MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on March 16, 2014, 06:39:17 PM
-
Bill Gates: People Don't Realize How Many Jobs Will Soon Be Replaced By Software Bots
http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-bots-are-taking-away-jobs-2014-3
Big changes are coming to the labor market that people and governments aren't prepared for, Bill Gates believes.
Speaking at Washington, D.C., economic think tank The American Enterprise Institute on Thursday, Gates said that within 20 years, a lot of jobs will go away, replaced by software automation ("bots" in tech slang, though Gates used the term "software substitution").
This is what he said:
"Software substitution, whether it's for drivers or waiters or nurses … it's progressing. ... Technology over time will reduce demand for jobs, particularly at the lower end of skill set. ... 20 years from now, labor demand for lots of skill sets will be substantially lower. I don’t think people have that in their mental model."
He's not the only one predicting this gloomy scenario for workers. In January, the Economist ran a big profile naming over a dozen jobs sure to be taken over by robots in the next 20 years, including telemarketers, accountants and retail workers.
Gates believes that the tax codes are going to need to change to encourage companies to hire employees, including, perhaps, eliminating income and payroll taxes altogether. He's also not a fan of raising the minimum wage, fearing that it will discourage employers from hiring workers in the very categories of jobs that are most threatened by automation.
He explained:
"When people say we should raise the minimum wage. I worry about what that does to job creation ... potentially damping demand in the part of the labor spectrum that I’m most worried about."
-
He s 100% correct, raise the minimum wage and these jobs will be automated away.
-
He s 100% correct, raise the minimum wage and these jobs will be automated away.
Shh, raising the minimum wage is good for everyone. Hell they should raise it to $50 an hour, it has no impact on jobs...so I'm told.
-
I believe the topic that Gates is speaking on is greatly going to change the economic, social and cultural situation in the US. It will be very interesting to see what happens with our workforce and population. There will be people who only are qualified for minimum wage jobs, and if those are replaced by tech/automation, then what? What does that entire population segment do? How do they earn a living? SS? Unemployment? Will we, as a society, be ok with people not working for a living? Be very interesting to see... If you think the mythical, so-called "class warfare" is bad now, just wait.
-
I believe the topic that Gates is speaking on is greatly going to change the economic, social and cultural situation in the US. It will be very interesting to see what happens with our workforce and population. There will be people who only are qualified for minimum wage jobs, and if those are replaced by tech/automation, then what? What does that entire population segment do? How do they earn a living? SS? Unemployment? Will we, as a society, be ok with people not working for a living? Be very interesting to see... If you think the mythical, so-called "class warfare" is bad now, just wait.
The one thing you can count on is that after all these jobs are lost - the people who are out of work will be called "lazy" and "takers"
-
I believe the topic that Gates is speaking on is greatly going to change the economic, social and cultural situation in the US. It will be very interesting to see what happens with our workforce and population. There will be people who only are qualified for minimum wage jobs, and if those are replaced by tech/automation, then what? What does that entire population segment do? How do they earn a living? SS? Unemployment? Will we, as a society, be ok with people not working for a living? Be very interesting to see... If you think the mythical, so-called "class warfare" is bad now, just wait.
Bingo!
That's why it's called "disruptive technology." In the long run it's a huge positive. In the short-run (next several years) whole industries will be eliminated and jobs that takes hundreds will now take a dozen or less.
It will cause social stress, already is.
See the Uber post.
-
In the long run it's a huge positive.
I saw Detroit go through this when I was studying in Ann Arbor. It was devastating but necessary.
-
I believe the topic that Gates is speaking on is greatly going to change the economic, social and cultural situation in the US. It will be very interesting to see what happens with our workforce and population. There will be people who only are qualified for minimum wage jobs, and if those are replaced by tech/automation, then what? What does that entire population segment do? How do they earn a living? SS? Unemployment? Will we, as a society, be ok with people not working for a living? Be very interesting to see... If you think the mythical, so-called "class warfare" is bad now, just wait.
This is the situation today....and part of the problem is we keep letting in people illegally that are taking some of those minimum wage only jobs now, pushing Americans out of even those. Of course, people will say Americans don't those jobs anyway. BS. Hell, my kid will turn 16 next year and when I was a kid that was standard job at a McDonalds, Burger King, etc...they taught kids the value of work and why you didn't want to stay in them long, they were a pitstop in life to get your butt in gear. Now those jobs these kids can't even get because they are taken by someone that is trying to feed his family on it.
We reap what we sow.
-
We reap what we sow.
We sow what we reap. We are well past reaping the sown.
-
This is the situation today....and part of the problem is we keep letting in people illegally that are taking some of those minimum wage only jobs now, pushing Americans out of even those. Of course, people will say Americans don't those jobs anyway. BS. Hell, my kid will turn 16 next year and when I was a kid that was standard job at a McDonalds, Burger King, etc...they taught kids the value of work and why you didn't want to stay in them long, they were a pitstop in life to get your butt in gear. Now those jobs these kids can't even get because they are taken by someone that is trying to feed his family on it.
We reap what we sow.
There are things here that are correct. However, it doesn't really address the situation presented by Gates.
-
The one thing you can count on is that after all these jobs are lost - the people who are out of work will be called "lazy" and "takers"
No, that's reserved to the truly lazy and takers, of which there are plenty. Those that have been on the teat their whole lives, not those displaced by change. There is a difference.
-
There are things here that are correct. However, it doesn't really address the situation presented by Gates.
All connected, he's just talking about the next steps....but it has been going on for the last few decades. Going to be fun. This is why the gov't taking away my right to bear arms is going to be met with some pushback. At some point, there will be social unrest and I'll be damned if I can't protect my family and property as a result.
The gov't won't be able to pay folks like they have for decades to not rebel. Crazy conspiracy talk? I'm sure some will claim it to be, but as a student of history and common sense, it isn't at all.
-
Bingo!
That's why it's called "disruptive technology." In the long run it's a huge positive. In the short-run (next several years) whole industries will be eliminated and jobs that takes hundreds will now take a dozen or less.
It will cause social stress, already is.
See the Uber post.
I don't think it will be a huge positive. We already have a problem with too many jobs leaving the US. We will see more loss of jobs because of technology. That will further lead us down a model equivalent to Rome, where typical well paid jobs are removed (in their case slave labor or trade from outside the original empire). That led to the fall of the Roman Empire and will could realign world powers.
-
No, that's reserved to the truly lazy and takers, of which there are plenty. Those that have been on the teat their whole lives, not those displaced by change. There is a difference.
You and I seem to know that. I don't think the politicians do.
-
I don't think it will be a huge positive. We already have a problem with too many jobs leaving the US. We will see more loss of jobs because of technology. That will further lead us down a model equivalent to Rome, where typical well paid jobs are removed (in their case slave labor or trade from outside the original empire). That led to the fall of the Roman Empire and will could realign world powers.
It's about productivity. If a you can automate functions that do not necessarily generate shareholder value you free up that labor for more productive tasks. What usually happens is that most make the transition through training, effort, and luck. Unfortunately, some do not and fall into a chronic state of under or unemployment which is only rectified through tincture of time and natural attrition.
