they are headed to job status equal to minimum wage earners.
I suspect both you and I belong, now, to the class who are mobile. People who belong to the class who are not experience a very different, and less forgiving, work world.
Edit: I see what CC wrote.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2013, 11:11:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2013, 11:06:46 AM
1) Who wants to work a hard minimum wage job (when one has no prospect of advancing) if you can get the same pay doing something not as hard? That's not offensive that's just common sense.
People who are working at the only job they can find. As I said, he (and you) assume a market fluidity - mobility is a better word - that doesn exist.
Quote2) Some of the lifers/people doing that minimum wage job could be doing so as that's their competence level. If you make it harder, they will not be able to do it. Not sure how widespread this is - but I also don't know common holding the same or similar minimum wage job is for life.
People who are working at minimum wage jobs do so because those are the only jobs available to them. That is why the issue of minimum wage laws is important.
Okay, if you want to maintain there is only one reason why people take a minimum wage job then no need having a discussion.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 25, 2013, 03:55:09 AM
There are far more aspects that make the environment different now than the one of the pre-70s being used as a comparison. Some of the same issues in the decline of Japan discussions apply also.
For one, the shift away from children supporting their parents later in life is all but gone now. Having children used to be a retirement plan, now it's an expensive hobby. Now, parents have their own assets that perform that task as well as state assistance. That's a big pile of assets that might otherwise have been in the pockets of working people, as well as an additional pressure for investment profits to fund the savings growth of future retirees. Before, that savings might have been put in the family farm or home and be left to the heirs later on.
Information exchange and the certification economy matter too. You can't get a job just because you're good at it. You have to have papers saying so, or a membership in the proper guild, or have taken some tests or attended a school for a certain period of time. What is a job search anyway? It's people looking for a way to occupy their time. If, say, under normal circumstances, 80% of the population is capable of learning and performing any job. The other 20% maybe divided up between those who are only capable of doing 50% of the jobs and another portion not capable of work. There's no way to estimate it well. Anyway, you put up some barriers to entry for a large percentage of those jobs like requiring a degree, union or bar membership or something. Now, a smaller portion of the population has attained qualification to perform a larger number of jobs. The obvious economic impact of that will be that the supply of "qualified" people will diminish and labor glut develops in the "lower-skilled" areas. In other words, low-income people are making less because high-income people are making more--the latter due to constructed barriers to entry that have been constructed to protect them.
These are all good points. Thanks, MiM.
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2013, 11:11:45 AM
Well, I don't know about that. I do know that, in the US and I suspect here to a lesser extent, wealth has in fact been concerntrating, while the ability of the average person to find jobs other than of the minimum-wage type has been declining.
Much has been written about the demise of the middle class. What I think has been happening, is that below the level of the independently wealthy, the middle class has been dividing - many sinking lower into what amounts to lower-classdom, and a few rising higher.
The difference lies in the ability to be mobile in one's occupation - that is, in barganing power. Those rising have the ability to switch from employer to employer, and the employers know it. Those sinking have, increasingly, to take what they are given - meaning they are headed to job status equal to minimum wage earners.
I suspect both you and I belong, now, to the class who are mobile. People who belong to the class who are not experience a very different, and less forgiving, work world.
Edit: I see what CC wrote.
I will certainly agree that there has been a tendency for more wealth concentration. That doesn't mean that all workers are not seeing any gains from increase efficiency...and I'm also not sure who everyone is when you remove workers.
I really just wanted to raise that we've been speaking about minimum wage workers and wanted to make sure that we weren't generalizing the various charts, etc. to all/most workers.
Quote from: dps on October 25, 2013, 08:08:03 AM
Of course, in the real world, what the owner does is raise his prices to make up the difference--not necessarily on the day the new minimum wage goes into effect, but over time (and, since these things get passed into law before they actually go into effect, perhaps the prices actually go up before the minimum wage does). So if you want to raise the minimum wage from $7.25/hr to $10/hr, get ready for your $6 value meal to become your $9 value meal. The end result leaves the minimum-wage earners no better off than before. Nobody really benefits, and the people currently making wages in the $9-$12/hr range get screwed, because they'll get raises, too, but whereas the increase in the minimum wage will roughly match the increase in prices, the folks currently making $9-12/hr won't get quite the same increase in their pay.
:hmm: So, a 38% increase in wage costs results in a 50% increase in price of products? That only makes sense if cost of labor makes up more than 100% of the price of value meal.
Quote from: DGuller on October 25, 2013, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: dps on October 25, 2013, 08:08:03 AM
Of course, in the real world, what the owner does is raise his prices to make up the difference--not necessarily on the day the new minimum wage goes into effect, but over time (and, since these things get passed into law before they actually go into effect, perhaps the prices actually go up before the minimum wage does). So if you want to raise the minimum wage from $7.25/hr to $10/hr, get ready for your $6 value meal to become your $9 value meal. The end result leaves the minimum-wage earners no better off than before. Nobody really benefits, and the people currently making wages in the $9-$12/hr range get screwed, because they'll get raises, too, but whereas the increase in the minimum wage will roughly match the increase in prices, the folks currently making $9-12/hr won't get quite the same increase in their pay.
:hmm: So, a 38% increase in wage costs results in a 50% increase in price of products? That only makes sense if cost of labor makes up more than 100% of the price of value meal.
On a different note, right now minimum wage protesters seem to be pushing for $15, which appears to be over 100% increase from current federal wage.
Quote from: DGuller on October 25, 2013, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: dps on October 25, 2013, 08:08:03 AM
Of course, in the real world, what the owner does is raise his prices to make up the difference--not necessarily on the day the new minimum wage goes into effect, but over time (and, since these things get passed into law before they actually go into effect, perhaps the prices actually go up before the minimum wage does). So if you want to raise the minimum wage from $7.25/hr to $10/hr, get ready for your $6 value meal to become your $9 value meal. The end result leaves the minimum-wage earners no better off than before. Nobody really benefits, and the people currently making wages in the $9-$12/hr range get screwed, because they'll get raises, too, but whereas the increase in the minimum wage will roughly match the increase in prices, the folks currently making $9-12/hr won't get quite the same increase in their pay.
:hmm: So, a 38% increase in wage costs results in a 50% increase in price of products? That only makes sense if cost of labor makes up more than 100% of the price of value meal.
I would guess that additional costs would be the taxes and such that are paid based on an employees pay.
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2013, 11:27:12 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 25, 2013, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: dps on October 25, 2013, 08:08:03 AM
Of course, in the real world, what the owner does is raise his prices to make up the difference--not necessarily on the day the new minimum wage goes into effect, but over time (and, since these things get passed into law before they actually go into effect, perhaps the prices actually go up before the minimum wage does). So if you want to raise the minimum wage from $7.25/hr to $10/hr, get ready for your $6 value meal to become your $9 value meal. The end result leaves the minimum-wage earners no better off than before. Nobody really benefits, and the people currently making wages in the $9-$12/hr range get screwed, because they'll get raises, too, but whereas the increase in the minimum wage will roughly match the increase in prices, the folks currently making $9-12/hr won't get quite the same increase in their pay.
:hmm: So, a 38% increase in wage costs results in a 50% increase in price of products? That only makes sense if cost of labor makes up more than 100% of the price of value meal.
I would guess that additional costs would be the taxes and such that are paid based on an employees pay.
:hmm: I would guess that dps pulled the numbers out of his ass, so they would work to support his extremely dubious point that minimum wage increases are self-defeating for people who earn it. The article that re-started this thread discussed this very subject extensively, and the conclusion was that labor costs made up only a third of the costs.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2013, 11:01:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2013, 10:26:03 AM
Nothing gets much easier or harder overall - lets be honest, these are min wage jobs. They CANNOT get harder, because the bar for doing them is, by definition, about as low as possible. If you make some min wage job even nominally harder, then people will get a different min wage job that isn't.
I think this assumes a degree of fluidity in the labour market that does not exist. There is also an assumption that people take minimum wage jobs because they are looking for the easiest possible job which is, frankly, offensive.
I think there is easily that much fluidity in the labor market when it comes to min wage jobs.
I think every single fast food joint in the Rochester area is hiring, and at higher than min wage.
And I make no such assumption - people take min wage jobs because that is what they can get given their availability, desire, competence, etc. But given that they are taking a min wage job, if they take one that is overly difficult, they will simply leave for another one, because there are plenty of them out there.
Again, I've been there - I've worked min wage, and I've run businesses that employee min or near min wage jobs. There is incredible fluidity in that labor market, people leave those jobs and get another one constantly based on all kinds of factors like availability, or whether they like their managers, or even just because they don't give a shit about coming to work on some particular day because they know they can just get another min wage job down the street if they get fired from this one.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2013, 11:11:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2013, 11:06:46 AM
1) Who wants to work a hard minimum wage job (when one has no prospect of advancing) if you can get the same pay doing something not as hard? That's not offensive that's just common sense.
People who are working at the only job they can find. As I said, he (and you) assume a market fluidity - mobility is a better word - that doesn exist.
I think the person making the assumptions here is you. What data do you have that suggests that even minimum wage jobs are so hard to get that there isn't any such fluidity?
I don't know, maybe it is different in Canada, but here in Rochester, NY, the only reason you cannot find a min wage job is because the min wage job like positions pay more because they cannot find enough people.
Hell, the local McDonalds all have forgone advertising on their signs to advertise that they are hiring, and starting salaries are in $8-9/hour range for crew positions.
Quote
Quote2) Some of the lifers/people doing that minimum wage job could be doing so as that's their competence level. If you make it harder, they will not be able to do it. Not sure how widespread this is - but I also don't know common holding the same or similar minimum wage job is for life.
People who are working at minimum wage jobs do so because those are the only jobs available to them. That is why the issue of minimum wage laws is important.
Of course but you are assuming that there is a lack of min wage jobs out there. That simply is not true, at least not around here.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2013, 11:02:40 AM
Here is an interesting stat which support the point Shielbh was making
Quotein 35 states, it's a better deal not to work—and instead, to take advantage of federal welfare programs—than to take a minimum-wage job.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/
There may be another way to fix that :hmm:
Developments in other countries:
QuoteBERNE — Switzerland will hold a vote on whether to introduce a basic income for all adults, in a further sign of growing public activism over pay inequality since the financial crisis.
A grassroots committee is calling for all adults in Switzerland to receive an unconditional income of 2,500 Swiss francs — about $2,800 — per month from the state, with the aim of providing a financial safety net for the population.
[...]
A separate proposal to limit monthly executive pay to no more than what the company's lowest-paid staff earn in a year, the so-called 1:12 initiative, faces a popular vote on Nov. 24.
http://news.msn.com/world/swiss-to-vote-on-dollar2800-monthly-income-for-all-adults
Didn't check the entire thread, so maybe this was posted before...
:bleeding:
My ancestors were right to leave Switzerland. :)
Well, if you want to completely remove disincentives to work, welfare payments that are not means-tested are the best approach.
Quote from: Tyr on October 25, 2013, 07:07:02 AM
Nobody is suggesting doing that. And in my example I could afford a third guy if I wanted, paying the other two a little more is affordable.
It's not that hard to construct a hypothetical scenario in which an employer is absolutely indifferent to increases in wages. The question is how much relevance these scenarios have to the discussion of the likely impact of an increase in the minimum wage on unemployment.
And as I said empirical research suggests there's either no significant impact, or there's a very low impact.
Minimum wage people have it pretty sweet. They get paid above market wage. I do not.
Here's a real-world example that's not directly related to minimum wage, but somewhat relevant to the discussion in general:
At my old company we provided in-home healthcare services for both private pay clients and on behalf of Medicare and Medicaid. The way this worked with regard to state-funded services was that, for any given service, there was a set hourly rate that the company was paid for each service provided. So, let's say you send an employee to an old man's house to watch him and make sure he doesn't do anything stupid (he has dementia, for example). The state will pay you as a company $19 an hour to provide this service, and as a company you might pay your employee $14 an hour to provide the service, leaving $5 an hour profit on the service for the company to use to offset G&A, etc.
So as you can see, that's a pretty slim margin, and the numbers I'm using aren't hypothetical: they were standard in the state of Texas for a couple of services. Then the 2008 recession thing hit and a number of states, including Texas, decided unilaterally to slash Medicaid reimbursement rates 'indefinitely'. In one case there was a service that had been reimbursed at $19 an hour that was cut to $13 an hour. So that meant that it immediately became unprofitable to provide this service, so our only options were to either cut the employee's pay OR to just discontinue providing the service. But wait! We were locked into contracts with Texas that required us to keep providing said service till x date and IIRC there was no exit provision even if the reimbursement rate was adjusted. So for a while, we were forced to lose money in Texas and the last I heard, the company has since ceased providing services to Medicaid in Texas (though continues private pay operations).
My point in sharing this is to illustrate that with many low-wage jobs, there's a surprisingly slim operating margin on services provided and corporations don't pay these people low wages because they are 'greedy' or 'mean' or 'LOL FATCAT CEOS' ... though in that case that CEO is a pretty fat dude. :cool:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2013, 02:43:47 PM
And as I said empirical research suggests there's either no significant impact, or there's a very low impact.
Yes you did, but that's not what your dynamic monopsony paper says. It says that's one competing interpretation. The other found elasticities ranging from -.1 to -.3 in 28 of 35 studies reviewed.
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2013, 11:12:24 AM
Okay, if you want to maintain there is only one reason why people take a minimum wage job then no need having a discussion.
Okay, I'll bite what are the other reasons people take minimum wage jobs besides there not being a higher paying job available to them?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2013, 03:30:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2013, 11:12:24 AM
Okay, if you want to maintain there is only one reason why people take a minimum wage job then no need having a discussion.
Okay, I'll bite what are the other reasons people take minimum wage jobs besides there not being a higher paying job available to them?
Barbara Ehrenreich had her own reasons, I guess. :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on October 25, 2013, 03:33:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2013, 03:30:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2013, 11:12:24 AM
Okay, if you want to maintain there is only one reason why people take a minimum wage job then no need having a discussion.
Okay, I'll bite what are the other reasons people take minimum wage jobs besides there not being a higher paying job available to them?
Barbara Ehrenreich had her own reasons, I guess. :hmm:
I had to look that up. So besides the multitude of investigative journalists, what else?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2013, 03:15:31 PM
Yes you did, but that's not what your dynamic monopsony paper says. It says that's one competing interpretation. The other found elasticities ranging from -.1 to -.3 in 28 of 35 studies reviewed.
That's one view which I described as significant difference but limited. Their review is largely about teenage unemployment because they're a group that tend to get the minimum wage. The easy solution to that seems to do what we do over here, which is have an age-graduated minimum wage. It also supports the classical view from the late 70s mentioned in that paper:
QuoteIn 1977, the Minimum Wage Study Commission (MWSC) undertook a review of the existing research on the minimum wage in the United States (and Canada), with a particular focus on the likely impact of indexing the minimum wage to inflation and providing a separate, lower, minimum for younger workers. Four years and $17 million later, the MWSC released a 250-page summary report1 and six additional volumes of related research papers.2
In their independent summary of the research reviewed in the MWSC, Brown, Gilroy, and Kohen, three economists involved in producing the report, distinguished between employment effects on: teenagers (ages 16-19), where they concluded that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduced teen employment, most plausibly, from between zero and 1.5 percent; young adults (ages 20-24), where they believed the employment impact is "negative and smaller than that for teenagers"; and adults, where the "direction of the effect...is uncertain in the empirical work as it is in the theory."3, 4 Their summary
of the theoretical and empirical research through the late 1970s suggested that any "disemployment" effects of the minimum wage were small and almost exclusively limited to teenagers and possibly other younger workers.
The critique in that paper of the Neumark review is this:
QuoteThe Neumark and Wascher review, however, is considerably more subjective and arguably less relevant to the United States than the two meta-studies discussed earlier. Only 52 of the 102 studies reviewed by Neumark and Wascher analyzed U.S. data. Of these, Neumark and Wascher designated 19 as "most credible," five of which were their own studies.19 The Neumark and Wascher (2006) review also excludes several important papers that were not published until after the review was completed, including the important contributions of Arindrajit Dube, William Lester, and Michael Reich (2010) and Sylvia Allegretto, Dube, and Reich (2011) (to which we will return to below).20
The meta-study conclusions mentioned were as follows:
Quote"Two scenarios are consistent with this empirical research record. First, minimum wages may simply have no effect on employment... Second, minimum-wage effects might exist, but they may be too difficult to detect and/or are very small."
Quote"The largest in magnitude are... positive [and] statistically significant... Several are economically irrelevant though statistically significant and several others [are] slightly larger but...statistically insignificant."
The conclusions of subsequent papers, not included in Neumark's review, go like this:
QuoteUsing this large sample of border counties, and these statistical advantages over earlier research, Dube, Lester, and Reich "...find strong earnings effects and no employment effects of minimum wage increases."
Quote"Our evidence does not suggest that minimum wages reduce employment once controls for trends in county-level sectoral employment are incorporated. Rather, employment appears to exhibit an independent downward trend in states that have increased their minimum wages relative to states that have not, thereby predisposing estimates towards reporting negative outcomes."
QuoteBut, once they controlled for different regional trends, the estimated employment effects of the minimum wage disappeared, turning slightly positive, but not statistically significantly different from zero.
Against that, there's a study, from New York rises in the minimum wage (from what I can tell of 40% in a year, which is in my view rather too rapid):
Quote"...robust evidence that raising the New York minimum ... significantly reduced employment rates of less-skilled, less-educated New Yorkers." Their estimates implied "...a median elasticity of around -0.7, large relative to consensus estimates ... of -0.1 to -0.3 found in the literature."35
The majority of studies seem to suggest no significant link and they are also the ones based on the broadest sample. Against that there's the consensus you've pointed which, as I say, is significant but limited by population and, I'd suggest, easily mitigated. There's also the outlier New York study which maybe can be explained by how quickly the rise took effect.