-
I don't think it will be a huge positive. We already have a problem with too many jobs leaving the US. We will see more loss of jobs because of technology. That will further lead us down a model equivalent to Rome, where typical well paid jobs are removed (in their case slave labor or trade from outside the original empire). That led to the fall of the Roman Empire and will could realign world powers.
In 1900 half of US jobs were on a farm. Today it is less than 2%.
We did this transition once before, we will do it again.
-
Bingo!
That's why it's called "disruptive technology." In the long run it's a huge positive. In the short-run (next several years) whole industries will be eliminated and jobs that takes hundreds will now take a dozen or less.
It will cause social stress, already is.
See the Uber post.
As someone who works in the automation field, this is a huge deal and a good move, but a lot of folks(everyday and politicians alike) don't have the vision to see the change and address it. One of the key "jobs" in the future is going to be the integration and maintenance of technology. We are no longer going to have someone build a product, that's going to be a robot/automated process, however we still need someone to set-up and maintain that automated process. Someone who can understand the diagnostics or troubleshoot an issue. Right now those jobs are somewhat filled by IT professionals, but if anyone got their feces co-located that could be a new trade profession like plumber or electrician. That would provide solid blue collar wage support as well as giving the US a competitive advantage in the manufacturing realm. This also frees up those college graduates in IT for more advances. Probably won't get there though because everyone HAS to go to college in this era.
As automation increases, the cost of logistics becomes more the long pole in the cost tent....meaning China becomes less attractive and the US (if it puts its educational and infrastructure house in order) could once again be a manufacturing hub. Within the next 15-20 years we could be having a 2nd industrial revolution, if only we could apply ourselves in the right away.
Alas, I don't see any movement to take advantage of this golden opportunity.
-
It's about productivity. If a you can automate functions that do not necessarily generate shareholder value you free up that labor for more productive tasks. What usually happens is that most make the transition through training, effort, and luck. Unfortunately, some do not and fall into a chronic state of under or unemployment which is only rectified through tincture of time and natural attrition.
Keefe,
I know that lingo. You're talking kaizen & lean manufacturing with the phrase, "you free up that labor for more productive tasks." I'm thnakful to be trained in it and am a big believer that it works.
-
In 1900 half of US jobs were on a farm. Today it is less than 2%.
We did this transition once before, we will do it again.
US population in 1900 was 75 million
You have a volume issue to deal with now.
-
As someone who works in the automation field, this is a huge deal and a good move, but a lot of folks(everyday and politicians alike) don't have the vision to see the change and address it. One of the key "jobs" in the future is going to be the integration and maintenance of technology. We are no longer going to have someone build a product, that's going to be a robot/automated process, however we still need someone to set-up and maintain that automated process. Someone who can understand the diagnostics or troubleshoot an issue. Right now those jobs are somewhat filled by IT professionals, but if anyone got their feces co-located that could be a new trade profession like plumber or electrician. That would provide solid blue collar wage support as well as giving the US a competitive advantage in the manufacturing realm. This also frees up those college graduates in IT for more advances. Probably won't get there though because everyone HAS to go to college in this era.
As automation increases, the cost of logistics becomes more the long pole in the cost tent....meaning China becomes less attractive and the US (if it puts its educational and infrastructure house in order) could once again be a manufacturing hub. Within the next 15-20 years we could be having a 2nd industrial revolution, if only we could apply ourselves in the right away.
Alas, I don't see any movement to take advantage of this golden opportunity.
This would have been back in 2005. A former employer had a fully automated dependable and repeatable process in one of our Puerto Rico plants. They had one maintenace person (per shift) to look after two such machines that fully assembled, inspected & packed electrical receptacles. The company was trying to reduce the number of buildings in use. The product line got moved to China where 30 assemblers now assembled via bench top. The quality went down. The kicker - there was no payback to move to China. They kept running $ numbers they did not justify the move but the Purchasing Director had it as a yearly goal to move it so it got moved. The part that bothered everyone was the company had done so much kaizen that there was room in another Puerto Rico facility to move the auto-assemble machines where they already had similar machines running.
-
Alas, I don't see any movement to take advantage of this golden opportunity.
Have you read about the digital manufacturing coop initiative in Chicago? Seems like a step in the right direction.
-
Have you read about the digital manufacturing coop initiative in Chicago? Seems like a step in the right direction.
Look up Xerox Parc (Palo Alto Research Center) in the 1970s. It was Xerox's "think tank" to figure out how technology was going to change the world and how they could take advantage of it.
In 1979 they created this demonstration commercial to show the future. Again this was 1979 and it was 100% correct. They figured out the future decades before it happened!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0zgj2p7Ww4
The problem was Xerox's management was a bunch of Luddite thinking dinosaurs and could not appreciate what they were looking at. More specifically, they wanted to know how this was going to make people buy more xerox machines. That's all they cared about.
So Xerox closed down this operation and the creators and engineers that worked in Parc left and literally started Silicon Valley (since Parc was in Palo Alto/Stanford, this is why it is the center of Silicon Valley) and created trillions in markets capitalization. Xerox got nothing from this other than forward thinking competitors that have been killing them for 40 years.
This is my fear with the Digital manufacturing coop. It is run by today's Luddite dinosaurs ... Government and large manufacturers. They will not look to "creatively destruct" their business, because that is disruptive and could cause many of them to put themselves out of business. Instead they will narrowly focus on how to incorporate new technology into their now obsolete business models ... how to tweak it around the edges.
What this initiative will is create a bunch of frustrated managers and engineers that will leave and put the coop owners out of business, just like Xerox failing to understand Parc doomed them for 40 years now.
Manufacturing is going to change in ways these companies cannot understand and will fight to accept.
See today's WSJ
U.S. Agencies Consider Redefining Manufacturing
Counting 'Factoryless Goods Producers' Would Boost Size of Industrial Sector
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303546204579439170777269630?mg=reno64-wsj
The modern factory is going to largely disappear. Those that remain will employ almost no one as they will be nearly 100% automated. The digital Coop owners cannot and will not accept this. And they will go the way of record stores.
-
He s 100% correct, raise the minimum wage and these jobs will be automated away.
Depends what you are raising the minimum wage TO.
Yes, if $50k, as Chicos suggests, is the new minimum wage jobs would be eliminated.
If you raise it to $10/hr, a historically average minimum wage (adjusted for inflation), and then tied it to CPI adjustments thereafter, the impact would be minimal.
Let's not forget, someone is subsidizing the working poor, one way or the other. Right now, its taxpayers through food stamp and Medicaid assistance, while companies maintain record-high profit margins. I think it would be smart to shift some of that burden back to the corporations, and away from taxpayers.
I agree that the $15 fast food workers are striking for is probably too high. But NO ONE can get by on $7.25 an hour. It is a joke. Raise it to 10.
-
Depends what you are raising the minimum wage TO.
Yes, if $50k, as Chicos suggests, is the new minimum wage jobs would be eliminated.