If nothing else you can now say you know plenty of economists who predict zero rise in unemployment :P
I think for me the stronger worry would be inflationary effects. That may not be an issue in the US but in the UK we've had many quarters of over-target inflation so that would be a problem.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2013, 09:29:55 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2013, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 25, 2013, 08:29:31 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2013, 11:42:24 PM
We're not talking about people like you or me. We're talking about career minimum wage slaves.
Who ought to be learning a skill to get a higher paying job.
You should go on down to the 'hood and help them with that.
Oh look, Seedy playing the race card. How original.
Plenty of white trash in Highlandtown can use the help, if you want to avoid the darkies instead.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2013, 03:30:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2013, 11:12:24 AM
Okay, if you want to maintain there is only one reason why people take a minimum wage job then no need having a discussion.
Okay, I'll bite what are the other reasons people take minimum wage jobs besides there not being a higher paying job available to them?
According to Berkut, they're all students working their way through college, or people trying to earn a little extra money for that holiday cruise.
I might just be the only one hiring your stoned kids, languish. No degree, no certs, no guild memberships? No problem. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Whoops, no wait, HR is on the other line...
I've read lots of horror stories about the local regulation in the US. I'm not sure if it's the same as you're describing but things like requiring a license to be an interior designer and so on :lol:
Do you still have apprenticeships over there?
Also I wonder if this is a business culture thing as well. I've read that the US has far more employment based in large firms (with HR departments <_< :lol:) than is normal in the UK and the rest of Europe.
Quote from: Caliga on October 25, 2013, 08:13:54 AM
Tyr, for most businesses the main cost is payroll, so yes, raising salaries even $1 an hour across the board would have a huge impact on operating costs, and as dps points out for something like fast food would have a direct impact on the cost of the food... which you'd probably bitch about too. :)
Maybe. For some companies certainly having to pay staff more could be painful.
Yet way too many people like to posit that companies just about getting by is already the norm when it's really not.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 26, 2013, 02:33:23 AM
I've read lots of horror stories about the local regulation in the US. I'm not sure if it's the same as you're describing but things like requiring a license to be an interior designer and so on :lol:
I possess no certifications in my profession, which is why I am not qualified to perform in it.
QuoteDo you still have apprenticeships over there?
Only for the traditional labor stuff, plumbing, electrical, carpentry, etc. But they tend to be union-related industries, so most Americans and Languishites shit on the very concept of apprenticeship.
QuoteAlso I wonder if this is a business culture thing as well. I've read that the US has far more employment based in large firms (with HR departments <_< :lol:) than is normal in the UK and the rest of Europe.
The entire US Human Resources industry has managed to become the very definition of the self-licking ice cream cone. Quite an accomplishment.
HR is in the business of justifying the existence of HR, at all times.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2013, 07:06:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2013, 03:30:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2013, 11:12:24 AM
Okay, if you want to maintain there is only one reason why people take a minimum wage job then no need having a discussion.
Okay, I'll bite what are the other reasons people take minimum wage jobs besides there not being a higher paying job available to them?
According to Berkut, they're all students working their way through college, or people trying to earn a little extra money for that holiday cruise.
I am genuinely curious. Presumably a person would take a higher paying job if were available over a lower paying job. I could think of a few that don't apply very often. A person not wanting to do a job they find morally or socially objectionable, like a chick not wanting to be a stripper so taking a job stamping tax forms for the state at minimum wage, or a guy who who's qualified to be say a draughtsman but loves the prestige and respect of working at McDonalds. I suppose there is the possibility of moving to the other side of the country to find a job ("I can work as a minimum wage grunt at Arby's but I'll get paid a dollar more if I move 700 miles across the country! Better pack up all my things!". Though that's sorta stretching the definition of "available". Of course there's the other side of the coin on that one, where you are told your job is has been relocated. "Do to the Corporate shuffle you and all your coworkers have been moved to Hanoi. You have three days to report or you will be terminated. Well, one. Shame we had to the fumigate the building this week".
There are people who work lower-paying jobs than they are qualified for because those jobs offer more flexibility in working hours than higher-paying jobs. I know a nurse that is currently working in retail because it allows her to be home when her grade-school daughter gets home from school. I suspect that she isn't alone in this.
Quote from: Tyr on October 26, 2013, 06:15:48 AM
Maybe. For some companies certainly having to pay staff more could be painful.
Yet way too many people like to posit that companies just about getting by is already the norm when it's really not.
Cal was talking about raising prices. As pointed out earlier, margins on fast food can be pretty small, six cents in the case of a dollar burger.
One notion that you, and many others approaching an issue such as this from the left, seem to be unfamiliar with is return on investment. The whole point of opening a business, such as a new fast food restaurant, is to achieve a return on investment. So you saw gosh golly, the franchise owner is making $100,000 a year, he can certainly afford to pay his workers more. You neglect the issue of how much money he put into the business to start it, and what kind of yield that 100K represents. If the return drops to the point where the owner is better off putting his money in the bank and earning bank interest, he won't open the business.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2013, 02:43:47 PM
And as I said empirical research suggests there's either no significant impact, or there's a very low impact.
I think this is the main point.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2013, 04:03:25 PM
There are people who work lower-paying jobs than they are qualified for because those jobs offer more flexibility in working hours than higher-paying jobs. I know a nurse that is currently working in retail because it allows her to be home when her grade-school daughter gets home from school. I suspect that she isn't alone in this.
I am so proud of you! :wub: You didn't ignore me!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2013, 04:14:45 PM
One notion that you, and many others approaching an issue such as this from the left, seem to be unfamiliar with is return on investment. The whole point of opening a business, such as a new fast food restaurant, is to achieve a return on investment. So you saw gosh golly, the franchise owner is making $100,000 a year, he can certainly afford to pay his workers more. You neglect the issue of how much money he put into the business to start it, and what kind of yield that 100K represents. If the return drops to the point where the owner is better off putting his money in the bank and earning bank interest, he won't open the business.
Your view of the left's position is entirely wrong though. It's not that you look at the franchise owner making lots of money so he can afford to pay them more - as I've said if the issue were inequality then the EITC is the best way to deal with it.
But it's about why the state is topping up those wages and if that's a good use of a safety net welfare state? As I say I still can't see how this isn't a subsidy and given that how it's justifiable. I mean is it only unionised workplaces you don't like subsidising :P
It seems to accurately describe Squeeze's view. Probably Seedy's too, in his more lucid moments.
As I mentioned to Gups earlier, whether welfare acts as a subsidy is debateable. Y'all are taking it as a given. The logic being that in the absence of food stamps et al, low wage workers would demand a higher wage. That makes no sense. If I'm penniless and food stamp-less, why would I turn down a job paying $7.50 if that's the best I can do?
The EITC *does* act as a subsidy over a very narrow range, because receipt is conditional on earning something. I say a narrow range because it cuts out for single workers at a very low level. If you work full time at minimum wage you're not going to get any Clintondollars.
Yeah, the EITC is complete fucking garbage. Made $22k once, and I still actually paid taxes. It's unbelievable.
The money is decent if you have kids.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 04:27:01 AM
As I mentioned to Gups earlier, whether welfare acts as a subsidy is debateable. Y'all are taking it as a given. The logic being that in the absence of food stamps et al, low wage workers would demand a higher wage. That makes no sense.
I don't think anyone's saying abolish food stamps, but get rid of it for people in work. If you can't even subsist on your wage then the pressure to increase it will be there.
Safety net welfare, for the destitute, shouldn't be available for people who are employed. Welfare that's about mitigating extra costs (for the disabled who can work, or for parents) or about redistribution (EITC) are fine.
As I say welfare for employees is one of the fastest growing areas of spending - certainly in the UK - and we don't have much money, we're not going to have much money any time soon and an ageing population is going to increase the pressure on the welfare budget. I think pressure to rise wages has been kept subdued by growing involvement from the state and cheap credit - neither of which have helped us very much in recent years. I can't see how it's a sensible use of a very limited welfare budget to top up the wages of low paid staff.
I can't differentiate the state making the difference on the pay of the poor from any other form of subsidy. I'm generally pretty liberal, so I'm almost always opposed to subsidies and I can't think of a single compelling reason to keep this one.
QuoteIf I'm penniless and food stamp-less, why would I turn down a job paying $7.50 if that's the best I can do?
Surely that somewhat cuts against the way you described it earlier:
QuoteA franchise owner is willing to pay someone $7.25 an hour to flip burgers. Many people are currently willing to flip burgers at that wage. Why should we tell them they cannot?
QuoteThe EITC *does* act as a subsidy over a very narrow range, because receipt is conditional on earning something. I say a narrow range because it cuts out for single workers at a very low level. If you work full time at minimum wage you're not going to get any Clintondollars.
Okay. As I say EITC seems to me to be the most redistributive policy in the US. It seems in its design far more about spreading around the wealth than anything else. Which is fine if you're into that sort of thing.
Edit: And of course this goes to what I was saying in the tax rising thread, personally I think if you're in low paid work you should be earning enough to be paying taxes.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 04:51:49 AM
Yeah, the EITC is complete fucking garbage. Made $22k once, and I still actually paid taxes. It's unbelievable.
Nothing much that's funnier than seeing freeloaders whine. :cool:
I still actually paid taxes :lmfao:
Shelf:
"The pressure to increase it" is an interesting turn of phrase. I suppose you mean political pressure to increase the minimum wage?
I don't see how you get the idea the EITC is about redistribution. My understanding is it was designed as a replacement for FIDC (Families with Infants and Dependent Children), the cornerstone of Johnson's Great Society, which absolutely disincentivized work (and fathers). The core value of the EITC was that it's better to work than to be on the dole, but that working people with low incomes can still use assistance.
The core belief in your value system appears to be it's better to be on the dole than in a job that doesn't pay enough to support a family.
I don't see the contradiction between my two statements. The labor market (all markets for that matter) is about getting the best deal you can.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/29/opinion/temple-hidden-fast-food-taxes/index.html?hpt=ibu_c2
QuoteOpinion: How McDonald's sends taxpayers the bill
(CNN) -- Don't let McDonald's new "Dollar Menu and More" distract you. Although an order of McNuggets might cost more than a buck now, the truth is that the Dollar Menu was never a bargain.
In reality, whether you eat the fries or not, fast-food companies such as McDonald's actually shift billions of dollars in hidden costs onto taxpayers every year. How? These costs flow directly from their business model of low wages, nonexistent benefits and limited work hours, which force millions of fast-food workers to rely on public assistance to afford basic necessities such as food and health care.
To see this business model in action, take a look inside the employee break room at many McDonald's restaurants, where you might find a poster displaying information for a 1-800 "McResource" hotline designed to offer counseling to employees who need financial, housing, child care or other help.
In a recent exchange on the McResource hotline, documented in a newly released video, an employee who has worked at McDonald's for 10 years -- yet earns the Illinois minimum wage of $8.25 per hour -- is urged to find additional support for herself and her two children by paying a visit to nearby food pantries, applying for food stamps and signing up for Medicaid.
In other words, rather than sitting down with their employees to address the reality that the company's pay scales are just too low -- and that even long-term employees can't get by on their small paychecks -- McDonald's has decided to coach its workers on how to enroll in public safety-net programs to supplement their poverty-level wages. (McDonald's called the video an inaccurate portrayal of the resource line.)
In total, this business model of low wages and no benefits at the 10 largest fast-food companies costs taxpayers an estimated $3.8 billion each year, according to a recent report by the National Employment Law Project. At McDonald's, the company's low-wage jobs cost taxpayers an estimated $1.2 billion a year -- twice as much as any other fast-food company.
Public safety-net programs such as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (commonly known as "food stamps") and Medicaid are crucial programs for alleviating poverty and promoting economic security in the United States. That is precisely why we cannot afford to let multibillion-dollar companies drain the resources of these programs by paying poverty-level wages to millions of their workers.
Fast food workers demand higher wages
The good news is that over the past year, thousands of workers in the fast-food industry have begun organizing and staging strikes in dozens of cities across the country, calling for a living wage and the right to form a union. These demands should be taken seriously. All Americans -- even those who have never worked in fast food or have no plans to eat fast food -- need to recognize that the low-wage fast-food industry poses significant costs to all of us each year.
Fast-food workers should have the ability to bargain collectively for higher wages and better working conditions. Giving workers a voice at the workplace will ensure a fairer, more democratic workplace, while keeping in check the irresponsible business model of CEOs tapping the public safety net for billions in subsidies each year as they continue to pay poverty-level wages.
At the same time, Congress should pass a long-overdue increase in the federal minimum wage, which has remained stuck at just $7.25 per hour -- or $15,080 a year -- for the past four years.
Although many companies will continue to pay as little as they can get away with, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, as proposed in the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, would boost wages for 30 million workers, generating $32 billion in new economic growth as higher wages power greater consumer spending.
A fairer fast-food industry that provides higher wages, promotes greater economic growth and spares taxpayers billions in costs every year sounds like a real value worth fighting for.
Quote from: ThoseCrazyLiberalsThese types of jobs were NEVER designed to support a family! They were designed to provide high school kids and young college students with some work experience, and a little spending money.
Why are the liberals insisting that none of this is the fault of the employee? If you have been flipping burgers at McDonald's for 10 years, then you have made some seriously poor decisions. Why in the world would anyone think that this type of a job should support a family, a house payment, and a car payment?
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2013, 06:21:25 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 04:51:49 AM
Yeah, the EITC is complete fucking garbage. Made $22k once, and I still actually paid taxes. It's unbelievable.
Nothing much that's funnier than seeing freeloaders whine. :cool:
I still actually paid taxes :lmfao:
It's not freeloading if you're being taxed on a primary income that isn't even a living wage. The reason I'm not living with my girlfriend is because when we set up a budget, making a combined income of $39k, we'd struggle anywhere other than a trailer in this area. I made around $22k before, and ended up moving out of my own apartment back in with my family because it wasn't enough to get by.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 06:43:51 AM"The pressure to increase it" is an interesting turn of phrase. I suppose you mean political pressure to increase the minimum wage?
Nope. Market pressure.
QuoteI don't see how you get the idea the EITC is about redistribution.
It's the (edit: second) biggest income transfer in US policy. It redistributes income through the tax system - which, incidentally, is an effective (and cheap) way of doing it.
I don't how get a massive transfer of dollars isn't about redistribution?
QuoteMy understanding is it was designed as a replacement for FIDC (Families with Infants and Dependent Children), the cornerstone of Johnson's Great Society, which absolutely disincentivized work (and fathers).
I can't find much about the first program. Do you mean 'Aid to Families with Dependent Children'? That was replaced in 1997 by the 'Temporary Assistance for Needy Families'. Incidentally in the UK child benefit was historically given to the mothers only, but the reason was that the men would spend it in the pub.
The EITC was introduced in the mid-70s, initially it was seen as a way of off-setting social security payments paid by the working poor.
QuoteThe core belief in your value system appears to be it's better to be on the dole than in a job that doesn't pay enough to support a family.
That's an odd interpretation.
On this I'd say there's two things. Work should always be better than the dole (and, tied to this, if you're in work you should be paying taxes). Spending's tight: we all shouldn't be paying companies' wages for them. It's the other side of no-one being able to make a lifestyle out of welfare.
Sheilbh, do you realize that your proposal would mean far less incentives to get a marginal job? If welfare pays me $8/hr, and McDonalds $10/hr, then why should I bust my hump for $2 an hour? Neither wage will let me wear the flashiest tracksuits and the thickest gold chains, but I'll have plenty of free time with $8 an hour.
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2013, 07:22:42 AM
Sheilbh, do you realize that your proposal would mean far less incentives to get a marginal job? If welfare pays me $8/hr, and McDonalds $10/hr, then why should I bust my hump for $2 an hour? Neither wage will let me wear the flashiest tracksuits and the thickest gold chains, but I'll have plenty of free time with $8 an hour.
Yep. I think that would have an effect on wages.
It would also mean that in Gups example the firm that, for whatever reason, paid $12 an hour would get the benefit of that. They'd get more productive better staff, rather than fighting in the same pool as the $8 an hour (+welfare).
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 07:15:34 AM
we all shouldn't be paying companies' wages for them.
We're not.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 30, 2013, 07:13:14 AM
It's not freeloading if you're being taxed on a primary income that isn't even a living wage. The reason I'm not living with my girlfriend is because when we set up a budget, making a combined income of $39k, we'd struggle anywhere other than a trailer in this area. I made around $22k before, and ended up moving out of my own apartment back in with my family because it wasn't enough to get by.
That's ~$2600/month after taxes. How is that not enough for two people to live on? I managed to raise four kids on that, paying $1000/month rent. :blink:
Jersey is not cheap.
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2013, 07:49:47 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 30, 2013, 07:13:14 AM
It's not freeloading if you're being taxed on a primary income that isn't even a living wage. The reason I'm not living with my girlfriend is because when we set up a budget, making a combined income of $39k, we'd struggle anywhere other than a trailer in this area. I made around $22k before, and ended up moving out of my own apartment back in with my family because it wasn't enough to get by.
That's ~$2600/month after taxes. How is that not enough for two people to live on? I managed to raise four kids on that, paying $1000/month rent. :blink:
:secret: $1 in New Jersey doesn't go nearly as far as $1 in flyover country.
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2013, 07:51:54 AM
:secret: $1 in New Jersey doesn't go nearly as far as $1 in flyover country.
I'm well-aware, but I'd assume that it would be enough to cover two in New Jersey when it was enough to cover five in the Chicago suburbs.
Cost of living calculator has it as pretty similar as when I lived in Chicago, actually. http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/ (http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/)
EDIT: Even including Champaign/Newark comparison, most of the difference is in cost of housing, which could be off-set by getting a much smaller apartment for two than is necessary for the raising of four children.
It wouldn't be easy, but it could be done.
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2013, 07:58:00 AM
I'm well-aware, but I'd assume that it would be enough to cover two in New Jersey when it was enough to cover five in the Chicago suburbs.