If you raise it to $10/hr, a historically average minimum wage (adjusted for inflation), and then tied it to CPI adjustments thereafter, the impact would be minimal.
Let's not forget, someone is subsidizing the working poor, one way or the other. Right now, its taxpayers through food stamp and Medicaid assistance, while companies maintain record-high profit margins. I think it would be smart to shift some of that burden back to the corporations, and away from taxpayers.
I agree that the $15 fast food workers are striking for is probably too high. But NO ONE can get by on $7.25 an hour. It is a joke. Raise it to 10.
The question is, what type of jobs are minimum wage jobs right now? You are correct, no one can get by on $7.25 an hour, but is a job earning that really a career sustaining job? Raising the minimum wage to a higher level will result in one of two outcomes....either the job becomes more expensive for a human to do than a "machine" and the job will be eliminated or the business will absorb the higher cost through narrow margins(lower income for owners) or increased prices. Those increased prices than negate any relieve felt by the wage increase.
The individuals that are exists on minimum wage work for the most part are not matched to job opportunities through either a gap in education or a gap in inclination. Raising the minimum wage does nothing to improve the former(root cause) and exacerbates the latter.
I'm for tying the minimum wage to an inflation index, but lets not act like it's any kind of panacea and in the long run likely makes the mismatch between future jobs and current work force greater.
-
The question is, what type of jobs are minimum wage jobs right now? You are correct, no one can get by on $7.25 an hour, but is a job earning that really a career sustaining job? Raising the minimum wage to a higher level will result in one of two outcomes....either the job becomes more expensive for a human to do than a "machine" and the job will be eliminated or the business will absorb the higher cost through narrow margins(lower income for owners) or increased prices. Those increased prices than negate any relieve felt by the wage increase.
The individuals that are exists on minimum wage work for the most part are not matched to job opportunities through either a gap in education or a gap in inclination. Raising the minimum wage does nothing to improve the former(root cause) and exacerbates the latter.
I'm for tying the minimum wage to an inflation index, but lets not act like it's any kind of panacea and in the long run likely makes the mismatch between future jobs and current work force greater.
I don't think its a panacea. As I said before, its just shifting some of the burden away from taxpayers and back on to the employers, back to historically average levels.
People act like raising the minimum wage is actually raising it, when all it does is restore it to old levels. It has not been raised since 2009, which means in real dollars it has gone down every year for five years. They should at the very least raise it to 2009 levels in 2013 dollars, and chain it to inflation (currently about $8 a hour), but if they restored it to 1960s and 1970s levels, it would be about $10.
-
Depends what you are raising the minimum wage TO.
Yes, if $50k, as Chicos suggests, is the new minimum wage jobs would be eliminated.
If you raise it to $10/hr, a historically average minimum wage (adjusted for inflation), and then tied it to CPI adjustments thereafter, the impact would be minimal.
Let's not forget, someone is subsidizing the working poor, one way or the other. Right now, its taxpayers through food stamp and Medicaid assistance, while companies maintain record-high profit margins. I think it would be smart to shift some of that burden back to the corporations, and away from taxpayers.
Here's the deal: I remember when minimum wage was instituted and its intent was to create jobs for people, mostly the young, who had no job experience and needed something on their resume. It was never intended for people to live on it hence the moniker "minimum wage". It was only since the large influx of uneducated immigrants who had no job experience that the argument began to be advanced that people couldn't live on minimum wage. If companies are forced to pay more than the job is worth then jobs will disappear as Gates is warning. Companies answer to shareholders and owe it to them to stay in business. Just ask Sears and Penny's these days as buying habits change. I am in the camp where the markets should set the worth of a job.
I agree that the $15 fast food workers are striking for is probably too high. But NO ONE can get by on $7.25 an hour. It is a joke. Raise it to 10.
-
I don't think its a panacea. As I said before, its just shifting some of the burden away from taxpayers and back on to the employers, back to historically average levels.
People act like raising the minimum wage is actually raising it, when all it does is restore it to old levels. It has not been raised since 2009, which means in real dollars it has gone down every year for five years. They should at the very least raise it to 2009 levels in 2013 dollars, and chain it to inflation (currently about $8 a hour), but if they restored it to 1960s and 1970s levels, it would be about $10.
Right so you really aren't accomplishing anything. You are moving the burden from the taxpayers to employers who either absorb that cost at reduced margin(so reducing their income and purchase power) or more likely the employers are passing that increased cost onto customers who then pay more for the goods....
the net change to those with minimum wage is nothing(increased wage is absorbed in increase cost of goods), net change to taxpayers is largely negative(increased cost of goods plus raise your hand if you think tax burden is reduced to reflect the reduced "need"), and the employers have a net negative (increased cost they either absorb or pass on, if absorbed less money and if passed on, pissed off customers).
So what have you ultimately accomplished? Have we addressed the skills gap in anyway? Have we improved anyone's life? Why are those on minimum wage trying to live on it, what is the core cause for that as a need?
-
Right so you really aren't accomplishing anything. You are moving the burden from the taxpayers to employers who either absorb that cost at reduced margin(so reducing their income and purchase power) or more likely the employers are passing that increased cost onto customers who then pay more for the goods....
the net change to those with minimum wage is nothing(increased wage is absorbed in increase cost of goods), net change to taxpayers is largely negative(increased cost of goods plus raise your hand if you think tax burden is reduced to reflect the reduced "need"), and the employers have a net negative (increased cost they either absorb or pass on, if absorbed less money and if passed on, pissed off customers).
So what have you ultimately accomplished? Have we addressed the skills gap in anyway? Have we improved anyone's life? Why are those on minimum wage trying to live on it, what is the core cause for that as a need?
So maybe we should halve the min wage instead -- since changing it does not accomplish anything.
-
Depends what you are raising the minimum wage TO.
Yes, if $50k, as Chicos suggests, is the new minimum wage jobs would be eliminated.
If you raise it to $10/hr, a historically average minimum wage (adjusted for inflation), and then tied it to CPI adjustments thereafter, the impact would be minimal.
Let's not forget, someone is subsidizing the working poor, one way or the other. Right now, its taxpayers through food stamp and Medicaid assistance, while companies maintain record-high profit margins. I think it would be smart to shift some of that burden back to the corporations, and away from taxpayers.
I agree that the $15 fast food workers are striking for is probably too high. But NO ONE can get by on $7.25 an hour. It is a joke. Raise it to 10.
I said $50, not $50K.
Raising the minimum wage, regardless of the amount, raises costs and those are passed on to people. Jobs are lost because expenses go up. Since when is a job at McDonalds DESIGNED TO SUPPORT A FAMILY? It shouldn't be, that's the whole point. We have so bastardized things that this is what it has become. Keep allowing low skilled labor into the market place only adds to the problem, but hey...they vote for us so let's do it.
We reap what we sow.
-
Let's not forget, someone is subsidizing the working poor, one way or the other. Right now, its taxpayers through food stamp and Medicaid assistance, while companies maintain record-high profit margins. I think it would be smart to shift some of that burden back to the corporations, and away from taxpayers.
All we need to do is look at how much taxpayer money is going to Wal-Mart employees while the company has made the owners among the richest people in the world.
I need a good conservative to tell me why we (taxpayers) need to support and pay their workers rather than the owners of the company. The Walton family makes BILLIONS while taxpayers give their employees insurance and food stamps.
-
I said $50, not $50K.
Raising the minimum wage, regardless of the amount, raises costs and those are passed on to people. Jobs are lost because expenses go up. Since when is a job at McDonalds DESIGNED TO SUPPORT A FAMILY? It shouldn't be, that's the whole point. We have so bastardized things that this is what it has become. Keep allowing low skilled labor into the market place only adds to the problem, but hey...they vote for us so let's do it.
We reap what we sow.
Since we have sent MILLIONS of jobs overseas - with corps. getting more welfare from the gov't for doing so.
-
I said $50, not $50K.
Raising the minimum wage, regardless of the amount, raises costs and those are passed on to people. Jobs are lost because expenses go up. Since when is a job at McDonalds DESIGNED TO SUPPORT A FAMILY? It shouldn't be, that's the whole point. We have so bastardized things that this is what it has become. Keep allowing low skilled labor into the market place only adds to the problem, but hey...they vote for us so let's do it.
We reap what we sow.
I would venture that adding close $75 billion into the economy will increase jobs. But there is NO evidence that it will cost jobs.
-
Keefe,
I know that lingo. You're talking kaizen & lean manufacturing with the phrase, "you free up that labor for more productive tasks." I'm thnakful to be trained in it and am a big believer that it works.
Nutmeg
A kindred spirit! I am a huge fan of Juran and Deming. As a GE guy I live and breath Six Sigma and at Capital we applied Deming's principles to a range of activities to include Yen forex hedging operations and clinical trials.
While technological advances are cited for the productivity gains in the American workplace people involved in Kaizen know that the application of Kaizen, Juran/Deming, and Six Sigma have enabled tech adaptation and accelerated multi-dimensional productivity gains. I would love to talk about this over a beer sometime.
-
Since we have sent MILLIONS of jobs overseas - with corps. getting more welfare from the gov't for doing so.
Why do they send them overseas? Highest tax rates in the industrialized world might have something to do with it. No different than why corporations move from one state to another or why some of you drive an extra mile for cheaper gas or borrow the friend's Netflix login.
-
I would venture that adding close $75 billion into the economy will increase jobs. But there is NO evidence that it will cost jobs.
So if there is NO evidence that it will cost jobs, why not take it up to $50? I'm asking a serious question....where is the inflection point where it does cost jobs?
Incidentally, to suggest there is NO evidence is just wrong. You just choose to ignore the evidence that is out there because of who presents it. That's called selection bias. So let's not play the game that there is ZERO evidence.
The CBO even said it could cost 500K jobs. Of course the administration doesn't believe it, thus you don't believe it. All depends on WHO says it.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/18/cbo-minimum-wage-jobs/5582779/
-
All we need to do is look at how much taxpayer money is going to Wal-Mart employees while the company has made the owners among the richest people in the world.
I need a good conservative to tell me why we (taxpayers) need to support and pay their workers rather than the owners of the company. The Walton family makes BILLIONS while taxpayers give their employees insurance and food stamps.
Serious question, how much margin should a company make, what is the correct amount of money a company should make?
Second, of those jobs that the government supports in addition to Walmart paying them....what kind of jobs are they? Do you know? What kind of skills or abilities do they require? If they are minimum wage I'm willing to wager than are very low skilled positions so the barriers to entry for talent is very low...no competition so no need to wage higher.
Lastly, do you think people would do the Walmart jobs if the government didn't have the assitance? If not, remove the assistance and watch those people find a way to get a better job then Walmart, with no available pool of talent, will have to pay more. Some of this is a chicken or the egg thing.
-
Nutmeg
A kindred spirit! I am a huge fan of Juran and Deming. As a GE guy I live and breath Six Sigma and at Capital we applied Deming's principles to a range of activities to include Yen forex hedging operations and clinical trials.
While technological advances are cited for the productivity gains in the American workplace people involved in Kaizen know that the application of Kaizen, Juran/Deming, and Six Sigma have enabled tech adaptation and accelerated multi-dimensional productivity gains. I would love to talk about this over a beer sometime.
(http://www.isixsigma.com/public/images_upload/luckykat-sixsigma.jpg)
-
All we need to do is look at how much taxpayer money is going to Wal-Mart employees while the company has made the owners among the richest people in the world.
I need a good conservative to tell me why we (taxpayers) need to support and pay their workers rather than the owners of the company. The Walton family makes BILLIONS while taxpayers give their employees insurance and food stamps.
Take a cross-section of the typical Walmart shopper, and my guess is that it's going to skew towards the same socio-economic pool as the employees.
So you have disadvantaged citizens who can't help themselves from patronizing a business who disadvantages the people it employs, right? Maybe we should just shut down Walmart altogether for the good of society? But then, where will the most disadvantaged citizens shop? Whole Foods?
The Waltons are making billions off of undereducated consumers who perpetuate the struggles of lower-class America simply by making the decisions they make. You don't need a conservative or liberal to figure that out... just someone who understands the concepts of personal responsibility and free will.
-
Take a cross-section of the typical Walmart shopper
What the hell are you talking about?
(http://www.occams-razor.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/walmart-customer.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WzAPgDvo1DI/UJqLEo--LTI/AAAAAAAAy7U/MbKSmojmtQ4/s1600/Pats+destiny+as+a+walmart+greeter-001.jpg)
(http://img.izismile.com/img/img4/20111202/640/walmart_customer_640_28.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WigxWmT65Jk/TPBLZ49XnVI/AAAAAAAAiHk/-v1zv5AZ_do/s640/874.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WigxWmT65Jk/TPBLbTmxCqI/AAAAAAAAiHs/HCUh9xevkzA/s640/956.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WigxWmT65Jk/TPBLbgBNTII/AAAAAAAAiHw/Ap959dtRY40/s640/1540NC.jpg)
(http://acidcow.com/pics/20090901/pics/10/people_of_wall_mart_17.jpg)
(http://acidcow.com/pics/20090901/pics/10/people_of_wall_mart_28.jpg)
(http://acidcow.com/pics/20090901/pics/10/people_of_wall_mart_29.jpg)
(http://acidcow.com/pics/20090901/pics/10/people_of_wall_mart_30.jpg)
-
Were those taken at Midnight Madness?
-
I had to go to Walmart for a PS4 for Christmas...stood in line for a few hours prior to the store opening. It was an interesting experience...enjoyed it very much.
-
What the hell are you talking about?
Did you have these in a folder on your desktop all ready to go, or did you have to do a little research first?
I don't visit the people of Walmart website, but I love it when other people put up the photos. At least we know the kid in the second picture isn't going to go hungry anytime soon.
-
Nutmeg
A kindred spirit! I am a huge fan of Juran and Deming. As a GE guy I live and breath Six Sigma and at Capital we applied Deming's principles to a range of activities to include Yen forex hedging operations and clinical trials.