Cost of living calculator has it as pretty similar as when I lived in Chicago, actually. http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/ (http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/)
Three words: student loan debt. Even going
under the fed's "thrifty" food budget, we'd still be in trouble. I realize McDonald's isn't out to pay for people with a BA+, but there are far more jobs that pay like McDonald's in our area than jobs that don't. As far as a livable income, we've got doctors & nurses, attorneys and their staff, and union laborers (of whom, a significant number are laid off because nobody wants to hire laborers at union rates). My county's particularly screwy when it comes to pay vs. cost of living.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 30, 2013, 08:17:49 AM
Three words: student loan debt.
Ah, okay. That makes sense.
QuoteEven going under the fed's "thrifty" food budget, we'd still be in trouble. I realize McDonald's isn't out to pay for people with a BA+, but there are far more jobs that pay like McDonald's in our area than jobs that don't. As far as a livable income, we've got doctors & nurses, attorneys and their staff, and union laborers (of whom, a significant number are laid off because nobody wants to hire laborers at union rates). My county's particularly screwy when it comes to pay vs. cost of living.
I agree that McDonald's doesn't pay enough. I was just taken off-guard by the amount you made and not being able to live off it. The student loan debt, however, makes sense.
DSB has had to take a lot of classes to be an expert in everything.
Quote from: PDH on October 30, 2013, 08:52:38 AM
DSB has had to take a lot of classes to be an expert in everything.
I, on the other hand, was born that way. :smarty: :showoff:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 06:20:33 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 04:27:01 AM
As I mentioned to Gups earlier, whether welfare acts as a subsidy is debateable. Y'all are taking it as a given. The logic being that in the absence of food stamps et al, low wage workers would demand a higher wage. That makes no sense.
I don't think anyone's saying abolish food stamps, but get rid of it for people in work. If you can't even subsist on your wage then the pressure to increase it will be there.
I don't think that is true at all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 07:28:43 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 07:15:34 AM
we all shouldn't be paying companies' wages for them.
We're not.
We are. If they're paying $7.5 an hour to full-time employees and it makes them eligible for welfare, then we're all paying.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 12:05:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 07:28:43 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 07:15:34 AM
we all shouldn't be paying companies' wages for them.
We're not.
We are. If they're paying $7.5 an hour to full-time employees and it makes them eligible for welfare, then we're all paying.
Then stop paying them welfare if it's so horrible to you.
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 12:10:31 PM
Then stop paying them welfare if it's so horrible to you.
Agreed :P
Quote from: Syt on October 30, 2013, 07:07:52 AM
Quote from: ThoseCrazyLiberalsThese types of jobs were NEVER designed to support a family! They were designed to provide high school kids and young college students with some work experience, and a little spending money.
Why are the liberals insisting that none of this is the fault of the employee? If you have been flipping burgers at McDonald's for 10 years, then you have made some seriously poor decisions. Why in the world would anyone think that this type of a job should support a family, a house payment, and a car payment?
That is a weird opinion to hold when we have such high unemployment. I mean not that McDonalds should be a job to support a family on but that if you make good decisions (or at least ones that are not "seriously poor") you are guaranteed a job that pays better than McDonalds. Besides you do not have a make a series of bad life decisions to seriously fuck your job possibilities for life, you just have to make one. I think the point was is that we have people working full time we have to use federal tax dollars to support which I would think a conservative would be frustrated with.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 07:28:43 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 07:15:34 AM
we all shouldn't be paying companies' wages for them.
We're not.
I can see how you could make that argument. It's similar to the "tips" discussion we had a while back. Management pays it's employees less with the expectation that the public will pick up the rest by paying a tip.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2013, 12:16:18 PM
Quote from: Syt on October 30, 2013, 07:07:52 AM
Quote from: ThoseCrazyLiberalsThese types of jobs were NEVER designed to support a family! They were designed to provide high school kids and young college students with some work experience, and a little spending money.
Why are the liberals insisting that none of this is the fault of the employee? If you have been flipping burgers at McDonald's for 10 years, then you have made some seriously poor decisions. Why in the world would anyone think that this type of a job should support a family, a house payment, and a car payment?
That is a weird opinion to hold when we have such high unemployment. I mean not that McDonalds should be a job to support a family on but that if you make good decisions you are guaranteed a job that pays better than McDonalds. Besides you do not have a make a series of bad life decisions to seriously fuck your job possibilities for life, you just have to make one.
It's not a decision to be born ethnic. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2013, 12:17:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 07:28:43 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 07:15:34 AM
we all shouldn't be paying companies' wages for them.
We're not.
I can see how you could make that argument. It's similar to the "tips" discussion we had a while back. Management pays it's employees less with the expectation that the public will pick up the rest by paying a tip.
Customers aren't the public. They're customers.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 12:05:51 PM
We are. If they're paying $7.5 an hour to full-time employees and it makes them eligible for welfare, then we're all paying.
No we're not. $7.50 an hour is what they're paid by the franchise owner for flipping burgers. We're not paying them to flip burgers. We're giving them free food because we feel sorry for them. If they didn't flip burgers we would still give them free food.
We're paying to keep them alive perhaps, but that's not the same thing as paying their wage.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2013, 12:17:13 PM
I can see how you could make that argument. It's similar to the "tips" discussion we had a while back. Management pays it's employees less with the expectation that the public will pick up the rest by paying a tip.
I can see how you would neurotically stalk me.
It's nothing like the tip situation Raz. A person performs labor to earn tips. Nobody performs labor to earn food stamsp.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2013, 12:17:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 07:28:43 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 07:15:34 AM
we all shouldn't be paying companies' wages for them.
We're not.
I can see how you could make that argument. It's similar to the "tips" discussion we had a while back. Management pays it's employees less with the expectation that the public will pick up the rest by paying a tip.
I think there's a big difference between specific consumers and the general, taxpaying public.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 12:21:49 PM
We're paying to keep them alive perhaps, but that's not the same thing as paying their wage.
If the state didnt pay something more to keep them alive the franchisee wouldnt have a workforce to exploit.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 12:25:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 12:21:49 PM
We're paying to keep them alive perhaps, but that's not the same thing as paying their wage.
If the state didnt pay something more to keep them alive the franchisee wouldnt have a workforce to exploit.
Exploit by paying them above market wage? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 12:21:49 PMNo we're not. $7.50 an hour is what they're paid by the franchise owner for flipping burgers. We're not paying them to flip burgers. We're giving them free food because we feel sorry for them. If they didn't flip burgers we would still give them free food.
We're paying to keep them alive perhaps, but that's not the same thing as paying their wage.
Yeah, but us doing that enables the employer to pay less than it would cost to keep their employees alive - which is really the bare minimum specification for a worker. If we weren't giving them free food then the cost of that employee getting enough to stay alive would be wholly borne by the employer, not by the employer and everyone else.
Edit: I suppose it'd be okay if weird if the employer returned that saving to the revenue, but it's kept.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 12:33:50 PM
If we weren't giving them free food then the cost of that employee getting enough to stay alive would be wholly borne by the employer, not by the employer and everyone else.
Keep in mind Shelf that historically fast food jobs have gone to younger people who are still in school.
Apparently there's a paper done recently which suggests the US has the same problem with in-work welfare growing.
Food stamps recipients have doubled in the past 10 years, but even during the boom years (2003-07) they increased by 25%. The writers suggest one of the reasons is because, recently, the correlation between unemployment and poverty hasn't been strong. So employment grew, unemployment dropped but the poverty rate stayed more or less level during the good times. Obviously since the crash things got worse.
People can easily stay alive to continue being exploited at minimum wage. Sure, they might have to work overtime or stop paying the electric bill, but ending government subsidies is not going to make the market suddenly start paying enough to live in reasonable comfort for 40 hours of work.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 30, 2013, 07:13:14 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2013, 06:21:25 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 04:51:49 AM
Yeah, the EITC is complete fucking garbage. Made $22k once, and I still actually paid taxes. It's unbelievable.
Nothing much that's funnier than seeing freeloaders whine. :cool:
I still actually paid taxes :lmfao:
It's not freeloading if you're being taxed on a primary income that isn't even a living wage. The reason I'm not living with my girlfriend is because when we set up a budget, making a combined income of $39k, we'd struggle anywhere other than a trailer in this area. I made around $22k before, and ended up moving out of my own apartment back in with my family because it wasn't enough to get by.
Yeah, I guess all that vaunted critical thinking just failed grumbler at the moment.
I've not only never whined about paying taxes in years when I made a living wage, I've been proud of it, and have gone well out of my way to avoid evading them by paying the total wank of a use tax, etc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 12:38:42 PM
Keep in mind Shelf that historically fast food jobs have gone to younger people who are still in school.
Yeah and I agree with the system we have here of varied minimum wages for different ages.
Despite that my experience is that bosses still want some full time workers who are reliable for 40 hours a week, not just part-time with many other, more pressing commitments.
As I say from a British perspective I support raising the minimum wage to living wage levels here (the US doubling proposal is mad) but I think the worries with that aren't the impact on employment but immigration and inflation.
QuotePeople can easily stay alive to continue being exploited at minimum wage. Sure, they might have to work overtime or stop paying the electric bill, but ending government subsidies is not going to make the market suddenly start paying enough to live in reasonable comfort for 40 hours of work.
If people can't live on a wage, but they can live on welfare that wage will rise. But I'm not talking about reasonable comfort, I'm talking subsistence.
Time for a real world example ? :unsure:
Today I had an interview for a specialist buyer with an aerospace company. Essentially the person has to buy passenger jet spare parts to fulfil contract requirements already agreed with airlines. This means buying the fully certificated parts from across the world, arranging the appropriated express freighting and making sure they arrive in warehouse typically with 3 days, sometimes much shorter notice.
So it's a fair bit of phone work, building good relations with suppliers, knowing/learning the 'market' and at all time trying to cut costs, as sometimes you'll have to buy parts at short notice at well above the contracted price to meet the agreed airline service contract.
This could mean suddenly having to buy 15 7*7 air-filters, things half the size of a desk, from a company in Miami and getting them shipped within 24 hours across the Atlantic. That's could be quite expensive, especially if you get the deal too wrong, and consistently make several purchasing errors like that each week could end up costing your employer a fair amount of money.
I've sort of done something similar before, but not so 'high pressure' (whatever that means, after all outside hospital work, fighting wars, the odd governmental role and various other careers, what jobs are really life or death situations) and I can see where someone could continue building expertise in the job over a long period, all the while improving deals and saving ever more money for the employer.
So guess how much they're willing to pay you to do this ........
One BILLION dollars?
I suspect the amount will be as little as they can get away with...?
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
I suspect the amount will be as little as they can get away with...?
Congratulations, I think that might sum up their approach ie they've got agreed contract income coming in regularly, so they just have to cut down all costs to make more money.
So guess what the salary was ?
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:18:12 PM
Time for a real world example ? :unsure:
Today I had an interview for a specialist buyer with an aerospace company. Essentially the person has to buy passenger jet spare parts to fulfil contract requirements already agreed with airlines. This means buying the fully certificated parts from across the world, arranging the appropriated express freighting and making sure they arrive in warehouse typically with 3 days, sometimes much shorter notice.
So it's a fair bit of phone work, building good relations with suppliers, knowing/learning the 'market' and at all time trying to cut costs, as sometimes you'll have to buy parts at short notice at well above the contracted price to meet the agreed airline service contract.
This could mean suddenly having to buy 15 7*7 air-filters, things half the size of a desk, from a company in Miami and getting them shipped within 24 hours across the Atlantic. That's could be quite expensive, especially if you get the deal too wrong, and consistently make several purchasing errors like that each week could end up costing your employer a fair amount of money.
I've sort of done something similar before, but not so 'high pressure' (whatever that means, after all outside hospital work, fighting wars, the odd governmental role and various other careers, what jobs are really life or death situations) and I can see where someone could continue building expertise in the job over a long period, all the while improving deals and saving ever more money for the employer.
So guess how much they're willing to pay you to do this ........
Market pay?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2013, 12:48:49 PM
People can easily stay alive to continue being exploited at minimum wage. Sure, they might have to work overtime or stop paying the electric bill, but ending government subsidies is not going to make the market suddenly start paying enough to live in reasonable comfort for 40 hours of work.
First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why?
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.
First Collector: Many can't go there.
Second Collector: And some would rather die.
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
I suspect the amount will be as little as they can get away with...?
Congratulations, I think that might sum up their approach ie they've got agreed contract income coming in regularly, so they just have to cut down all costs to make more money.
So guess what the salary was ?
Probably more than I think, which will just underline the hilarious differences between America and Europe yet again. So I'm guessing the equivalent of $60k.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 01:28:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
I suspect the amount will be as little as they can get away with...?
Congratulations, I think that might sum up their approach ie they've got agreed contract income coming in regularly, so they just have to cut down all costs to make more money.
So guess what the salary was ?
Probably more than I think, which will just underline the hilarious differences between America and Europe yet again. So I'm guessing the equivalent of $60k.
Try Minimum Wage, which is $19,700. :blink:
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 01:28:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
I suspect the amount will be as little as they can get away with...?
Congratulations, I think that might sum up their approach ie they've got agreed contract income coming in regularly, so they just have to cut down all costs to make more money.
So guess what the salary was ?
Probably more than I think, which will just underline the hilarious differences between America and Europe yet again. So I'm guessing the equivalent of $60k.
Try Minimum Wage, which is $19,700. :blink:
Good for them. Cost is the profit killer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 12:24:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2013, 12:17:13 PM
I can see how you could make that argument. It's similar to the "tips" discussion we had a while back. Management pays it's employees less with the expectation that the public will pick up the rest by paying a tip.
I can see how you would neurotically stalk me.
It's nothing like the tip situation Raz. A person performs labor to earn tips. Nobody performs labor to earn food stamsp.
The issue is not work (since we are already talking about people who are working) or feeling sorry, but that people can survive on their wages. If people go hungry they do bad things like
unionize. McDonalds doesn't feel like paying that much, so expects the public to pick up the rest. Management who who expect the public do pick up the tab with tips are doing the same thing.
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 01:28:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
I suspect the amount will be as little as they can get away with...?
Congratulations, I think that might sum up their approach ie they've got agreed contract income coming in regularly, so they just have to cut down all costs to make more money.
So guess what the salary was ?
Probably more than I think, which will just underline the hilarious differences between America and Europe yet again. So I'm guessing the equivalent of $60k.
Try Minimum Wage, which is $19,700. :blink:
Two possibilities then:
1. The job is not nearly as difficult as you say, or
2. They are never going to find anyone competent, and will have to raise the salary. A lot.
Assuming this is in the US, of course.
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 01:34:11 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 01:28:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
I suspect the amount will be as little as they can get away with...?
Congratulations, I think that might sum up their approach ie they've got agreed contract income coming in regularly, so they just have to cut down all costs to make more money.
So guess what the salary was ?
Probably more than I think, which will just underline the hilarious differences between America and Europe yet again. So I'm guessing the equivalent of $60k.
Try Minimum Wage, which is $19,700. :blink:
Two possibilities then:
1. The job is not nearly as difficult as you say, or
2. They are never going to find anyone competent, and will have to raise the salary. A lot.
Assuming this is in the US, of course.
3. They'll staff it using temp labor or automate it.
Keep on Boomin'.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2013, 01:32:55 PM
The issue is not work (since we are already talking about people who are working) or feeling sorry, but that people can survive on their wages. If people go hungry they do bad things like unionize. McDonalds doesn't feel like paying that much, so expects the public to pick up the rest. Management who who expect the public do pick up the tab with tips are doing the same thing.
McDonalds pays the market rate, which is heavily influenced by part time teenagers who typcially don't pay rent, food, or utilities.
Would you be happier if McDonald's refused to hire anyone over 21, or anyone with dependent children?
If you work full time as a baby sitter, will you be able to raise 3 kids and own two cars?
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:31:05 PM
Try Minimum Wage, which is $19,700. :blink:
But yes, that is surprising.
You do mean USD right? Because if that's actually pounds then it goes to hilarious differences, etc.
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 01:34:11 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 01:28:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
I suspect the amount will be as little as they can get away with...?
Congratulations, I think that might sum up their approach ie they've got agreed contract income coming in regularly, so they just have to cut down all costs to make more money.
So guess what the salary was ?
Probably more than I think, which will just underline the hilarious differences between America and Europe yet again. So I'm guessing the equivalent of $60k.
Try Minimum Wage, which is $19,700. :blink:
Two possibilities then:
1. The job is not nearly as difficult as you say, or
2. They are never going to find anyone competent, and will have to raise the salary. A lot.
Assuming this is in the US, of course.
Remember this is a pay scale people on here are talking about with regard to people flipping burgers.
It's largely (b), I think they've had a couple of other people recently churn through one of those roles.
I'm not sure how long it'll take them to realise that, maybe they're happy conducting interviews every 3-4 months. Having the purchasing manager take 3 days out each time to interview everyone ?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 01:42:01 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:31:05 PM
Try Minimum Wage, which is $19,700. :blink:
But yes, that is surprising.
You do mean USD right? Because if that's actually pounds then it goes to hilarious differences, etc.
I already converted it to USD at 1.61.
Fair enough.
Amazon.co.uk. :wub:
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 01:39:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 01:34:11 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 01:28:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
I suspect the amount will be as little as they can get away with...?
Congratulations, I think that might sum up their approach ie they've got agreed contract income coming in regularly, so they just have to cut down all costs to make more money.
So guess what the salary was ?
Probably more than I think, which will just underline the hilarious differences between America and Europe yet again. So I'm guessing the equivalent of $60k.
Try Minimum Wage, which is $19,700. :blink:
Two possibilities then:
1. The job is not nearly as difficult as you say, or
2. They are never going to find anyone competent, and will have to raise the salary. A lot.
Assuming this is in the US, of course.
3. They'll staff it using temp labor or automate it.
Keep on Boomin'.
If so, then so be it.
Although it doesn't strike me as the kind of job that can really be automated, or rather, likely is already automated as much as is possible. The "job" here, from what was described, is dealing with the situations that the automation doesn't cover.
But why do you say that like it is some kind of revelation? Your option 3 is not another option, it is just option 1 or option 2 restated.
4. katmai is morbidly obese.
Obviously, wage stagnation or depression is nothing to concern myself about.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 01:41:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2013, 01:32:55 PM
The issue is not work (since we are already talking about people who are working) or feeling sorry, but that people can survive on their wages. If people go hungry they do bad things like unionize. McDonalds doesn't feel like paying that much, so expects the public to pick up the rest. Management who who expect the public do pick up the tab with tips are doing the same thing.
McDonalds pays the market rate, which is heavily influenced by part time teenagers who typcially don't pay rent, food, or utilities.
Would you be happier if McDonald's refused to hire anyone over 21, or anyone with dependent children?
They pay market rate?
:face:
No, they don't. They pay above it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 02:10:26 PM
:face:
No, they don't. They pay above it.
How do you know this?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2013, 02:10:58 PM
How do you know this?
No answer i give you is going to satisfy you, so if you've got a point, why don't you just go ahead and get to it.
Because the government's mandating a higher pay than the market would provide?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2013, 02:10:58 PM
How do you know this?
No answer i give you is going to satisfy you, so if you've got a point, why don't you just go ahead and get to it.
Jeez, you're a in a bad mood.
I don't understand the question.
Either McDs is paying at the market rate, or above it. By definition they cannot be paying below it, since I don't think anyone has claimed that they have some ability to force anyone to work at below market rate wages.
They either pay the market rate (which you can tell if they are paying above minimum wage, which is the case here in Rochester) or they are paying above market rate, which you can tell by them paying the minimum wage, which is above market rate by definition, since if the market was setting the rate, it would be higher.
I suppose there is the possibility that min wage and market rate just so happen to be identical, but that seems rather unlikely.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 01:41:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2013, 01:32:55 PM
The issue is not work (since we are already talking about people who are working) or feeling sorry, but that people can survive on their wages. If people go hungry they do bad things like unionize. McDonalds doesn't feel like paying that much, so expects the public to pick up the rest. Management who who expect the public do pick up the tab with tips are doing the same thing.
McDonalds pays the market rate, which is heavily influenced by part time teenagers who typcially don't pay rent, food, or utilities.
Would you be happier if McDonald's refused to hire anyone over 21, or anyone with dependent children?
The situation does not really have anything to do with McDonalds except maybe to laugh at them for trying to teach their employees about how to budget and look ridiculous by revealing not even they can do it with their own wages.
The problems that are creating this situation are systemic and involve the entire world economy. It why we have such an absurd percentage of our population on federal assistance.
I didn't know it was impossible to pay someone below market rate.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 01:59:55 PM
Obviously, wage stagnation or depression is nothing to concern myself about.
Which was going to be my next point, I'm probably wrong and Berkut might be 'wrong' in the way we're viewing this issue.
What you've stated might well be the new 'normal'. :hmm:
It's certainly nothing Berk concerns himself about. He's got the job, house, wife, kids, cars, and knows what a 401(k) is.
Who said anything about wage stagnation being nothing to worry about? That is a whopper of a strawman.
Has it been mentioned yet that the average age of a fast food employee is now almost 30?
QuoteIf you had to guess, what would you say is the average age of a fast food employee in the United States?
18? 20? Older? Younger?
The answer? 29.5.
That's right - the average age of a fast food employee in the United States is 29 1/2 years.
This is up dramatically from 2000, when the average fast food worker in the US was 22 years old. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)
The fast food industry has been in the spotlight over the past week thanks to a recent hiring blitz by McDonald's. The fast food giant had a "National Hiring Day" earlier this week in which they were looking to fill 50,000 job openings.
There was a crush of applicants nationwide. People arrived early and stayed late just to interview for a position. Many locations through the country had hundreds of people lined up to apply for a position.
People from all different walks of life applied for positions at McDonald's. People with families. Older folks. Teenagers. The mass of people that applied for a "McJob" just illustrated how poor the US job market is right now.
--
Many people think that fast food jobs are primarily occupied by teenagers, but that's no longer the case.
Over the past decade, the average age of a fast food worker in the United States has surged higher, mainly because many older workers are not able to find work elsewhere. Fast food positions don't pay well, but many people just aren't able to find work anywhere else.
Source: Yahoo.com - McDonald's hiring day draws crowds, high hopes (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/McDonalds-hiring-day-draws-apf-690235585.html?x=0&.v=7)
My whoppers do taste like they're made by more life experienced hands these days.
I also think it's very possible that Berk's not considering the market rate in the absence of a minimum wage could be different than the market rate in a market where the minimum wage exists, because labor markets are notoriously imperfect in terms of information and the minwage provides at least a reference point and influences choices.
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2013, 02:39:33 PM
Has it been mentioned yet that the average age of a fast food employee is now almost 30?
Around here it's all teens and older Mexicans.
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 02:37:19 PM
Who said anything about wage stagnation being nothing to worry about? That is a whopper of a strawman.
You seem very certain that the market functions, or rather that the market cannot be interfered with without making things worse.
That's very close to being "unworried," but I am willing to accept that you don't feel great about it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2013, 02:39:33 PM
Has it been mentioned yet that the average age of a fast food employee is now almost 30?
Around here it's all teens and older Mexicans.
18 year olds and 40 year old Mexicans might give an average of just under 30 ? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2013, 02:39:33 PM
Has it been mentioned yet that the average age of a fast food employee is now almost 30?
Around here it's all teens and older Mexicans.
Excuse me if I am suspicious your data here is mostly anecdotal :P
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2013, 02:39:33 PM
Has it been mentioned yet that the average age of a fast food employee is now almost 30?
QuoteIf you had to guess, what would you say is the average age of a fast food employee in the United States?
18? 20? Older? Younger?
The answer? 29.5.
That's right - the average age of a fast food employee in the United States is 29 1/2 years.
This is up dramatically from 2000, when the average fast food worker in the US was 22 years old. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)
The fast food industry has been in the spotlight over the past week thanks to a recent hiring blitz by McDonald's. The fast food giant had a "National Hiring Day" earlier this week in which they were looking to fill 50,000 job openings.
There was a crush of applicants nationwide. People arrived early and stayed late just to interview for a position. Many locations through the country had hundreds of people lined up to apply for a position.
People from all different walks of life applied for positions at McDonald's. People with families. Older folks. Teenagers. The mass of people that applied for a "McJob" just illustrated how poor the US job market is right now.
--
Many people think that fast food jobs are primarily occupied by teenagers, but that's no longer the case.
Over the past decade, the average age of a fast food worker in the United States has surged higher, mainly because many older workers are not able to find work elsewhere. Fast food positions don't pay well, but many people just aren't able to find work anywhere else.
Source: Yahoo.com - McDonald's hiring day draws crowds, high hopes (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/McDonalds-hiring-day-draws-apf-690235585.html?x=0&.v=7)
Therein lies the problem.
No-one would care if jobs like this were, in fact, the province of pimply high school students making a bit of pocket change. To a degree, they used to be.
The problem is that now, they are often the only jobs adults who actually have to support themselves can get. And, apparently, even the chains know this - hence the goodwill gesture of attempting a sample budget for them in the OP.
The issue, I suppose, is to what extent the corporations could - or should - deal with that fact. They would no doubt argue that it is not a situation of their making and if they raise wages they have to cut jobs.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2013, 02:46:24 PM
Excuse me if I am suspicious your data here is mostly anecdotal :P
:Embarrass:
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2013, 02:46:33 PM
The issue, I suppose, is to what extent the corporations could - or should - deal with that fact. They would no doubt argue that it is not a situation of their making and if they raise wages they have to cut jobs.
Well they are right. Anybody getting angry at McDonalds is just being absurd. Besides they are hardly the only fast food franchise, they are not even the biggest one anymore.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2013, 02:50:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2013, 02:46:33 PM
The issue, I suppose, is to what extent the corporations could - or should - deal with that fact. They would no doubt argue that it is not a situation of their making and if they raise wages they have to cut jobs.
Well they are right. Anybody getting angry at McDonalds is just being absurd. Besides they are hardly the only fast food franchise, they are not even the biggest one anymore.
McDonald's is getting flack because that pseudo-budget hit the airwaves. The strikes and demand for higher wages, however, have been from a number of fast food restaurants across the board, not just McD's.
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2013, 02:52:53 PM
McDonald's is getting flack because that pseudo-budget hit the airwaves.
Yeah that is just embarrassing. But, to be fair, when I was doing the crap-job thing I knew some careerists in the field and they generally worked at least 60 hours a week. It was just a way of life. Of course the frustrating part is for these people is it is getting harder to even get crap jobs at McDonalds anymore, or at least as your article suggested.
Many professionals work 60 hour weeks so it's not like it's a problem from a human perspective if McWorkers do so.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 02:43:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 02:37:19 PM
Who said anything about wage stagnation being nothing to worry about? That is a whopper of a strawman.
You seem very certain that the market functions, or rather that the market cannot be interfered with without making things worse.
That's very close to being "unworried," but I am willing to accept that you don't feel great about it.
Huh?
What does it mean to say that the market functions? Of course it functions. It is doing things, it is functioning.
And where did I ever say that market cannot be interfered with? The market is interfered with all the time, constantly.
Adding more strawmen onto the existing burning strawman doesn't really help anything.
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 02:57:52 PM
Many professionals work 60 hour weeks so it's not like it's a problem from a human perspective if McWorkers do so.
I was merely stating that it was probably always true if you wanted to make a career working at McDonalds or other low level service work you were probably going to be working two jobs.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2013, 03:03:00 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 02:57:52 PM
Many professionals work 60 hour weeks so it's not like it's a problem from a human perspective if McWorkers do so.
I was merely stating that it was probably always true if you wanted to make a career working at McDonalds or other low level service work you were probably going to be working two jobs.
I wasn't disagreeing with you.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2013, 03:03:00 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 02:57:52 PM
Many professionals work 60 hour weeks so it's not like it's a problem from a human perspective if McWorkers do so.
I was merely stating that it was probably always true if you wanted to make a career working at McDonalds or other low level service work you were probably going to be working two jobs.
And it would probably have to be two jobs, too, because most of those hourly crew members aren't scheduled more than 30 hours per week, to avoid having to give them benefits.
Oh please. Fast food jobs are temporary jobs for students.
If the economy is all fucked up and people cannot get better jobs, blame it on the Obama Administration that failed to recover the economy, not the fast food industry who had always operated at the lowest pay rate.
Quote from: Siege on October 30, 2013, 03:06:48 PM
Oh please. Fast food jobs are temporary jobs for students.
If the economy is all fucked up and people cannot get better jobs, blame it on the Obama Administration that failed to recover the economy, not the fast food industry who had always operated at the lowest pay rate.
That used to be true. Traditionally, fast-food jobs were for students.
Of course, by the same token, if you go back far enough, traditionally army jobs were for otherwise unemployable reprobates - or, as the Duke of Wellington so eloquently put it, "scum of the earth". ;)
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2013, 03:10:22 PM
Quote from: Siege on October 30, 2013, 03:06:48 PM
Oh please. Fast food jobs are temporary jobs for students.
If the economy is all fucked up and people cannot get better jobs, blame it on the Obama Administration that failed to recover the economy, not the fast food industry who had always operated at the lowest pay rate.
That used to be true. Traditionally, fast-food jobs were for students.
Of course, by the same token, if you go back far enough, traditionally army jobs were for otherwise unemployable reprobates - or, as the Duke of Wellington so eloquently put it, "scum of the earth". ;)
:yes:
My dad was given a choice when he was 19: jail or the Army. He chose the Army. :)
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 02:59:41 PM
Huh?
What does it mean to say that the market functions? Of course it functions. It is doing things, it is functioning.
And where did I ever say that market cannot be interfered with? The market is interfered with all the time, constantly.
Adding more strawmen onto the existing burning strawman doesn't really help anything.
So what we can take from this is that Berkut hates poor people. Ok. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2013, 03:17:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 02:59:41 PM
Huh?
What does it mean to say that the market functions? Of course it functions. It is doing things, it is functioning.
And where did I ever say that market cannot be interfered with? The market is interfered with all the time, constantly.
Adding more strawmen onto the existing burning strawman doesn't really help anything.
So what we can take from this is that Berkut hates poor people. Ok. :(
Don't you?
I hate poor people.
I mean, if a dude has a disability and cannot work I'm fine with it.
I am not oppoussed to having an small safety net for disability reasons.
But I KNOW disabilited people who work hard at their small business and make a living.
Now lazy faggots living on welfare?
Fuck them.
Nah, I hate rich people. :mad:
Quote from: Siege on October 30, 2013, 03:22:56 PM
Now lazy faggots living on welfare?
Fuck them.
Wait I thought we were supposed to blame Obama for not fixing the economy :hmm:
It turns out it is all the lazy homosexuals doing us in.
His lazy gay lovers.
But they're dead? :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2013, 03:30:49 PM
But they're dead? :huh:
Some might still be alive. :shifty:
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2013, 03:16:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2013, 03:10:22 PM
Quote from: Siege on October 30, 2013, 03:06:48 PM
Oh please. Fast food jobs are temporary jobs for students.
If the economy is all fucked up and people cannot get better jobs, blame it on the Obama Administration that failed to recover the economy, not the fast food industry who had always operated at the lowest pay rate.
That used to be true. Traditionally, fast-food jobs were for students.
Of course, by the same token, if you go back far enough, traditionally army jobs were for otherwise unemployable reprobates - or, as the Duke of Wellington so eloquently put it, "scum of the earth". ;)
:yes:
My dad was given a choice when he was 19: jail or the Army. He chose the Army. :)
My friends options at 16 were either the steelworks or the Army, since the steelworks wasn't hiring due to a downturn, the Army it was. :bowler:
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 01:28:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
I suspect the amount will be as little as they can get away with...?
Congratulations, I think that might sum up their approach ie they've got agreed contract income coming in regularly, so they just have to cut down all costs to make more money.
So guess what the salary was ?
Probably more than I think, which will just underline the hilarious differences between America and Europe yet again. So I'm guessing the equivalent of $60k.
Try Minimum Wage, which is $19,700. :blink:
I'm not entirely sure why you're surprised; it seems to me that the introduction of the NMW homogenised wages at the lower end of the scale. Where before it there was a selection of jobs that (taking the current NMW as the starting point) would have had wage rates of between roughly £5.00 and £7.50 per hour before the minimum wage that are all exactly NMW (currently £6.31) now.
When the NMW came in a lot of companies seem to have decided that that wage level wasn't the start of what they should be offering but what they should be offering period, enshrined as it was in law. "Wage negotiable" disappeared from a lot of job advertisements; so did variable wage rates. And as the years have passed a lot more jobs have slipped into the NMW bracket as the small and medium sized companies that are in many respects the backbone of the British economy have scaled back on pay rises until the NMW reaches the level they've been paying at. When new positions were created at these firms the directors didn't think "what does the job deserve" but "we'll start it at NMW and then see what happens" because that was the easiest and quickest thing for them to do.
If anything the NMW has acted as a drag factor on wages growth for the poorest paid in our society.
It has not destroyed jobs as people feared it would when it was introduced, but nor has it been the panacea for the poorly paid. Gordon Brown resorted to "shenanigans" such as tax credits to compensate for the failure of the NMW to lift people above the somewhat arbitrary "poverty line" the last few governments have been obsessed with instead of tackling the issues properly; which has led us to the current situation that Shielbh is rightly complaining about, the seemingly historically high proportion of jobs in our society that qualify for what amount to government "top ups" to reach a certain living standard.
Now, as Grumbler will correctly point out, what I'm saying is based on personal experience anecdotal evidence rather than surveys and statistics, and thus should be treated with a degree of scepticism. It is however based on the experience of someone who has worked in the Vacancies Section (back when they existed) of a Jobcentre, who has worked in the field of helping people into work when they are on government programmes, and who has, shamefully, also spent a great deal of time looking for work himself and who has been astonished at the job titles and descriptions of some positions that are offered with a salary of only the NMW.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 30, 2013, 04:06:05 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2013, 01:28:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
I suspect the amount will be as little as they can get away with...?
Congratulations, I think that might sum up their approach ie they've got agreed contract income coming in regularly, so they just have to cut down all costs to make more money.
So guess what the salary was ?
Probably more than I think, which will just underline the hilarious differences between America and Europe yet again. So I'm guessing the equivalent of $60k.
Try Minimum Wage, which is $19,700. :blink:
I'm not entirely sure why you're surprised; it seems to me that the introduction of the NMW homogenised wages at the lower end of the scale. Where before it there was a selection of jobs that (taking the current NMW as the starting point) would have had wage rates of between roughly £5.00 and £7.50 per hour before the minimum wage that are all exactly NMW (currently £6.31) now.
When the NMW came in a lot of companies seem to have decided that that wage level wasn't the start of what they should be offering but what they should be offering period, enshrined as it was in law. "Wage negotiable" disappeared from a lot of job advertisements; so did variable wage rates. And as the years have passed a lot more jobs have slipped into the NMW bracket as the small and medium sized companies that are in many respects the backbone of the British economy have scaled back on pay rises until the NMW reaches the level they've been paying at. When new positions were created at these firms the directors didn't think "what does the job deserve" but "we'll start it at NMW and then see what happens" because that was the easiest and quickest thing for them to do.
If anything the NMW has acted as a drag factor on wages growth for the poorest paid in our society.
It has not destroyed jobs as people feared it would when it was introduced, but nor has it been the panacea for the poorly paid. Gordon Brown resorted to "shenanigans" such as tax credits to compensate for the failure of the NMW to lift people above the somewhat arbitrary "poverty line" the last few governments have been obsessed with instead of tackling the issues properly; which has led us to the current situation that Shielbh is rightly complaining about, the seemingly historically high proportion of jobs in our society that qualify for what amount to government "top ups" to reach a certain living standard.