While technological advances are cited for the productivity gains in the American workplace people involved in Kaizen know that the application of Kaizen, Juran/Deming, and Six Sigma have enabled tech adaptation and accelerated multi-dimensional productivity gains. I would love to talk about this over a beer sometime.
Beer? Anytime you're in the neighborhood or NYC!
If you want we can drag in CTWarrior & Frenn''s Liquor Depot.
-
The one thing you can count on is that after all these jobs are lost - the people who are out of work will be called "lazy" and "takers"
How would you classify this guy?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568109/Unemployed-beach-bum-uses-food-stamps-eat-lobster-drives-Escalade-says-help-make-millions.html
-
A very solid read
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-living-wage-is-minimum-wage/ (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-living-wage-is-minimum-wage/)
-
A very solid read
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-living-wage-is-minimum-wage/ (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-living-wage-is-minimum-wage/)
Thanks for sharing. This debate has surely become more complex over the last decade.
-
More Gates
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/gates-tax-consumption-to-fix-unemployment-caused-by-technology-video/
-
Thanks for sharing. This debate has surely become more complex over the last decade.
Agreed, which is why I get a little fired up over the raise the minimum wage solution. I'm not against it, but the issues are a lot more nuanced than that, and if we don't tackle the underlying causes we never solve the problem and actually make things worse for those we try to help as well as those that must bear the brunt of the fix.
-
How would you classify this guy?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568109/Unemployed-beach-bum-uses-food-stamps-eat-lobster-drives-Escalade-says-help-make-millions.html
Chicos, you make me laugh. Thank you.
-
Agreed, which is why I get a little fired up over the raise the minimum wage solution. I'm not against it, but the issues are a lot more nuanced than that, and if we don't tackle the underlying causes we never solve the problem and actually make things worse for those we try to help as well as those that must bear the brunt of the fix.
Why do we think people are permanently stuck at the minimum wage? That is a tiny percentage of those that make it. The vast vast majority get a raise, at McDonalds that can come in 3 to 6 months if you prove capable.
It's a "starter job" wage and the higher you raise it the harder it is to get a "starter job." Why are you against teenagers getting a job? That is what will happen if you hike it.
Here's the dirty secret about the minimum wage. Lots of union contracts are tied to the minimum wage (a certain job makes 200% or 250% of the minimum wage). So, raise the minimum wage and a lot of union thugs get raises. That is why they are pushing so hard for it.
-
Why do we think people are permanently stuck at the minimum wage?
Do you know how inflation works?
-
Chicos, you make me laugh. Thank you.
Doing what I can. This guy should have his balls cut off and fed to him rather than getting food stamps.
-
Doing what I can. This guy should have his balls cut off and fed to him rather than getting food stamps.
I don't disagree with you.
Although I suspect you, and other conservatives, are angry because he is robbing you and me, Joe taxpayer.
I'm more angry he is robbing those who need food stamps and providing fodder for those trying to dismantle the program.
-
Do you know how inflation works?
Why should it be indexed to inflation? You're assuming that people that make minimum wage are stuck at that level forever so they should get a cost of living raise. Again, only a small percentage of those making the minimum wage are stuck at that level forever.
If you a smart kid, you can be an assistant manager at a McDonald in less than a year, making way more than minimum wage. If you have a problem getting to work on time or passing a drug test, you will make minimum wage forever. In this case, why should the Government force business to pay them more?
FYI - McDonalds has been experimenting with Indian call centers taking orders in McDonalds so they can eliminate more jobs in the restaurant. So, go ahead and raise the minimum wage to the level of inflation. When McDonalds automates them out of a job, how have you helped them?
Don't think it will happen? I remember the 1970s when everyone said gas stations were out of their mind for going self-serve. They did this because a series of the minimum wage in the 70s made gas station attendants too expensive.
If you make minimum wage jobs too expensive, they will be eliminated.
-
I don't disagree with you.
Although I suspect you, and other conservatives, are angry because he is robbing you and me, Joe taxpayer.
I'm more angry he is robbing those who need food stamps and providing fodder for those trying to dismantle the program.
Actually, I'm angrier about the latter, not the former....the amount of corruption and fraud by people is sickening, and that goes to workman's comp, food stamps, disability, etc.
-
I said $50, not $50K.
Raising the minimum wage, regardless of the amount, raises costs and those are passed on to people. Jobs are lost because expenses go up. Since when is a job at McDonalds DESIGNED TO SUPPORT A FAMILY? It shouldn't be, that's the whole point. We have so bastardized things that this is what it has become. Keep allowing low skilled labor into the market place only adds to the problem, but hey...they vote for us so let's do it.
We reap what we sow.
Nice talking points, but not really true.
A study of nine cities that raised their minimum wages - in some instances by as much as 26 percent - showed it led to miniimal job loss. Instead, businesses absorbed the costs through lower turnover and smaller price increases.
Read all about it here:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023116005_wageimpactsxml.html
-
Nice talking points, but not really true.
A study of nine cities that raised their minimum wages - in some instances by as much as 26 percent - showed it led to miniimal job loss. Instead, businesses absorbed the costs through lower turnover and smaller price increases.
Read all about it here:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023116005_wageimpactsxml.html
The vast majority of economics studies say hikes will cost jobs. Thy get ignored like this CBO study last month that said the current hike being considered would eliminate 500,000 jobs by 2016.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/18/cbo-minimum-wage-jobs/5582779/
Then every once in a while an uber-left academic says it will not and those get major headlines.
Now think about it rationally. If you raise the price of something, you get (or sell) less of it. What makes minimum wage jobs exempt for the basic laws of economics. If you're going to argue inelasticity , I'm going to argue that the new era of technology is making minimum wage jobs very elastic. This means, in years past you were stuck paying them more as you need people in these jobs. Today you have options to automate them away. See my McDonalds using call centers.
But if you can explain why they do not follow the basic laws of economics, Chicos will pay you zillions. He would love to know how to make DTV fees exempt from basic law of economics. He would love to raise fees 30% (like the proposed minimum wage hike) with only a minimum loss of subscribers!
-
Nice talking points, but not really true.
A study of nine cities that raised their minimum wages - in some instances by as much as 26 percent - showed it led to miniimal job loss. Instead, businesses absorbed the costs through lower turnover and smaller price increases.
Read all about it here:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023116005_wageimpactsxml.html
What do you say then about the CBO report that it will cost 500,000 jobs?
-
What do you say then about the CBO report that it will cost 500,000 jobs?
I'd say the report indicates that that's .3 percent of the workforce, that the hike would benefit more than 16.5 million workers oberall, and the net benefit would be $2 billion (and greater for poor families).
16.5 million > .5 million
-
I'd say the report indicates that that's .3 percent of the workforce, that the hike would benefit more than 16.5 million workers oberall, and the net benefit would be $2 billion (and greater for poor families).
16.5 million > .5 million
So 500,000 job losses is minimal?
How about the other part where it says employers will cut back hours to make them part time to save additional costs...so workers are still "employed", but under employed.