Now, as Grumbler will correctly point out, what I'm saying is based on personal experience anecdotal evidence rather than surveys and statistics, and thus should be treated with a degree of scepticism. It is however based on the experience of someone who has worked in the Vacancies Section (back when they existed) of a Jobcentre, who has worked in the field of helping people into work when they are on government programmes, and who has, shamefully, also spent a great deal of time looking for work himself and who has been astonished at the job titles and descriptions of some positions that are offered with a salary of only the NMW.
Thanks for that thorough post, I don't doubt what you've said is at work in the economy.
It's just a surprising for someone returning to being an employee; time to ramp up plans to resume being my own boss.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 30, 2013, 02:39:33 PM
Has it been mentioned yet that the average age of a fast food employee is now almost 30?
Around here it's all teens and older Mexicans.
Older Mexicans are still people :P
QuoteWell they are right. Anybody getting angry at McDonalds is just being absurd. Besides they are hardly the only fast food franchise, they are not even the biggest one anymore.
I'm torn. On the one hand helping their staff get benefits is a good thing to do. On the other hand that they're doing it is enraging.
QuoteIt has not destroyed jobs as people feared it would when it was introduced, but nor has it been the panacea for the poorly paid. Gordon Brown resorted to "shenanigans" such as tax credits to compensate for the failure of the NMW to lift people above the somewhat arbitrary "poverty line" the last few governments have been obsessed with instead of tackling the issues properly
In fairness to Brown many of his tax credits were meant to be like the EITC - redistribution for workers. You'll remember in the first year or so of New Labour lots of lefties cried blue murder about the government cutting benefits for single mothers. Many of the tax credits were introduced at that time and were targeted especially at single mothers. And it worked. Employment for single parents shot up during their time in office (with the accompanying reduction in child poverty).
Now they're attacked because they made things complicated and introduced this element of welfare into work, many of which are legitimate criticisms. But the policy addressed what it was meant to and it worked.
Also the minimum wage was deliberately set low to begin with and rises have been very restrained (that's why Tories and Labour now support raising it quite significantly). Also depends on your goal. The most efficient way to redistribute and to transfer income is through tax credits - like the EITC - that puts more money in people's pockets than raising the minimum wage.
But I think there are other issues which need addressing more than just income levels.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 04:40:30 PM
Older Mexicans are still people :P
They are still people who lack the language skills to get better paying jobs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2013, 04:42:14 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 04:40:30 PM
Older Mexicans are still people :P
They are still people who lack the language skills to get better paying jobs.
I meant they still get counted when working out an average :P
Out in Alberta it seems every single fast food place is stuffed full of Fillipino guest workers. :mellow:
Quote from: Siege on October 30, 2013, 03:06:48 PM
Oh please. Fast food jobs are temporary jobs for students.
If the economy is all fucked up and people cannot get better jobs, blame it on the Obama Administration that failed to recover the economy, not the fast food industry who had always operated at the lowest pay rate.
How does that actually fix the problem?
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2013, 04:47:43 PM
Out in Alberta it seems every single fast food place is stuffed full of Fillipino guest workers. :mellow:
Maybe there paid so little, they can't afford to eat elsewhere.
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2013, 03:10:22 PM
Quote from: Siege on October 30, 2013, 03:06:48 PM
Oh please. Fast food jobs are temporary jobs for students.
If the economy is all fucked up and people cannot get better jobs, blame it on the Obama Administration that failed to recover the economy, not the fast food industry who had always operated at the lowest pay rate.
That used to be true. Traditionally, fast-food jobs were for students.
Of course, by the same token, if you go back far enough, traditionally army jobs were for otherwise unemployable reprobates - or, as the Duke of Wellington so eloquently put it, "scum of the earth". ;)
That gives me an idea. We could draft them in the army, course we wouldn't have to pay soldiers so much, so Siege'll take a pay cut.
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2013, 04:52:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2013, 04:47:43 PM
Out in Alberta it seems every single fast food place is stuffed full of Fillipino guest workers. :mellow:
Maybe there paid so little, they can't afford to eat elsewhere.
Nope, all the guys with no skills get oilpatch jobs, so they import people to work minimum wage jobs.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 04:40:30 PM
In fairness to Brown many of his tax credits were meant to be like the EITC - redistribution for workers. You'll remember in the first year or so of New Labour lots of lefties cried blue murder about the government cutting benefits for single mothers. Many of the tax credits were introduced at that time and were targeted especially at single mothers. And it worked. Employment for single parents shot up during their time in office (with the accompanying reduction in child poverty).
Sheilbh, do you know any chartered accountants?
'cause if you do they'll (probably) tell you that Gordon Brown's complicated tax credit systems were largely unneccessary. Mechanisms were already in place in the tax system that could have been tweaked to get exactly the same effect at minimum cost and with minimum complication. Gordon Brown introduced the tax credit system in exactly the messy and complicated way he did precisely so it could be (repeatedly) trumpeted as a Labour triumph; it's one of the more shameful examples of politics triumphing over common sense in our system, of change for the sake of change.
[Although I'll have to go into details tomorrow - it's been too many years since this was pointed out to me by the Accountant in my family; said accountant also being a single parent.]
The only ones I know are newly qualified, so I'm not sure they'd know anything.
There may have been simpler option and I've no doubt that it's over-complicated, but that's a side effect that I think can be remedied.
The goal was to reduce the benefits available and make work pay more through these tax credits, especially for single parents. That was achieved - the employment rate increased by 15% from under half to over 60%. That isn't politics triumphing over common sense. It's still probably cheaper than having families living on benefits, it's certainly economically better for everyone else and I think it's a large part in ending the stigmatisation of single parents that existed in the 90s.
No doubt, now that's done, there'll be ways to refine it to make it more cost-effective and simpler.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 12:45:29 PM
Food stamps recipients have doubled in the past 10 years, but even during the boom years (2003-07) they increased by 25%.
Meh, won't have to worry about that as much anymore come Friday.
QuoteThe 2009 Recovery Act's temporary boost to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits is scheduled to end on November 1, 2013, resulting in a benefit cut for every SNAP household. For families of three, the cut will be $29 a month — a total of $319 for November 2013
Get a better paying job, suckers. :yeah:
So, the number of recipients is going to decrease by $29 a month come November first? :unsure:
The less food stamps there are, a happier America we will be.
If we're talking thinner, it's possible.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2013, 04:47:43 PM
Out in Alberta it seems every single fast food place is stuffed full of Fillipino guest workers. :mellow:
That makes sense in an economy with a labor shortage.
Apparently there's a constitutional ballot initiative in New Jersey to tie the minimum wage to the CPI. Besides the stupidity of putting something like this into the state constitution, I'm wondering if they are picking the wrong index to tie the minimum wage to.
How about if it was tied to per capita GDP? It wouldn't have to be a one to one formula. Say a doubling in per capita GDP would increase the minimum wage by 50%. During a recession the minimum wage would actually go down, opening up employment opportunities (and hopefully pulling out of the recession quicker).
CPI would probably have less negative effects then per capita income.
That reminds me, I honestly have no idea how to vote on that one. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2013, 11:30:46 AM
That reminds me, I honestly have no idea how to vote on that one. :hmm:
That also reminds me that I need to finish reading up on my propositions.
When is the NYC vote?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2013, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 12:45:29 PM
Food stamps recipients have doubled in the past 10 years, but even during the boom years (2003-07) they increased by 25%.
Meh, won't have to worry about that as much anymore come Friday.
QuoteThe 2009 Recovery Act's temporary boost to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits is scheduled to end on November 1, 2013, resulting in a benefit cut for every SNAP household. For families of three, the cut will be $29 a month — a total of $319 for November 2013
Get a better paying job, suckers. :yeah:
Meh, just wait for the next EBT limits glitch-- then you get to clean out the Walmart food aisles.
Saw this article and found some of the numbers interesting:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/4/median-wage-stagnationincomeinequality.html
QuoteThe median wage — half of workers make more, half less — came to $27,519 last year, virtually unchanged from 2011.
[...]
The average wage, on the other hand, improved last year. It increased to $42,498, up $434, or 1 percent from 2011 after considering inflation. But the average wage remained below its $42,921 peak in 2007
[...]
Had jobs grown since 2000 at the same rate as the population, last year the nation would have had 11 million more people working.
[...]
Pretax profits of all firms in 2012 totaled $1.77 trillion, compared with $800 billion in 2000. That is a gain of 121 percent. During the same period, total real wages grew by just 7 percent, less than the 11.2 percent population increase.
Ugh, someone handing out flyers this evening tried to tell me that tomorrow was a historic moment and I should vote for de Blasio. What, we have a black president so now we've moved on to saying it is historic to vote for someone with a biracial family?
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2013, 11:30:46 AM
That reminds me, I honestly have no idea how to vote on that one. :hmm:
I have made up my mind. :ph34r:
You'll vote yes, presumably, as you're not an anti-human monster?
Wait, that's probably not the best way to persuade. Oh well, I guess I gave that ghost up about six years back. -_-
You kidding? garbon believes Bloomberg is imbued with the divine right of mayors. Should be mayor for life.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2013, 01:20:17 PM
You kidding? garbon believes Bloomberg is imbued with the divine right of mayors. Should be mayor for life.
I meant Guller and the NJ constitutional amendment. Garbon won't come back unless Hillary is involved, or his political allies put him in a camp.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 05, 2013, 01:24:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2013, 01:20:17 PM
You kidding? garbon believes Bloomberg is imbued with the divine right of mayors. Should be mayor for life.
Garbon won't come back unless Hillary is involved, or his political allies put him in a camp.
I would have vote for Quinn. Unfortunately the democratic electorate decided that she didn't offer enough chocolate milk.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2013, 01:20:17 PM
You kidding? garbon believes Bloomberg is imbued with the divine right of mayors. Should be mayor for life.
:swiss:
QuotePretax profits of all firms in 2012 totaled $1.77 trillion, compared with $800 billion in 2000. That is a gain of 121 percent. During the same period, total real wages grew by just 7 percent, less than the 11.2 percent population increase.
This is what I don't get. We have this massive increase in profits and no hiring? No increases of wages? No buying of services that would require hiring and wages in another sector? Where exactly are these profits going because they sure are not being re-invested anywhere.
It is like money is being siphoned off from the economy and kept in a box. Trickle-down fail.
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2013, 03:37:04 PM
QuotePretax profits of all firms in 2012 totaled $1.77 trillion, compared with $800 billion in 2000. That is a gain of 121 percent. During the same period, total real wages grew by just 7 percent, less than the 11.2 percent population increase.
This is what I don't get. We have this massive increase in profits and no hiring? No increases of wages? No buying of services that would require hiring and wages in another sector? Where exactly are these profits going because they sure are not being re-invested anywhere.
It is like money is being siphoned off from the economy and kept in a box. Trickle-down fail.
Rich people buy things that don't cost that much in terms of labor and materials to make but are extraordinarily highly valued. Take for example an Audi R8 vs. a Toyota Camry. Does the Audi really cost eight times as much to make? I suspect not. Same deal with giant houses in expensive places. My hypothesis is that we're living in an artificially valued economy not based on labor or even capital but upon illusory added value; and that we register growth at all is a failure of our metrics.
How in the world would valuing goods based on labor and capital result in real values? :huh:
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2013, 03:37:04 PM
QuotePretax profits of all firms in 2012 totaled $1.77 trillion, compared with $800 billion in 2000. That is a gain of 121 percent. During the same period, total real wages grew by just 7 percent, less than the 11.2 percent population increase.
This is what I don't get. We have this massive increase in profits and no hiring? No increases of wages? No buying of services that would require hiring and wages in another sector? Where exactly are these profits going because they sure are not being re-invested anywhere.
It is like money is being siphoned off from the economy and kept in a box. Trickle-down fail.
Alternatively productivity gains have been made without the need to hire more skilled workers. Trickle down still fails and poses serious long term issues.
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2013, 03:37:04 PM
QuotePretax profits of all firms in 2012 totaled $1.77 trillion, compared with $800 billion in 2000. That is a gain of 121 percent. During the same period, total real wages grew by just 7 percent, less than the 11.2 percent population increase.
This is what I don't get. We have this massive increase in profits and no hiring? No increases of wages? No buying of services that would require hiring and wages in another sector? Where exactly are these profits going because they sure are not being re-invested anywhere.
It is like money is being siphoned off from the economy and kept in a box. Trickle-down fail.
Maybe the money isn't actually there. Maybe there is something gives the illusion of profits without there being much actual profits.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2013, 03:53:29 PM
How in the world would valuing goods based on labor and capital result in real values? :huh:
I don't have the economic grounding to do more than offer it as speculation, but I'm fascinated by fundamentally similar goods having outrageously different prices (and I suppose the R8 is actually more in line with a ZR1 than a Camry--but we're still talking thrice the price).
What is the market valuing in such a case? A name, a brand. That's illusion.
But in any event, I strongly suspect that the economy is becoming more and more rich people buying things from rich people. You can have a massive amount of trade and production and even "growth"--but more people sharing that prosperity is not a logically necessary outcome, I'm sure you'll agree.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 05, 2013, 04:02:11 PM
I don't have the economic grounding to do more than offer it as speculation, but I'm fascinated by fundamentally similar goods having outrageously different prices (and I suppose the R8 is actually more in line with a ZR1 than a Camry--but we're still talking thrice the price).
What is the market valuing in such a case? A name, a brand. That's illusion.
But in any event, I strongly suspect that the economy is becoming more and more rich people buying things from rich people. You can have a massive amount of trade and production and even "growth"--but more people sharing that prosperity is not a logically necessary outcome, I'm sure you'll agree.
Sure, demand is a function of taste for the most part, and taste is subjective.
Now, is there anything to your real value of labor thingy or not?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 05, 2013, 04:02:11 PM
but more people sharing that prosperity is not a logically necessary outcome, I'm sure you'll agree.
I agree that they dont share in the way you mean. That has never been the case in a capitalist society. That is of course the main criticism of capitalism so you dont actually have to tell us that. We all know it. But what society in general does enjoy is an increase in standard of living. At least that has been the case historically. If you can suggest a system that is better than capitalism at providing an increase in the standard of living for society then please enlighten us.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2013, 04:04:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 05, 2013, 04:02:11 PM
I don't have the economic grounding to do more than offer it as speculation, but I'm fascinated by fundamentally similar goods having outrageously different prices (and I suppose the R8 is actually more in line with a ZR1 than a Camry--but we're still talking thrice the price).
What is the market valuing in such a case? A name, a brand. That's illusion.
But in any event, I strongly suspect that the economy is becoming more and more rich people buying things from rich people. You can have a massive amount of trade and production and even "growth"--but more people sharing that prosperity is not a logically necessary outcome, I'm sure you'll agree.
Sure, demand is a function of taste for the most part, and taste is subjective.
Now, is there anything to your real value of labor thingy or not?
Of course there is. What is an asset bubble, after all?
CC, your question presupposes the assumption that the primary goal is to increase the standard of living for everyone. That may or may not be the case depending on who you ask.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 05, 2013, 05:16:30 PM
Of course there is. What is an asset bubble, after all?
I don't see the connection.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2013, 05:20:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 05, 2013, 05:16:30 PM
Of course there is. What is an asset bubble, after all?
I don't see the connection.
Tulips get out of control because value is subjective.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 05, 2013, 05:21:23 PM
Tulips get out of control because value is subjective.
I got that. I thought Teh Log was proposing some objective value of goods based on the labor and capital used to produce them.
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2013, 03:37:04 PMThis is what I don't get. We have this massive increase in profits and no hiring? No increases of wages? No buying of services that would require hiring and wages in another sector? Where exactly are these profits going because they sure are not being re-invested anywhere.
And historically low levels of investment.
The Economist had an article about how the decline in labour as a percentage of GDP is a global phenomenon and I don't think it's necessarily a problem. But I think the situation in the US (and I think the UK) is problematic: record profits, companies hoarding cash and historically low levels of investment and stagnating wages.
I think CdM's partly right, some of it is probably about shareholder value.
Speaking of McDonald's I ate a filet-o-fish today. No sauce or cheese.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2013, 05:24:20 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 05, 2013, 05:21:23 PM
Tulips get out of control because value is subjective.
I got that. I thought Teh Log was proposing some objective value of goods based on the labor and capital used to produce them.
I think there is an objective value--which could be obtained if we had perfect information on human hours spent collecting material, putting it together, along with designing labor-assisting technology used in the process, etc., and perfect information on the true value of all those hours viz. other types of labor, as well as perfect information regarding rarity and other concerns, such as taste.
The market often highly approximates that value--and if the market functioned perfectly rationally and with perfect information would no doubt equal it. But as the market does not function perfectly rationally nor with perfect information, gross deviations away from the objective value are reached.
In any event, I think this talk (I call it a "labor theory of value"--catchy, yes? :P ) distracts from the more important point, that CC seemed to misunderstand, which is that an economy based on rich people trading with rich people is possible, and indeed is becoming increasingly factual. I suspect it may have something to do with record corporate profits coexisting with stagnating/regressing real wages. A society where 99.9% of the wealth in the hands of 0.01% of the people is a possibility. So too is a decreased standard of living for most.
And obviously there are systems superior to American capitalism. There are like twenty or thirty of them operating in the world today.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 05, 2013, 05:20:08 PM
CC, your question presupposes the assumption that the primary goal is to increase the standard of living for everyone. That may or may not be the case depending on who you ask.
I make no such assumption. The primary goal in a capitalist system is to maximize profit. The fact that it also provides better standard of living explains why it is widely accepted in modern democratic countries.
Oh yeah, I should mention that one of those twenty systems is YOURS. Commie.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 05, 2013, 05:59:31 PM
A society where 99.9% of the wealth in the hands of 0.01% of the people is a possibility. So too is a decreased standard of living for most.