-
I'd say the report indicates that that's .3 percent of the workforce, that the hike would benefit more than 16.5 million workers oberall, and the net benefit would be $2 billion (and greater for poor families).
16.5 million > .5 million
So FU to half a million people that lose their job, the rest make an extra $3/hour.
-
Do FU to half a million people that lose their job, the rest make an extra $3/hour.
There is also the part about the cost of goods. If you raise the minimum wage at fast food restaurants, then the owners either have to reduce employment, reduce hours, or increase prices (or a combination of them all). They almost certainly aren't going to reduce their margins. So the costs of eating there, just went up. Ironically, this is where many people that are struggling to make ends meet go to eat because it is affordable.
All this stuff has consequences, but it seems to me the focus is all to often on one part of the equation.
-
Do FU to half a million people that lose their job, the rest make an extra $3/hour.
Yep.
$2 billion net gain is a good thing. Those 500,000 will be able to find work elsewhere.
-
Yep.
$2 billion net gain is a good thing. Those 500,000 will be able to find work elsewhere.
Or if not, the gov't will go further into debt to cover them
-
Yep.
$2 billion net gain is a good thing. Those 500,000 will be able to find work elsewhere.
Where does this $2 billion net gain come from?
-
Where does this $2 billion net gain come from?
16 million make an extra $2.50 to $3 hour = equals $2 billion.
500,000 to go a paycheck to unemployed. Ignore them.
As long as the union get the hike so all those union contract jobs that get "200% to 250% of the minimum wage" get a hike.
-
So 500,000 job losses is minimal?
How about the other part where it says employers will cut back hours to make them part time to save additional costs...so workers are still "employed", but under employed.
Yes. 500,000 workers represents .3 percent of the workforce. That's pretty minimal.
The (minimum of) 16.5 million who it would benefit, on the other hand, represents nearly 10 percent of the workforce.
As for the other dreadful consequences .... that hasn't been the case in places where the minimum wage has been raised.
So, I guess we've got what the CBO thinks might happen - which is still a $2 billion net gain - versus real life.
And, let me re-state, the CBO report says this is a $2 billion net gain for workers and it would benefit 16.5 million. You consider this a bad thing?
-
Where does this $2 billion net gain come from?
Read the report:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995
Here's the synopsis when it comes to the $2 billion net gain:
Estimated Effects on Employment of an Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage, Second Half of 2016
Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase.
The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.
Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices. CBO examined family income overall and for various income groups, reaching the following conclusions (see the figure below):
Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.
Real income would increase, on net, by $5 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 3 percent and moving about 900,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold (out of the roughly 45 million people who are projected to be below that threshold under current law).
Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $12 billion in additional real income. About $2 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold.
Real income would decrease, on net, by $17 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by 0.4 percent.
-
Here's your "added costs" for raising the minimum wage to $10.10 at Walmart. Looks like it might break your back.
For the full article on Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-20/minimum-wage-debate-prompts-u-s-retailers-to-plot-strategies.html
Excerpt:
“When Henry Ford announced the 5-dollar-day, the response was that it would diminish the auto industry and bankrupt his company,” Harley Shaiken, a labor economist at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an interview. “Instead it jump-started purchasing power, reduced turnover and increased the profitability of Ford Motor Co. There’s a lesson we can still learn from that.”
A boost in the minimum wage to $10.10 would add $200 million -- or less than 1 percent -- to Wal-Mart’s annual labor bill, the University of California Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education estimates.
If Wal-Mart passed along the estimated $200 million in extra labor cost to consumers, it would equal about a penny per $16 item, said Ken Jacobs, the Labor Center’s chairman. Meanwhile, the rise may boost purchases among the chain’s core shoppers, many of whom could see their earnings climb, he said.
-
Excerpt:
“When Henry Ford announced the 5-dollar-day, the response was that it would diminish the auto industry and bankrupt his company,” Harley Shaiken, a labor economist at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an interview. “Instead it jump-started purchasing power, reduced turnover and increased the profitability of Ford Motor Co. There’s a lesson we can still learn from that.”
Yes it provided a competitive advantage in a market that while not technical for the worker required reduced turnover to be successful. So Ford was competing against other companies for labor force. A universal increase of wage for all does nothing to increase productivity, capability, or competitiveness of the existing labor force on or near minimum wage.
-
Read the report:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995
Here's the synopsis when it comes to the $2 billion net gain:
Estimated Effects on Employment of an Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage, Second Half of 2016
Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase.
The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.
Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices. CBO examined family income overall and for various income groups, reaching the following conclusions (see the figure below):
Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.
Real income would increase, on net, by $5 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 3 percent and moving about 900,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold (out of the roughly 45 million people who are projected to be below that threshold under current law).
Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $12 billion in additional real income. About $2 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold.
Real income would decrease, on net, by $17 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by 0.4 percent.
It's not a net $2 billion in US economic gain it is net gain in revenue for those working poor(not a bad thing certainly). However that $2 billion is not created out of nothing it is generated from increase cost of goods and/or reduced margin for companies
-
It's not a net $2 billion in US economic gain it is net gain in revenue for those working poor(not a bad thing certainly). However that $2 billion is not created out of nothing it is generated from increase cost of goods and/or reduced margin for companies
Did you read it?
It says clearly that, even when accounting for increased costs of goods, job losses and increased costs to business, etc., there is still a $2 billion net gain for Americans as a whole ... not just poor Americans.
Let me cut and paste again:
Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices. CBO examined family income overall and for various income groups, reaching the following conclusions (see the figure below):
Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.
The only group who would lose are those earning six times or more above the poverty level, i.e. a family of four earning at least $191,820. Those poor souls would see their annual income drop .4 percent, or $767. It's a horrible price to bear, to be sure, but I suspect the country will get by, especially when we're talking about a measure that would lift nearly 1 million fellow Americans out of poverty.
-
Did you read it?
It says clearly that, even when accounting for increased costs of goods, job losses and increased costs to business, etc., there is still a $2 billion net gain for Americans as a whole ... not just poor Americans.
Let me cut and paste again:
Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices. CBO examined family income overall and for various income groups, reaching the following conclusions (see the figure below):
Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.
The only group who would lose are those earning six times or more above the poverty level, i.e. a family of four earning at least $191,820. those poor souls would see their annual income drop .4 percent, or $767. It's a horrible price to bear, to be sure, but I suspect the country will get by, especially when we're talking about a measure that would lift nearly 1 million fellow Americans out of poverty.
Life is so much more easily explained in bullet points and 6.5 second soundbites. Why do you have to go ruining society by telling us there's an entire report.
-
Did you read it?
It says clearly that, even when accounting for increased costs of goods, job losses and increased costs to business, etc., there is still a $2 billion net gain for Americans as a whole ... not just poor Americans.
Let me cut and paste again:
Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices. CBO examined family income overall and for various income groups, reaching the following conclusions (see the figure below):
Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.
The only group who would lose are those earning six times or more above the poverty level, i.e. a family of four earning at least $191,820. Those poor souls would see their annual income drop .4 percent, or $767. It's a horrible price to bear, to be sure, but I suspect the country will get by, especially when we're talking about a measure that would lift nearly 1 million fellow Americans out of poverty.
You are right, I mis-read the report. My question(this is not intended to be snarky), if $3 increase nets a $2 billion increase for all, what if we went to $13.10 would that net us out close to $4 billion? I've been posting too much in the MH370 thread so I don't have time to read it but does part of this calculation also include reduced pay out from the government in assistance for those who would rise above the poverty line?
-
You are right, I mis-read the report. My question(this is not intended to be snarky), if $3 increase nets a $2 billion increase for all, what if we went to $13.10 would that net us out close to $4 billion?
I don't think they ran those numbers. They ran numbers concerning the two possible minimum wages being considered - $9 an hour and $10.10 an hour. The numbers I cite are based on the proposed $10.10 wage. I suspect there's got to be some point of diminishing returns, i.e. where the need to raise costs or lay off workers to meet the minimum wage outweighs the benefit that comes with giving workers additional purchasing power and removing people from poverty. But that's just speculation on my part.
I've been posting too much in the MH370 thread so I don't have time to read it but does part of this calculation also include reduced pay out from the government in assistance for those who would rise above the poverty line?
Here's what I found in regards to that:
The rest of the deficit reduction would result from less
federal spending (aside from the effects on refundable
earned income and child tax credits) for the workers
receiving an increase in earnings. Spending on cash and
near-cash transfer programs (such as SNAP and Supplemental
Security Income) would decline for those workers,
because the amount of those benefits generally falls as
income rises.19 In addition, spending for premium assistance
tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies for health
insurance purchased through exchanges would decline for
people who will be receiving such support under current
law, because the amount of that support also generally
falls as income rises.
-
Yes. 500,000 workers represents .3 percent of the workforce. That's pretty minimal.
The (minimum of) 16.5 million who it would benefit, on the other hand, represents nearly 10 percent of the workforce.
As for the other dreadful consequences .... that hasn't been the case in places where the minimum wage has been raised.
So, I guess we've got what the CBO thinks might happen - which is still a $2 billion net gain - versus real life.
And, let me re-state, the CBO report says this is a $2 billion net gain for workers and it would benefit 16.5 million. You consider this a bad thing?
I'm sorry, but that isn't necessarily the case depending on the study one uses. I suspect if I link a study from Heritage or CATO or something of that nature, I would be slammed for it.
I think this article on raising the minimum wage is interesting. Note, he is not suggesting to NOT raise it, but he is properly pointing out that there are ramifications....all too often those are ignored or given short shrift.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/03/so-lets-look-at-what-happens-when-they-raise-the-minimum-wage-in-bangladesh/
For the law of unintended consequences of raising the minimum wage, I'd steer your here.....yes, it's from way back in ancient times of 2006, but interesting. http://www.economics.uci.edu/files/economics/docs/workingpapers/2006-07/Neumark-08.pdf
-
It's funny how you ask a bunch of economists this question, and what wonderfully different answers you get.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/01/30/should-the-minimum-wage-be-raised-economists-weigh-in/
-
It's funny how you ask a bunch of economists this question, and what wonderfully different answers you get.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/01/30/should-the-minimum-wage-be-raised-economists-weigh-in/
Economics = soft science.
-
I'm sorry, but that isn't necessarily the case depending on the study one uses. I suspect if I link a study from Heritage or CATO or something of that nature, I would be slammed for it.
Well, in all fairness, you're the one who chose to cite the CBO report. Turns out, it considers raising the minimum age a net gain for the U.S.
I think this article on raising the minimum wage is interesting. Note, he is not suggesting to NOT raise it, but he is properly pointing out that there are ramifications....all too often those are ignored or given short shrift.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/03/so-lets-look-at-what-happens-when-they-raise-the-minimum-wage-in-bangladesh
Interesting, but I take issue with his attempt to liken the situation in Bangladesh to that in the U.S. because the "laws of economics" are the same everywhere. For starters, there are not "laws of economics" as there are laws of physics or laws of chemistry. Secondly, it's like saying the laws of physics are the same everywhere, so lstriking a match on the earth is the same as striking a match on the moon. Environment is important.
-
Actually, I'm angrier about the latter, not the former....the amount of corruption and fraud by people is sickening, and that goes to workman's comp, food stamps, disability, etc.
I agree... but you always look at the have-nots as the culprits. You forgot gov't, religion, Banks, Wall Street, welfare to Oil Companies or Wal-Mart, etc., etc., etc. Maybe $5 TRILLION to fight unnecessary wars with one side asking for a half dozen more wars. If you want to add up where the money is being spent, focus on the Haves. They get theirs and then demonize those that have nothing.
Rather than choose the small amount of fraud by the poor, focus on where the real corruption and fraud is.
-
Economics = soft science.
Yes, which is why when someone says there is NO impact, I tend to take more than a bit of a critical eye. There may be no impact, there may be quite an impact, but when someone says definitively there is no impact....run away. No one knows for sure, way too many dynamic market forces at work.
-
I agree... but you always look at the have-nots as the culprits. You forgot gov't, religion, Banks, Wall Street, welfare to Oil Companies or Wal-Mart, etc., etc., etc. Maybe $5 TRILLION to fight unnecessary wars with one side asking for a half dozen more wars. If you want to add up where the money is being spent, focus on the Haves. They get theirs and then demonize those that have nothing.
Rather than choose the small amount of fraud by the poor, focus on where the real corruption and fraud is.
The "small amount" isn't small at all. More importantly, why is it allowed? Why are more stringent steps taken? Hell, there is a way to grow employment...enforcement.
I'm not going to get into the wars stuff or the crazy inflated number of $5 trillion. If we want to get into that, let's talk about unfunded liabilities which range anywhere from $35 trillion to $125 trillion depending on how it is calculated...pretty crazy that there is a $90 trillion swag in there. My guess is your "real corruption" definition is a lot different than others. Some might argue those wars that are fought do a lot of good for this country in protecting interests, preventing mass casualties, etc....some might argue that is "small potatoes" just as you have argued the amount of fraud going on is small.
All in the eye of the beholder.
-
Have you read about the digital manufacturing coop initiative in Chicago? Seems like a step in the right direction.
Digital coops don't work ... Their purpose is to put people out of work.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-usa-obama-manufacturing-idUSBREA2H06L20140318?r=6112G2540690E4Z
(Reuters) - Along the banks of the Mahoning River in the struggling Ohio steel town of Youngstown sits a once-abandoned furniture warehouse that has been converted into a sleek new laboratory.
Inside is a Silicon Valley-style workspace complete with open meeting areas and colorful stools. Several 3-D printers hum in the background, while engineers type computer codes that tell the machines how to create objects by layering materials.
The lab, called America Makes, is the first in a series of so-called "manufacturing innovation hubs" that President Barack Obama has launched with the promise that they could revitalize America's industrial sector and spur jobs growth in downtrodden communities like Youngstown. Seven more hubs are planned by the end of the year, including projects in Chicago, Detroit and Raleigh, North Carolina, that will follow the Youngstown model of bringing together businesses, non-profits and universities to pursue technological breakthroughs.