Yes that is possible but not probable. Well, not probable in properly functioning democracies. I make no claims about the US.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2013, 06:03:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 05, 2013, 05:59:31 PM
A society where 99.9% of the wealth in the hands of 0.01% of the people is a possibility. So too is a decreased standard of living for most.
Yes that is possible but not probable. Well, not probably is properly functioning democracies. I make no claims about the US.
:D
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 05, 2013, 05:51:02 PM
Speaking of McDonald's I ate a filet-o-fish today. No sauce or cheese.
That's more like a Filet-o-Matzoh.
I used to eat an ocaissonal McFish but the price got too damn high.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2013, 09:18:08 PM
I used to eat an ocaissonal McFish but the price got too damn high.
Fucker was 3.35. Holy crap.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2013, 09:16:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 05, 2013, 05:51:02 PM
Speaking of McDonald's I ate a filet-o-fish today. No sauce or cheese.
That's more like a Filet-o-Matzoh.
Ketchup is my sauce.
Filet-o-Ghetto.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2013, 11:21:17 AM
CPI would probably have less negative effects then per capita income.
I think in cases of stagflation it could be much worse, since CPI would still be going up but so would unemployment. That seems like a really bad time to raise the minimum wage.
Quote from: frunk on November 06, 2013, 02:08:26 PM
I think in cases of stagflation it could be much worse, since CPI would still be going up but so would unemployment. That seems like a really bad time to raise the minimum wage.
We experienced stagflation once, and learned from that the lesson that inflation and employment is not a tradeoff.
Per capita income, on the other hand, can be badly skewed by high earners.
Heard on NPR that the city of SeaTac, Washington voted to increase their minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2013, 11:56:10 AM
Heard on NPR that the city of SeaTac, Washington voted to increase their minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2013, 11:56:10 AM
Heard on NPR that the city of SeaTac, Washington voted to increase their minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour.
It passed by 200 votes; 2,000 votes to 1,800.
Quote from: Caliga on November 07, 2013, 01:01:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2013, 11:56:10 AM
Heard on NPR that the city of SeaTac, Washington voted to increase their minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour.
:rolleyes:
The bastards!
It will be interesting to see how that works out.
That's an easy one: the nunmber of full-time employees will be cut to make up for the "losses".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2013, 01:21:03 PM
That's an easy one: the nunmber of full-time employees will be cut to make up for the "losses".
Yep, hence my eye rolling. :)
I think it's going to function like a forced efficiency wage. Those who manage to keep the job will work hard to keep keeping it. Hopefully that would translate to being more productive rather than stomaching more abuse.
I imagine it will affect employment very little. SeaTac is where Seattle's airport is. That's a captive market.
Oh, is it just the airport? :hmm:
Could be, if only 3,800 people voted on the referendum.
So I guess the cost of all the food at the airport will go up alot, then. Since I can usually expense that I don't care. :) If it was a personal trip however :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2013, 01:26:50 PM
I imagine it will affect employment very little. SeaTac is where Seattle's airport is. That's a captive market.
Yeah, exactly. That is the main point the pro side was making. From the perspective of the surrounding community this makes a lot of sense. The people that are going to be paying the bill are the airlines in the form of increased user fees to offset the greater labour cost. That will of course be passed on to the traveling public which is spread far wider than the community benefiting from this wage increase.
I am surprised it passed with such a slim margin.
Quote from: Caliga on November 07, 2013, 01:28:01 PM
Oh, is it just the airport? :hmm:
Yep pretty much.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/06/news/economy/minimum-wage-seatac-new-jersey/
QuoteThe SeaTac initiative will raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour for hospitality and transportation workers in and near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The current minimum wage in Washington State is $9.19.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2013, 01:52:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2013, 01:26:50 PM
I imagine it will affect employment very little. SeaTac is where Seattle's airport is. That's a captive market.
Yeah, exactly. That is the main point the pro side was making. From the perspective of the surrounding community this makes a lot of sense. The people that are going to be paying the bill are the airlines in the form of increased user fees to offset the greater labour cost. That will of course be passed on to the traveling public which is spread far wider than the community benefiting from this wage increase.
I am surprised it passed with such a slim margin.
I'm glad people aren't that short sighted though as it'd really suck if this trend caught on as then the costs to traveling public would be very dreadful.
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2013, 03:09:27 PM
I'm glad people aren't that short sighted though as it'd really suck if this trend caught on as then the costs to traveling public would be very dreadful.
I doubt it would make much of a difference.
So they'll need STEM degrees to flip burgers there. Win?
The prices at the airport are already super-inflated, so the cost of labor as a percentage is going to likely be much lower to start with, hence raising wages is going to have less an impact than you would expect.
It certainly will have an impact though.
Quote from: Caliga on November 07, 2013, 01:28:01 PM
Oh, is it just the airport? :hmm:
The airport and surrounding neighborhoods...which being near the major regional airport, means ghettos. Also strip clubs.
Jobs Gap Widens in Uneven Recovery
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOG-AA384_USrec_G_20131111195408.jpg&hash=4f60c74da7f260eee4ab7dfd241c273f651e7ca9)
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304868404579189703106577712
QuoteMcDonald's to Its Minimum-Wage Workers: Here's How to Tip Personal Trainers and Nannies
Will they never learn?
Jordan Weissmann Dec 6 2013, 12:00 PM ET
www.theatlantic.com
By now, you'd think that McDonald's would have learned the perils of offering its workers financial advice. First there was the PR flap when it handed out a budgeting guide that suggested employees would need two jobs to survive. Then there was the help-line where franchise staffers could learn how to apply for food stamps.
But, apparently the lesson hasn't sunk in. Yesterday, as fast-food workers around the country went on strike yet again to demand a living wage, CNBC reported that McDonald's had published an etiquette guide on a company website full of advice from Emily Post on how families should tip their help during the holidays. If you were a McDonald's worker with a pool cleaner, a personal trainer, or massage therapist, corporate had you covered.
After the story ran, the guide was removed, but here's a screenshot courtesy of Time. (More after the image).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fnewsroom%2Fimg%2Fposts%2F2013%2F12%2Fmcdonalds_tipping_advice_1_copy%2Fae83153cd.png&hash=866fb90902e9ab28dabcff1cb0b5afa46fadb0fa)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fnewsroom%2Fimg%2Fposts%2F2013%2F12%2Fmcdonalds_tipping_advice_copy1_2%2F5443dc64a.png&hash=5dab7ba26c23ef31fc4f38b2e3b393e2f9a861dc)
Let's acknowledge the obvious: Someone in the vast universe of McDonald's employees has a landscaper they need to tip. What's bizarre is the tone-deafness. McDonald's says the content was provided by a third party, but presumably someone inside the company vetted it (if not, why not?). And the same way telling employees to apply for federal welfare benefits, while thoughtful in its own way, looks terrible when your entire business model is identified with low wages, telling a cashier how to properly tip their dog walker comes off as callous. It sounds like human resources telling is telling the company's entire low-wage workforce to go eat cake (bought, presumably, with food stamps).
I don't see why a McDonalds employee can't employ a pool cleaner, if they work five full time jobs.
Populism: It always works because people like guller and Seedy are dumb enough to actually fall for it.
Quote from: Berkut on December 08, 2013, 11:08:57 AM
Populism: It always works because people like guller and Seedy are dumb enough to actually fall for it.
:huh: Are you saying that the tipping guide was a hoax?
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2013, 11:12:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 08, 2013, 11:08:57 AM
Populism: It always works because people like guller and Seedy are dumb enough to actually fall for it.
:huh: Are you saying that the tipping guide was a hoax?
No, I am saying you are a moron for swallowing the idea that the story means anything, and you actually fall for shit like "McDonalds business model is identified by low wages".
Quote from: Berkut on December 08, 2013, 11:08:57 AM
Populism: It always works because people like guller and Seedy are dumb enough to actually fall for it.
Unfortunately, Emily Post is an etiquette guru and therefore an instrument of the elite.
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2013, 11:12:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 08, 2013, 11:08:57 AM
Populism: It always works because people like guller and Seedy are dumb enough to actually fall for it.
:huh: Are you saying that the tipping guide was a hoax?
Berkut still operates under the belief that McDonald's employees are primarily kids making a little extra cash as they work their way through school. Because that's the way it was in 1985.
Quote from: Berkut on December 08, 2013, 11:16:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2013, 11:12:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 08, 2013, 11:08:57 AM
Populism: It always works because people like guller and Seedy are dumb enough to actually fall for it.
:huh: Are you saying that the tipping guide was a hoax?
No, I am saying you are a moron for swallowing the idea that the story means anything, and you actually fall for shit like "McDonalds business model is identified by low wages".
Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something? You aren't usually deranged to such a degree.
Throbby's got a bit of a point. Is providing a tipping guide a nice thing? Yes. If they republish Emily Post's entire guide, does that mean they think their employees have pool cleaners and lawn care guys? No, it means they published the whole thing.
It's part and parcel of the recent trend for the American left to demonize in order to achieve desired policies: bankers and financial reform, the wealthy and tax increases, the NRA and gun control, fast food and the minimum wage.
Is it demonizing or is it root cause analysis?
Non-leading question, btw. I'm curious about your thoughts.
Quote from: fhdz on December 08, 2013, 04:16:37 PM
Is it demonizing or is it root cause analysis?
Non-leading question, btw. I'm curious about your thoughts.
Root cause analysis of the tax increase is that we need revenue to fund government, and possibly to reduce income inequality. Demonization is to say they are fat cats. Root cause analysis of the minimum wage is that we want workers to have more income. Demonization is to say that anyone who pays the current minimum wage is a selfish dickhead.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2013, 04:11:37 PM
It's part and parcel of the recent trend for the American left to demonize in order to achieve desired policies: bankers and financial reform, the wealthy and tax increases, the NRA and gun control, fast food and the minimum wage.
I presume that the fact that you are pointing out the left in this example is because you recognize that the right has been doing this for years, not because you think that the right doesn't do it.
I agree that the demonization has become so commonplace as to obscure the truth, but, in fairness, have to note that the right's demonization seems to me to be more extreme and more widespread. And I'm basically a right-center guy (as is Berkut).
I would hate if I had to work a job that didn't pay me enough to live.
The mob's braying has become tiresome. Release the hounds.
Quote from: grumbler on December 08, 2013, 05:38:39 PM
I agree that the demonization has become so commonplace as to obscure the truth, but, in fairness, have to note that the right's demonization seems to me to be more extreme and more widespread. And I'm basically a right-center guy (as is Berkut).
I disagree. Wubya's major domestic policy initiatives were tax reduction, Medicare drugs, and No Child Left Behind. None of those were involved demonization. Who could they possibly have demonized?
Under Obama the opposition's principle fights have been reducing the deficit, holding tax rates down, rolling back Obamacare, holding off gun control, and holding off illegal immigrant amnesty. If the first four involved demonization, it didn't register on my radar (don't watch Fox and don't listen to RW shock jocks), and I'm hard pressed to see how you create a villain for those four.
Amnesty does lend itself to demonization, but again demonization that is both widespread and extreme has not shown up on my radar.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2013, 04:20:40 PM
Quote from: fhdz on December 08, 2013, 04:16:37 PM
Is it demonizing or is it root cause analysis?
Non-leading question, btw. I'm curious about your thoughts.
Root cause analysis of the tax increase is that we need revenue to fund government, and possibly to reduce income inequality. Demonization is to say they are fat cats. Root cause analysis of the minimum wage is that we want workers to have more income. Demonization is to say that anyone who pays the current minimum wage is a selfish dickhead.
Those aren't the end products of root cause analysis. The optimal word there is "cause". If there is income inequality, a root cause analysis of that problem would seek to determine the cause(s) of the income inequality (which might or might not be that the system is gamed in favor of the haves and insufficient protections exist for the have-nots to slip further down). A root cause analysis of the problem of minimum wage not equaling a living wage would be to determine why the minimum wage has been insufficiently increased.
Sounds to me like your root cause analysis presupposes a policy outcome.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2013, 06:07:00 PM
I disagree. Wubya's major domestic policy initiatives were tax reduction, Medicare drugs, and No Child Left Behind. None of those were involved demonization. Who could they possibly have demonized?
Corrrect. The Left didn't demonize Dubya. They should have, over Medicare Part D, which was incredibly irresponsibly handled and funded, but they didn't.
QuoteUnder Obama the opposition's principle fights have been reducing the deficit, holding tax rates down, rolling back Obamacare, holding off gun control, and holding off illegal immigrant amnesty. If the first four involved demonization, it didn't register on my radar (don't watch Fox and don't listen to RW shock jocks), and I'm hard pressed to see how you create a villain for those four.
"Death panels," "taxed enough already," "Obama decided to shut the government down," "show us the birth certificate" (and then "it was faked"), "Obama is a Muslim," "they wanna take our guns away," "buy ammo while it's still legal," "amnesty" for illegal immigrants, the Benghazi witch hunt, etc. Plenty of demonization to go around.
Yi is always full of surprises.
There's nothing wrong with demonization. It motivates people to act, whether those acts be passive resistance (strikes and voting) or active (protests and pipe bombs). Demonization of the enemy is not only natural, it's practically necessary; otherwise why would you fight?
It is worse when it involves lies, but I am unsure that any lies are being used on the left.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 08:52:04 PM
There's nothing wrong with demonization. It motivates people to act, whether those acts be passive resistance (strikes and voting) or active (protests and pipe bombs). Demonization of the enemy is not only natural, it's practically necessary; otherwise why would you fight?
It is worse when it involves lies, but I am unsure that any lies are being used on the left.
Would you say the same thing if you were one of those being demonized?
Quote from: fhdz on December 08, 2013, 07:38:01 PM
A root cause analysis of the problem of minimum wage not equaling a living wage would be to determine why the minimum wage has been insufficiently increased.
That is some clever obfuscation there.
The root cause for why the min wage does to equal a living wage is because it was never intended to do so, hence it should not come as any great surprise that it does not now, nor has it ever.
I am not sure where this recent demand that the minimum wage be enough to raise a family on came from, but it is certainly VERY recent. Not even a decade ago was there any such claim that it was the case, and certainly 20 so odd years ago (when I was earning minimum wage) was there any even theoretical notion that it should pay me a living wage on 40 hours a week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_wage
I've always thought of the 19th century as within the last 10 years.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2013, 08:58:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 08:52:04 PM
There's nothing wrong with demonization. It motivates people to act, whether those acts be passive resistance (strikes and voting) or active (protests and pipe bombs). Demonization of the enemy is not only natural, it's practically necessary; otherwise why would you fight?
It is worse when it involves lies, but I am unsure that any lies are being used on the left.
Would you say the same thing if you were one of those being demonized?
If? I'm an entitled Millennial, remember?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 09:41:47 PM
If? I'm an entitled Millennial, remember?
:rolleyes: Nothing is your fault. You're a victim.
That's not at all what I just said and you know it.
I thought you did. Please explain.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 09:15:19 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_wage
I've always thought of the 19th century as within the last 10 years.
That article and concept has nothing to do with minimum wage.
Being part of a demonized group hardly absolves one of personal responsibility, or relieve the group of its the social responsibilities.
All I said was that Millennials are demonized (including often by other Millennials, but largely by Gen Xers who know which side their bread is buttered on, and Boomers). As a Millennial, then, I am demonized.
I'm also demonized for being a socialist and an atheist.
You often call me a Hillbilly too. :(
In what way are you and other Millennials demonized?
Referred to as lazy and entitled. Considered to be unpatriotic and weak in regards foreign policy (which I partly agree with). Often accused of being pretentious. Sometimes even said to be selfish based on reproductive choices. Widely considered to be immature and childish.
Young people eat poop. Get off my lawn
See? And it's a real mischaracterization.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 10:15:55 PM
Referred to as lazy and entitled. Considered to be unpatriotic and weak in regards foreign policy (which I partly agree with). Often accused of being pretentious. Sometimes even said to be selfish based on reproductive choices. Widely considered to be immature and childish.
By whom? Seedy and Boner?
I'm talking about demonization by the political class and the upstream media. And to them you are nothing but a victim of circumstances beyond you're control. We've got a 30 page thread on that topic alone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4IjTUxZORE
Millennials: We Suck and We're Sorry
I feel cheated by the millennials, they don't seem to have left us X's an entire generation(even with retconning late boomers like Ed and Seedy).
Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2013, 10:24:28 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4IjTUxZORE
Millennials: We Suck and We're Sorry
QuoteGlad I'm Gen X, these self-entitled hipsters are a fucking disgrace. How can any of you complain about college being expensive when you're not even the ones paying for it? LOL! I'm just so embarrassed by the lack of self-awareness here...Go back to slurping recycled feces-covered wheatgrass lattes and picking up your monthly gentrification allowances.
I don't even know what this means.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 10:34:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2013, 10:24:28 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4IjTUxZORE
Millennials: We Suck and We're Sorry
QuoteGlad I'm Gen X, these self-entitled hipsters are a fucking disgrace. How can any of you complain about college being expensive when you're not even the ones paying for it? LOL! I'm just so embarrassed by the lack of self-awareness here...Go back to slurping recycled feces-covered wheatgrass lattes and picking up your monthly gentrification allowances.
I don't even know what this means.
Where is my gentrification allowance? :angry:
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on December 08, 2013, 10:07:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 09:15:19 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_wage)
I've always thought of the 19th century as within the last 10 years.
That article and concept has nothing to do with minimum wage.
It has everything to do with what Berkut was talking about.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 10:15:55 PM
Referred to as lazy and entitled. Considered to be unpatriotic and weak in regards foreign policy (which I partly agree with). Often accused of being pretentious. Sometimes even said to be selfish based on reproductive choices. Widely considered to be immature and childish.
I resent suddenly being called a Millennial after years of being called a Gen Xer.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 10:46:34 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 10:15:55 PM
Referred to as lazy and entitled. Considered to be unpatriotic and weak in regards foreign policy (which I partly agree with). Often accused of being pretentious. Sometimes even said to be selfish based on reproductive choices. Widely considered to be immature and childish.
I resent suddenly being called a Millennial after years of being called a Gen Xer.
Generation X is the new "Lost Generation". :(
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 08:52:04 PM
It is worse when it involves lies, but I am unsure that any lies are being used on the left.
Typical leftist--can't tell the truth from lies.
Quote from: dps on December 08, 2013, 10:50:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 08:52:04 PM
It is worse when it involves lies, but I am unsure that any lies are being used on the left.
Typical leftist--can't tell the truth from lies.
Name 'em, I'll listen. I am an open-minded centrist.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 11:04:34 PM
Quote from: dps on December 08, 2013, 10:50:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 08:52:04 PM
It is worse when it involves lies, but I am unsure that any lies are being used on the left.
Typical leftist--can't tell the truth from lies.
Name 'em, I'll listen. I am an open-minded centrist.
Open minded I'll grant you, but centrist? There's a lie right there.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2013, 10:31:37 PM
(even with retconning late boomers like Ed and Seedy).
Stop being ashamed of being Gen Y.
Quote from: dps on December 08, 2013, 11:14:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 11:04:34 PM
Quote from: dps on December 08, 2013, 10:50:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 08:52:04 PM
It is worse when it involves lies, but I am unsure that any lies are being used on the left.
Typical leftist--can't tell the truth from lies.
Name 'em, I'll listen. I am an open-minded centrist.
Open minded I'll grant you, but centrist? There's a lie right there.
I was joking. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 10:44:52 PM
It has everything to do with what Berkut was talking about.
No it doesn't. Berkut said the minimum wage was not intended to be a living wage. That page simply talks about a different definition of living wage that is based on a nuclear family instead of an individual. It does not address whatsoever what the minimum wage was and is supposed to be.
Quote from: Berkut on December 08, 2013, 09:09:19 PM
Quote from: fhdz on December 08, 2013, 07:38:01 PM
A root cause analysis of the problem of minimum wage not equaling a living wage would be to determine why the minimum wage has been insufficiently increased.
That is some clever obfuscation there.
The root cause for why the min wage does to equal a living wage is because it was never intended to do so, hence it should not come as any great surprise that it does not now, nor has it ever.
I am not sure where this recent demand that the minimum wage be enough to raise a family on came from, but it is certainly VERY recent. Not even a decade ago was there any such claim that it was the case, and certainly 20 so odd years ago (when I was earning minimum wage) was there any even theoretical notion that it should pay me a living wage on 40 hours a week.
What has changed is the inability by a percentage of the population to get jobs other than of the burger-flipping, minimum-wage variety - leading to such people viewing those sorts of jobs, not as a temporary stop-gap or the sort of thing teens do in the summer, but as their actual employment. Hence, political pressure to do something about the situation - for example, by raising minumum wage.
Granted, the big corps who provide said jobs aren't the direct cause of this change. Also granted that raising minimum wage, while a simple and easy to understand response, may do nothing to solve the underlying problems (and may make things worse).
The difficulty exposed in this thread is that the corps are seemingly attempting to respond to this change in helpful ways, but can't get the "tone" right. The well-meaning attempt in the OP is to help employees with life-planning and budgeting - which, ironically, demonstrates that according to a reasonable set of assumptions, a person *can't* adequately life-plan and budget at the wage they are likely to earn at McD's as a burger flipper.
It isn't an adequate response to this irony to simply note that such wages were never intended as "living" wages, because the company, by making these materials available, is clearly assuming that the opposite is true - that its employees reading the materials *are* in fact planning to attempt to live on them. Which, sadly, probably has a certain amount of contemporary truth to it.
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
It isn't an adequate response to this irony to simply note that such wages were never intended as "living" wages, because the company, by making these materials available, is clearly assuming that the opposite is true - that its employees reading the materials *are* in fact planning to attempt to live on them. Which, sadly, probably has a certain amount of contemporary truth to it.
Well said
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
It isn't an adequate response to this irony to simply note that such wages were never intended as "living" wages, because the company, by making these materials available, is clearly assuming that the opposite is true - that its employees reading the materials *are* in fact planning to attempt to live on them. Which, sadly, probably has a certain amount of contemporary truth to it.
I don't think that is true - I don't think there is anyone at McDonald's who thinks that their minimum wage employees are (and should be) trying to raise a family on their minimum wage job. What McDonald's does not does not publish on their website is not evidence of any kind that should be influencing people's perception or opinions about what minimum wage ought to be for every single minimum wage job in America.
What is frustrating about this is just how silly the entire thing it - if you are working at McDonald's, and that is the best you can do, a full time job at McDonald's, then what is *really* frustrating is this implication in all this that you are doomed forever and all time, that there is NOTHING that you have control over that can improve your lot.
I mean really, that is just total and complete 100% bullshit. If nothing else, you can work your ass off AT MCDONALDS and move into management AT MCDONALDS (or Walmart or Tops or Mervyns...). Probably won't pay you some awesome salary, but it will certainly be better than minimum wage. You can work at McDonalds full time, work ANOTHER job part-time, and look for something better as well. Hold down a job for a while, be reliable, work your ass off, and people will in fact notice that, there are other, better paying jobs out there. Retail management, restaurant management, construction, whatever.
What I personally find objectionable about this entire debate is the implication that a minimum wage job is simply the very best that some significant portion of the population can do, and therefore society should make sure those jobs pay a "living wage". I reject that categorically. It is NOT the best *anyone* can do. And we should not legislate the salaries of the worst jobs to be equivalent to the salaries of the median jobs because we have so little faith in people that we cannot imagine them doing any better.
Lastly, I do think Malthus is basically correct that this really isn't about minimum wage at all - it is about unemployment for the low skilled. That is a problem, but it is not one that can possibly be solved by government fiat in regards to the minimum wage. In fact, econ 101 will tell you that it will certainly, without any doubt at all, result in exactly the opposite. If you raise the cost of labor, then it makes more sense to invest in automation instead, which will just mean less jobs for the low skilled, not the same number of jobs at twice the salary. This is not opinion.
Let me say that again: If you significantly raise minimum wage, it WILL DEFINITELY result in the long run in a decrease in the number of available jobs. It is certainly the case that there are some jobs (probably right in McDonald's in fact) that will be replaced by automation if the cost of the labor increases significantly - hell, even without increasing minimum wage that is going to happen.
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
What has changed is the inability by a percentage of the population to get jobs other than of the burger-flipping, minimum-wage variety - leading to such people viewing those sorts of jobs, not as a temporary stop-gap or the sort of thing teens do in the summer, but as their actual employment. Hence, political pressure to do something about the situation - for example, by raising minumum wage.
This morning on the Diane Rehm Show one of the panelists claimed that only about 2% of American workers are actually at minimum wage (whatever that happens to be for their state). He provided no reference for that during the brief period in which I was listening, though. The actual distribution of wages seems to pre pretty important for this discussion.
Plenty of stats out there:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm)
Note that according to these stats, I am right, and Seedy is (surprise! surprise!) full of shit.
Most people making minimum wage are doing so because they are NOT typical full time primary bread winners with their minimum wage jobs as their primary source of income.
Highlights:
- Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely than married workers to earn the federal minimum wage or less (about 8 percent versus about 2 percent).
- About 11 percent of part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were paid the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 2 percent of full-time workers.
Most people making minimu wage (98%) are in fact part time workers. Just like I said.This is interesting:The proportion of hourly paid workers earning the prevailing federal minimum wage or less declined from 5.2 percent in 2011 to 4.7 percent in 2012. This remains well below the figure of 13.4 percent in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis. Huh. The proportion of people earning min wage is actually going DOWN, not up.
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 02:39:59 PM
Lastly, I do think Malthus is basically correct that this really isn't about minimum wage at all - it is about unemployment for the low skilled. That is a problem, but it is not one that can possibly be solved by government fiat in regards to the minimum wage. In fact, econ 101 will tell you that it will certainly, without any doubt at all, result in exactly the opposite. If you raise the cost of labor, then it makes more sense to invest in automation instead, which will just mean less jobs for the low skilled, not the same number of jobs at twice the salary. This is not opinion.
I don't think anyone who actually studies this question in detail, and attempts to be objective at it, will be anywhere near as certain as you are. There is more to economics than econ 101, surprisingly enough.
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2013, 02:52:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 02:39:59 PM
Lastly, I do think Malthus is basically correct that this really isn't about minimum wage at all - it is about unemployment for the low skilled. That is a problem, but it is not one that can possibly be solved by government fiat in regards to the minimum wage. In fact, econ 101 will tell you that it will certainly, without any doubt at all, result in exactly the opposite. If you raise the cost of labor, then it makes more sense to invest in automation instead, which will just mean less jobs for the low skilled, not the same number of jobs at twice the salary. This is not opinion.
I don't think anyone who actually studies this question in detail, and attempts to be objective at it, will be anywhere near as certain as you are. There is more to economics than econ 101, surprisingly enough.
I disagree. I think people who study the question in detail who actually understand economics understand that raising labor costs inevitably creates greater incentive to avoid those costs via automation.
There is much more to economics than econ 101, but the fundamentals don't change. You are arguing that since there is a lot more to math than simple arithmetic, then maybe 2+2 might not equal 4.
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 02:57:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2013, 02:52:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 02:39:59 PM
Lastly, I do think Malthus is basically correct that this really isn't about minimum wage at all - it is about unemployment for the low skilled. That is a problem, but it is not one that can possibly be solved by government fiat in regards to the minimum wage. In fact, econ 101 will tell you that it will certainly, without any doubt at all, result in exactly the opposite. If you raise the cost of labor, then it makes more sense to invest in automation instead, which will just mean less jobs for the low skilled, not the same number of jobs at twice the salary. This is not opinion.
I don't think anyone who actually studies this question in detail, and attempts to be objective at it, will be anywhere near as certain as you are. There is more to economics than econ 101, surprisingly enough.
I disagree. I think people who study the question in detail who actually understand economics understand that raising labor costs inevitably creates greater incentive to avoid those costs via automation.
There is much more to economics than econ 101, but the fundamentals don't change. You are arguing that since there is a lot more to math than simple arithmetic, then maybe 2+2 might not equal 4.
I'm arguing that there are a lot of complicated second-order macroeconomic effects in play. Microeconomics is relatively simple, but macroeconomics are still a work in progress.
I'm prepared to handwave that Socialism is bad mkay.
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 02:39:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
It isn't an adequate response to this irony to simply note that such wages were never intended as "living" wages, because the company, by making these materials available, is clearly assuming that the opposite is true - that its employees reading the materials *are* in fact planning to attempt to live on them. Which, sadly, probably has a certain amount of contemporary truth to it.
I don't think that is true - I don't think there is anyone at McDonald's who thinks that their minimum wage employees are (and should be) trying to raise a family on their minimum wage job. What McDonald's does not does not publish on their website is not evidence of any kind that should be influencing people's perception or opinions about what minimum wage ought to be for every single minimum wage job in America.
No, but what McD's publishes on its website is pretty good evidence of what McD's thinks about its
own jobs.
It is true that this may be a mistake on the part of the person publishing or approving it, but rightly or wrongly, corporations are held by the public to what they "say" in publications made by "them". Indeed, how else is the public supposed to know what a corporation collectively thinks about anything, other than in its published statements and materials?
As I said, it's a problem of tone. I see this as an example of good intentions gone awry, which exposes an underlying problem society has to deal with.
QuoteWhat is frustrating about this is just how silly the entire thing it - if you are working at McDonald's, and that is the best you can do, a full time job at McDonald's, then what is *really* frustrating is this implication in all this that you are doomed forever and all time, that there is NOTHING that you have control over that can improve your lot.
I mean really, that is just total and complete 100% bullshit. If nothing else, you can work your ass off AT MCDONALDS and move into management AT MCDONALDS (or Walmart or Tops or Mervyns...). Probably won't pay you some awesome salary, but it will certainly be better than minimum wage. You can work at McDonalds full time, work ANOTHER job part-time, and look for something better as well. Hold down a job for a while, be reliable, work your ass off, and people will in fact notice that, there are other, better paying jobs out there. Retail management, restaurant management, construction, whatever.
I agree this is how things ought to work. What I hear, is that for a lot of people, this is not how things work in reality. In theory, hard work at one job ought to translate into a better position. In reality, for a sizable number of people, what I hear is that obtaining a better position means applying through some byzantine applications process that leads nowhere, or requires an absurd level of pre-conceived criteria that a hard=working burger-slinger simply can never match.
That could be a mistake on my part, or wrong information, I admit. I have no direct experience of this.
QuoteWhat I personally find objectionable about this entire debate is the implication that a minimum wage job is simply the very best that some significant portion of the population can do, and therefore society should make sure those jobs pay a "living wage". I reject that categorically. It is NOT the best *anyone* can do.
I don't reject that categorically. It may or may not actually be true. It sounds like you are not open to even the possibility that, for some, it
could be true.
QuoteAnd we should not legislate the salaries of the worst jobs to be equivalent to the salaries of the median jobs because we have so little faith in people that we cannot imagine them doing any better.
Lastly, I do think Malthus is basically correct that this really isn't about minimum wage at all - it is about unemployment for the low skilled. That is a problem, but it is not one that can possibly be solved by government fiat in regards to the minimum wage. In fact, econ 101 will tell you that it will certainly, without any doubt at all, result in exactly the opposite. If you raise the cost of labor, then it makes more sense to invest in automation instead, which will just mean less jobs for the low skilled, not the same number of jobs at twice the salary. This is not opinion.
Let me say that again: If you significantly raise minimum wage, it WILL DEFINITELY result in the long run in a decrease in the number of available jobs. It is certainly the case that there are some jobs (probably right in McDonald's in fact) that will be replaced by automation if the cost of the labor increases significantly - hell, even without increasing minimum wage that is going to happen.
I don't disagree on any of that. I consider raising minimum wage to be a bad solution. The concern is, if the identified problem exists (i.e., that it is now harder to achieve social mobility through hard work for some sizable segment of the population), in a democracy you are bound to eventually get political pressure to do
something. If good solutions are not suggested, eventually, bad solutions are likely to be adopted. Particularly if the difficulty of social mobility is seen as an increasing trend, and not cyclical over the relatively short term; and even moreso where, as in the US particlarly (but also elsewhere), the trend is matched by a massive increase in the total wealth held by the very wealthy.
In short, I view this situation to be a symptom of a problem. I do not claim to have any solutions.
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2013, 03:06:28 PM
In short, I view this situation to be a symptom of a problem. I do not claim to have any solutions.
Agreed. It used to be that answer to social mobility was education. That was certainly my answer even if I did back into it by virtue of someone wanting me to play basketball for them. But given the costs associated with that option I am no longer certain what the answer to social mobility might be.
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2013, 03:06:28 PM
I don't disagree on any of that. I consider raising minimum wage to be a bad solution. The concern is, if the identified problem exists (i.e., that it is now harder to achieve social mobility through hard work for some sizable segment of the population), in a democracy you are bound to eventually get political pressure to do something. If good solutions are not suggested, eventually, bad solutions are likely to be adopted. Particularly if the difficulty of social mobility is seen as an increasing trend, and not cyclical over the relatively short term; and even moreso where, as in the US particlarly (but also elsewhere), the trend is matched by a massive increase in the total wealth held by the very wealthy.
In short, I view this situation to be a symptom of a problem. I do not claim to have any solutions.
No argument from me, and I like your point about the reality that if there aren't any good solutions offered, people will latch onto bad ones.
What bugs me is that I think you have people like Seedy and such who don't really want a solution, they want to use the problem as a means to advance their political agenda. That is what I see as really behind the entire "minimum wage ought to be a living wage" argument, especially when it is being put forth by those who I am quite certain have the basic grounding in economics to understand that the claim is obviously spurious to begin with.
Hell, I am right with them on the real issue, and am kind fo dumbfounded that we would let this distract us, for that matter. Doubling the minimum wage is not going to address in any real way at all the fundamental problem of wealth distribution overall.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2013, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2013, 03:06:28 PM
In short, I view this situation to be a symptom of a problem. I do not claim to have any solutions.
Agreed. It used to be that answer to social mobility was education. That was certainly my answer even if I did back into it by virtue of someone wanting me to play basketball for them. But given the costs associated with that option I am no longer certain what the answer to social mobility might be.
Hmmm. I think the availaibility of education right now is as high as it has ever been.
I don't think the fact that education is not the obvious path it used to be is because it isn't attainable, I think it is because it is so attainable that most everyone who can attain it is doing so, watering down the basic utility of it.
It's not like there are all these jobs out there not being filled because there are not enough people with bachelors degrees to fill them - quite the opposite in fact. Now it seems like an education is not enough, because nearly everyone has one. So now every job requires a degree, and why not? There are millions of people with degrees who can't find good jobs.
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 03:12:08 PM
Doubling the minimum wage is not going to address in any real way at all the fundamental problem of wealth distribution overall.
Not at all? :yeahright: I find that to be an extraordinary statement. Countries with much higher minimum wages do have significantly lower Gini indices, so I would be curious to see you explain how they are entirely explained by other factors. To me the real dilemma is balancing the reduction of the Gini index with the distortions introduced by such a law.
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 03:14:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2013, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2013, 03:06:28 PM
In short, I view this situation to be a symptom of a problem. I do not claim to have any solutions.
Agreed. It used to be that answer to social mobility was education. That was certainly my answer even if I did back into it by virtue of someone wanting me to play basketball for them. But given the costs associated with that option I am no longer certain what the answer to social mobility might be.
Hmmm. I think the availaibility of education right now is as high as it has ever been.
I don't think the fact that education is not the obvious path it used to be is because it isn't attainable, I think it is because it is so attainable that most everyone who can attain it is doing so, watering down the basic utility of it.
It's not like there are all these jobs out there not being filled because there are not enough people with bachelors degrees to fill them - quite the opposite in fact. Now it seems like an education is not enough, because nearly everyone has one. So now every job requires a degree, and why not? There are millions of people with degrees who can't find good jobs.
I think we are saying the same thing. My argument isnt that education isnt attainable. It is that education isnt the magic bullet to social mobility it was for my generation. Education is attainable but at a much greater cost and much lower utility (at least in the US). Here in Canada our costs have not increased as much as yours but they are creeping up and I suspect we have similar problems regarding the utility of the education once it has been obtained.
Twenty or more years ago the answer to social mobility would have been (and was) to increase funding to universities so they could educate more people. Now that we are educating a lot of people the value of those degrees has lessened. You are quite right to point out more is required of the individual. But I cant help but think that more is also required of society but I have no idea what that might be.
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2013, 03:18:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 03:12:08 PM
Doubling the minimum wage is not going to address in any real way at all the fundamental problem of wealth distribution overall.
Not at all? :yeahright: I find that to be an extraordinary statement. Countries with much higher minimum wages do have significantly lower Gini indices, so I would be curious to see you explain how they are entirely explained by other factors. To me the real dilemma is balancing the reduction of the Gini index with the distortions introduced by such a law.
Not at all in any real way - the problems that created the wealth distribution in the US over the last few decades are not going to go away or even be meaningfully mitigated by having the lowest wage earners earn a bit more. If anything, I wonder if the Koch's of the world aren't the ones pushing for bullshit "solutions" like this so the real issues will continue to be ignored.
The rich getting more and more of the nations wealth is not a result of those making minimum wage not earning a living salary.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2013, 03:21:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 03:14:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2013, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2013, 03:06:28 PM
In short, I view this situation to be a symptom of a problem. I do not claim to have any solutions.
Agreed. It used to be that answer to social mobility was education. That was certainly my answer even if I did back into it by virtue of someone wanting me to play basketball for them. But given the costs associated with that option I am no longer certain what the answer to social mobility might be.
Hmmm. I think the availaibility of education right now is as high as it has ever been.
I don't think the fact that education is not the obvious path it used to be is because it isn't attainable, I think it is because it is so attainable that most everyone who can attain it is doing so, watering down the basic utility of it.
It's not like there are all these jobs out there not being filled because there are not enough people with bachelors degrees to fill them - quite the opposite in fact. Now it seems like an education is not enough, because nearly everyone has one. So now every job requires a degree, and why not? There are millions of people with degrees who can't find good jobs.
I think we are saying the same thing. My argument isnt that education isnt attainable. It is that education isnt the magic bullet to social mobility it was for my generation. Education is attainable but at a much greater cost and much lower utility (at least in the US). Here in Canada our costs have not increased as much as yours but they are creeping up and I suspect we have similar problems regarding the utility of the education once it has been obtained.
Twenty or more years ago the answer to social mobility would have been (and was) to increase funding to universities so they could educate more people. Now that we are educating a lot of people the value of those degrees has lessened. You are quite right to point out more is required of the individual. But I cant help but think that more is also required of society but I have no idea what that might be.
Yep, no argument here.
And I don't know what the solution is either - however, I do know that embracing non-solutions because they are politically delectable for my tribe and makes me feel warm and fuzzy and compassionate will likely just make the problem worse.
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2013, 03:18:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 03:12:08 PM
Doubling the minimum wage is not going to address in any real way at all the fundamental problem of wealth distribution overall.
Not at all? :yeahright: I find that to be an extraordinary statement. Countries with much higher minimum wages do have significantly lower Gini indices, so I would be curious to see you explain how they are entirely explained by other factors. To me the real dilemma is balancing the reduction of the Gini index with the distortions introduced by such a law.
Sweden doesn't have a minimum wage and our Gini coefficient is through the floor.
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 03:12:08 PM
What bugs me is that I think you have people like Seedy and such who don't really want a solution, they want to use the problem as a means to advance their political agenda. That is what I see as really behind the entire "minimum wage ought to be a living wage" argument, especially when it is being put forth by those who I am quite certain have the basic grounding in economics to understand that the claim is obviously spurious to begin with.
Considering how I haven't wandered into the minimum wage advocacy argument either way, other than posting the recent McDonald's new article in a--shocker, a McDonald's thread!--I think your insistence on using me as a whipping boy for All Things Left on Languish lately is a means to advance your political agenda, you blowhard fuck.
Go ahead, search "minimum wage" under my posts. I just did. I came up with 15 results. I'll wait for yours.
:yawn:
I actually support a higher minimum wage.
And psst... And govt medical assistance for the uninsured. Something like ohio's old disability assistance program.
MIND BLOWN.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 09, 2013, 03:32:11 PM
I actually support a higher minimum wage.
And psst... And govt medical assistance for the uninsured. Something like ohio's old disability assistance program.
MIND BLOWN.
I have no problem with a higher minimum wage. I don't see why it hasn't tracked with inflation, for example.
My objection is 100% driven by the latest attempt to tie minimum wage to some defined "living" wage, and the presumption that this should be accepted as a matter of course.
15 bucks/hr is TOO DAMN HIGH.
10-12 is otay.
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 02:51:59 PM
Huh. The proportion of people earning min wage is actually going DOWN, not up.
I bet it's just too low to impact the economic reality in many places. I'd be curious to see the minimum wage earners plotted on a map.
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
It isn't an adequate response to this irony to simply note that such wages were never intended as "living" wages, because the company, by making these materials available, is clearly assuming that the opposite is true - that its employees reading the materials *are* in fact planning to attempt to live on them. Which, sadly, probably has a certain amount of contemporary truth to it.
It is interesting that you know what the company was "clearly" assuming, when it isn't at all clear from the sample budget in the OP. In Canada, are all burger-flipping jobs, for instance, referred to as "first jobs" or as "second jobs?" In order for the intent of the people who put this together to be "obvious," it must be "obvious" which of the two jobs (I suppose that all "first jobs"
and "second jobs" in Canada are, by definition, burger-flipping jobs, but I doubt it).
This seems very much like a budget for a college-age person. Health insurance is $20 a month? Rent is $600? Cable plus phone $100? Those are the costs of a person sharing an apartment while going to school. I would say that this is "obvious," but I know that Canadians see "obvious" where it isn't and don't see "obvious" where it is.
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 03:31:55 PM
:yawn:
Minimum wage advocacy isn't my gig, tough guy. If you're going to bash, at least bash the appropriate target.
But noooo, when Hurricane Berkut makes landfall, everything gets wet.
He might smack you with his metric ruler.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2013, 03:10:37 PM
Agreed. It used to be that answer to social mobility was education. That was certainly my answer even if I did back into it by virtue of someone wanting me to play basketball for them. But given the costs associated with that option I am no longer certain what the answer to social mobility might be.
The problem is we seem to have entered an era in which increasing the level of education for many has simply raised the barriers to entry to match - that is, jobs which used to require a HS diploma to obtain now require a BA/BSc., even though the job hasn't changed.
Credential inflation is only part of it.
Indeed, in some ways the Internet and ease of automatic communications has made the problem worse. Businesses can not set up automatic screening mechanisms and screen thousands of applicants, imposing ever-more specific requirements, because they can screen thousands of applicants. THe result can be very frustrating for those trying to apply ...
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2013, 03:58:36 PM
Businesses can not set up automatic screening mechanisms and screen thousands of applicants, imposing ever-more specific requirements, because they can screen thousands of applicants.
Indeed.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 09, 2013, 03:55:22 PM
He might smack you with his metric ruler.
Reminds me of a Robin Williams joke.
Metric would make every man sound much more impressive.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2013, 03:27:53 PM
I think your insistence on using me as a whipping boy for All Things Left on Languish lately is a means to advance your political agenda, you blowhard fuck.
Seedy would support foreign invaders if they had the right (er, left) rhetoric.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.gawkerassets.com%2Fimg%2F17qvyd5xgd01ojpg%2Fku-xlarge.jpg&hash=689f60f036e6f4ca3dd69670f51ffc1f5fab2815)
Oooh.
Yeah. You're next.
Wait, are those pictures supposed to be bad?
Yeah. Not an Air Force bomber among them.
Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2013, 02:04:56 AM
Seedy would support foreign invaders if they had the right (er, left) rhetoric.
Nonsense. Revolution can only come from within, when one class overthrows another. Read your Mao, dammit.
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2013, 03:58:36 PM
Credential inflation is only part of it.
Indeed, in some ways the Internet and ease of automatic communications has made the problem worse. Businesses can not set up automatic screening mechanisms and screen thousands of applicants, imposing ever-more specific requirements, because they can screen thousands of applicants. THe result can be very frustrating for those trying to apply ...
At least in my field the requirements in the average job ad are downright insane. One has to wonder if most people who apply are just as baffled and simply try their luck.
In fact I was pleasantly surprised when I heard an HR guy say they realise there's no way someone can have the obscure experience they want (control of house-sized presses) and they are thus going to send the employee to Germany for several months to get training.
Something I've wondered about- would a minimum employment law be feasible?
That is a law whereby for every x profits y workers have to be employed or for every so many customers or...something like that.
It is on the surface a horrible idea of course, creating artificial jobs where none are needed. But it strikes me that in the future such aritificial practices could be the only way to stop mechanisation driving work utterly to extinction.
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2013, 08:56:56 AM
creating artificial jobs where none are needed.
Unless some sort of new demand for labor emerges I sometimes worry this is where we are headed.
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2013, 08:56:56 AMBut it strikes me that in the future such aritificial practices could be the only way to stop mechanisation driving work utterly to extinction.
Why would we want to stop such a thing? :huh:
Quote from: Iormlund on December 10, 2013, 09:19:45 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2013, 08:56:56 AMBut it strikes me that in the future such aritificial practices could be the only way to stop mechanisation driving work utterly to extinction.
Why would we want to stop such a thing? :huh:
Because of the social order. Can you imagine a class of people who do no work and just lay around?
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2013, 09:21:07 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on December 10, 2013, 09:19:45 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2013, 08:56:56 AMBut it strikes me that in the future such aritificial practices could be the only way to stop mechanisation driving work utterly to extinction.
Why would we want to stop such a thing? :huh:
Because of the social order. Can you imagine a class of people who do no work and just lay around?
And so can you. We call them retirees.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 10, 2013, 09:31:03 AM
And so can you. We call them retirees.
I was actually thinking of the legendary Spanish Hidalgos who supposedly would rather starve to death than work.
But I guess if we are going by age groups instead of class we could go with those freeloading babies and toddlers.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 10, 2013, 09:19:45 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2013, 08:56:56 AMBut it strikes me that in the future such aritificial practices could be the only way to stop mechanisation driving work utterly to extinction.
Why would we want to stop such a thing? :huh:
Our new editorial content management system has the following article types:
Contextualised release
Press release - copy paste
Press release - rewritten
Third party release
In other words it assumes no-one actually researches and writes anything from scratch any more. If I didn't :lmfao: I'd :weep:
Quote from: Iormlund on December 10, 2013, 08:44:00 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2013, 03:58:36 PM
Credential inflation is only part of it.
Indeed, in some ways the Internet and ease of automatic communications has made the problem worse. Businesses can not set up automatic screening mechanisms and screen thousands of applicants, imposing ever-more specific requirements, because they can screen thousands of applicants. THe result can be very frustrating for those trying to apply ...
At least in my field the requirements in the average job ad are downright insane. One has to wonder if most people who apply are just as baffled and simply try their luck.
In fact I was pleasantly surprised when I heard an HR guy say they realise there's no way someone can have the obscure experience they want (control of house-sized presses) and they are thus going to send the employee to Germany for several months to get training.
This is the sort of thing I was (somewhat inarticulately) talking about. ;)
Quote from: Iormlund on December 10, 2013, 08:44:00 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2013, 03:58:36 PM
Credential inflation is only part of it.
Indeed, in some ways the Internet and ease of automatic communications has made the problem worse. Businesses can not set up automatic screening mechanisms and screen thousands of applicants, imposing ever-more specific requirements, because they can screen thousands of applicants. THe result can be very frustrating for those trying to apply ...
At least in my field the requirements in the average job ad are downright insane. One has to wonder if most people who apply are just as baffled and simply try their luck.
In fact I was pleasantly surprised when I heard an HR guy say they realise there's no way someone can have the obscure experience they want (control of house-sized presses) and they are thus going to send the employee to Germany for several months to get training.
I hear all kinds of bullshit justifications for these practices in the software world out of the Silicon Valley crowd. Sometimes they even do it after they just complained, with a straight face, about how hard it is to find engineers and how there is a "talent shortage".
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on December 09, 2013, 01:59:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 10:44:52 PM
It has everything to do with what Berkut was talking about.
No it doesn't. Berkut said the minimum wage was not intended to be a living wage. That page simply talks about a different definition of living wage that is based on a nuclear family instead of an individual. It does not address whatsoever what the minimum wage was and is supposed to be.
Berkut said the idea that a guranteed wage that a family could live on was very, very new. I found examples of people agitating for it in the 19th century.
....and once again Raz proves why ignoring him is the smartest move possible.
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2013, 08:50:22 PM
....and once again Raz proves why ignoring him is the smartest move possible.
:showoff:
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2013, 08:50:22 PM
....and once again Raz proves why ignoring him is the smartest move possible.
Where is he wrong?
:mad:
:face:
Quote from: Iormlund on December 10, 2013, 09:19:45 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2013, 08:56:56 AMBut it strikes me that in the future such aritificial practices could be the only way to stop mechanisation driving work utterly to extinction.
Why would we want to stop such a thing? :huh:
Mass unemployment would have huge negative social effects.
Plus no matter how automated your process is you need customers at the end
It could also have huge positive social effects. Depends on how you want to play your piano.
Once we get plentiful cheap energy and replicators it won't matter.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 10, 2013, 10:48:44 PM
It could also have huge positive social effects. Depends on how you want to play your piano.
When I was younger I used to think that. It seemed certain that one day communism would come to pass thanks to robots doing all the work and leaving people free to pursue whatever they want.
Then I tried being unemployed.
Quote from: DGuller on December 10, 2013, 09:05:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2013, 08:50:22 PM
....and once again Raz proves why ignoring him is the smartest move possible.
Where is he wrong?
Clearly I missed the "greater truth", that transcends facts. I always seem to do that. :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 10, 2013, 11:04:58 PM
Once we get plentiful cheap energy and replicators it won't matter.
And then when the holodecks come online, everyone will spend all their time having sex with the holographic harems of their choice, and civilization will end.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 11, 2013, 12:17:03 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 10, 2013, 11:04:58 PM
Once we get plentiful cheap energy and replicators it won't matter.
And then when the holodecks come online, everyone will spend all their time having sex with the holographic harems of their choice, and civilization will finally begin.
FIXED.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nerdist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F06%2FFry_and_Lucy_Liu_robot.jpg&hash=94a88e342ab6a1f0c49d0f2c4aec5689a0618157)
McDonald's to employees: don't eat fast food (http://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-tells-employees-to-avoid-fast-food-2013-12)
:P
And now the company has taken down their employee help website. :P
...and if the website had advised them to eat plenty of McD's, the same ignorant dumbasses bitching about this would be writing articles bemoaning how McDonalds advises their employees to eat unhealthy food.
They cannot win, so taking down the site is certainly their only option.
And now their employees are surely better off for their employer no longer bothering to try to help them.
You know, the Tea Party dumbasses really needed some lefty dumbasses to come along and remind us all that stupid finds a home on both sides of the divide.
So that is one good thing out of all of this...
Quote from: viper37 on December 26, 2013, 02:06:43 PM
McDonald's to employees: don't eat fast food (http://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-tells-employees-to-avoid-fast-food-2013-12)
:P
Viper to Languish: I will dishonestly change headlines I link to to create a false impression (//http://VipertoLanguish:IwilldishonestlychangeheadlinesIlinktotocreateafalseimpression)
:P
:face:
Quote from: Berkut on December 26, 2013, 06:25:22 PM
...and if the website had advised them to eat plenty of McD's, the same ignorant dumbasses bitching about this would be writing articles bemoaning how McDonalds advises their employees to eat unhealthy food.
They cannot win, so taking down the site is certainly their only option.
And now their employees are surely better off for their employer no longer bothering to try to help them.
You know, the Tea Party dumbasses really needed some lefty dumbasses to come along and remind us all that stupid finds a home on both sides of the divide.
So that is one good thing out of all of this...
Didn't your forum title used to be "radical centrist" or something similar? That was pretty accurate. :P
I suddenly have a craving for 2 Mickey D's hamburgers(w/o pickle)
They have one day a week where you can get hamburgers for 49 cents.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 26, 2013, 09:15:46 PM
They have one day a week where you can get hamburgers for 49 cents.
Offer not valid in SeaTac.
No wonder Kurt Cobain shot himself.
I think I can pay full price.
Quote from: Syt on December 27, 2013, 01:14:47 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 26, 2013, 09:14:25 PM
s(w/o pickle)
:hug:
Yuck. The pickles and the mustard are the only things that make McDonald's burgers quasi-edible.
McDonald's pickles are an ABOMINATION.
I don't mind them so much.
I remember one time when I was I Florida, and drunk as hell, McDs cheeseburgers were rather tasty.
I got my hamburgers today. Rather tasty and only 500 calories for both.
Pickles are gross. I hate them.
I tried a few Big King burgers from Burger King last week. Pretty disgusting. Mostly bread.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 28, 2013, 09:40:56 AM
Pickles are gross. I hate them.
I tried a few Big King burgers from Burger King last week. Pretty disgusting. Mostly bread.
I tried one. The sauce was nasty.
I pretty much stick to Whoppers at BK.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 28, 2013, 09:40:56 AM
Pickles are gross. I hate them.
I tried a few Big King burgers from Burger King last week. Pretty disgusting. Mostly bread.
Angry Whopper. :)
+1