But after more than a year of operation, the Youngstown hub underscores the challenges facing Obama's goal of ensuring "a steady stream of good jobs into the 21st century," as he put it in remarks at a White House event last month.
One of the biggest challenges is the nature of factory innovation itself, which often reduces, rather than bolsters, the need for workers who aren't very skilled. That means the manufacturing initiative could help create jobs for people with highly specialized skills, such as engineers, but it may do far less to help people struggling to find work after the shuttering of local steel mills.
Three-D printers, the focus of the Youngstown project, are an example of this. Once they are programmed and loaded with raw materials, they work their magic with nary a human hand. If they are ever widely adopted, researchers say a big reason will be that they use less labor than traditional manufacturing.
"A lot of the equipment can be run automatically, so it is less labor demanding," said Don Li, senior manager of process modeling at RTI International Metals, a Pittsburgh-based titanium manufacturer working on an America Makes project.
MULTIPLIER
Former White House economic adviser Gene Sperling, who conceived the administration's manufacturing initiative, said the White House was focused on the "spillover impact" from new manufacturing projects, which also create jobs at suppliers. "When you look at manufacturing and the jobs it provides in the supply chain and in communities, these are middle class, high-skill jobs," he said.
Research by Enrico Moretti, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, has found that each factory job on average supports 1.6 additional jobs outside manufacturing. A job in a high-tech industry can support even more outside employment because high wages for engineers and programmers can spur more spending at restaurants, stores and other businesses.
When Obama first proposed the manufacturing initiative, he asked Congress for $1 billion for 15 centers but the request has gone nowhere amid Washington's political gridlock so he is funding the projects through existing budgets. Ultimately, he would like to set up 45 centers around the country.
The Department of Defense, which is contributing the federal funding to the Youngstown initiative, believes its demand for high-tech goods will help the broader economy, said Elana Broitman, acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for manufacturing and industrial base policy.
The Youngstown hub is still in its very early stages but so far, at least, there are no obvious signs of a wider impact. About 29,600 people held factory jobs in the Youngstown metro area in January, the latest month for which data are available. That's actually slightly lower than the number of manufacturing jobs there when the administration awarded the hub to Youngstown in August 2012 and when it opened its doors that October. Total employment in the area was flat in 2013, while it grew nationwide.
Of six organizations in Youngstown and Cleveland - the nearest major city in the state - working on America Makes projects, none has made new hires for the work. But the non-profit managing the initiative, the National Center for Defense Manufacturing and Machining, has added 10 employees to run the lab and oversee the application process, said executive director Ralph Resnick.
Asked whether the administration had set goals for job creation at the manufacturing hubs, White House spokesman Robert Whithorne declined to say, noting that the hubs "are just getting started." He said there was a lot of interest among manufacturers in joining the hubs, showing the potential to create jobs.
DECADES OF JOB LOSSES
To understand the harsh reality of factory job losses in Youngstown and other once-thriving communities along America's Rust Belt, one needs only to follow the Mahoning River upstream from America Makes to see how that theme has played out.
About 15 miles north in Lordstown, Ohio, a General Motors assembly plant has cut its workforce to 4,500 from 13,000 over the last 30 years. Further north in Warren, the sound of wrecking balls demolishing the area's last major steel mill echoes across the water.
Lloyd Carmichael, 57, was one of 1,100 workers who lost his job in June 2012 after RG Steel declared bankruptcy. He is now learning to be a carpenter but expects to be earning about half of his previous salary.
"When you look in this area for industrial jobs, there's nothing," Carmichael said.
After rising for decades, U.S. factory jobs peaked in 1979, and then declined due to technological advances and foreign competition. The decline accelerated after Washington lifted trade barriers to China following its entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001.
Obama and other Democrats have long sought to ensure that their economic message resonates with blue-collar workers like Carmichael. But Republicans have seized on the economy's sluggish recovery from the Great Recession to try to court workers in states like Ohio that are closely divided between Democrats and Republicans.
Wrestling with how to spur faster economic growth in the summer of 2011, Obama asked White House aide Sperling for a list of policy ideas. Sperling looked abroad for models of success.
Manufacturing's share of total U.S. jobs stood at just below 10 percent, half its level thirty years earlier. Americans seemed to be losing ground to other countries. In Germany, a rich nation that specialized in making high-precision goods, about 20 percent of workers still clocked in at factories.
Sperling drew inspiration from Germany's Fraunhofer Institutes, which bring together universities, companies and government to turn scientific knowledge into practical applications. Obama liked this idea.
For the Youngstown project, the administration organized a competition to win $30 million in federal money. The money is then allocated to research projects led by partners in the consortium, who must match the federal funds and explain how their project might benefit government agencies.
Current projects range from a cooling system for satellites to repairing aging metal casts, without which legacy equipment like B-52 bombers could be retired. Researchers are also toying with printing a light-weight prototype of a drone.
Ashley Martof, an intern at America Makes, is studying 3-D printing as an industrial engineering major at Youngstown State University. Her friends and family tell her she is wasting her time because manufacturing jobs have dwindled.
"I tell them there will not be as much need for the working class, but there will be more engineers," Martof said.
The availability of such jobs probably won't do anything to help people like Dennis Church, 60, who is retraining for a maintenance job after 31 years at RG Steel.
"Those are tech jobs," Church said. "My personality is more hands on."
-
Yes, which is why when someone says there is NO impact, I tend to take more than a bit of a critical eye. There may be no impact, there may be quite an impact, but when someone says definitively there is no impact....run away. No one knows for sure, way too many dynamic market forces at work.
Well, the story I provided was regarding a study of actual results, not projected results (as was the case of the CBO report you cited).
-
Well, the story I provided was regarding a study of actual results, not projected results (as was the case of the CBO report you cited).
The study focused on food service workers, I believe.
Here are a few others
UC Irvine study http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf
“A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries,” the UC Irvine study stated.
Here's one analyzing 28 states to determine if it has any impact on poverty...the authors of this study say no.
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~lrazzolini/GR2010.pdf
Texas A&M study from last year, focuses on some other factors including job growth, etc. http://econweb.tamu.edu/jmeer/Meer_West_Minimum_Wage.pdf
-
The rest of the deficit reduction would result from less
federal spending (aside from the effects on refundable
earned income and child tax credits) for the workers
receiving an increase in earnings. Spending on cash and
near-cash transfer programs (such as SNAP and Supplemental
Security Income) would decline for those workers,
because the amount of those benefits generally falls as
income rises.19 In addition, spending for premium assistance
tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies for health
insurance purchased through exchanges would decline for
people who will be receiving such support under current
law, because the amount of that support also generally
falls as income rises.
And this is ultimately why I believe the $2 billion net to be a red herring, it assumes reduced federal spending associated with reduced safety net spending programs. I agree the spending would be less on the programs and this is a good thing, but unless there is an associated reduction in tax burden for those absorbing the wage increase(employers and potentially consumers of the goods) or a reduction in overall federal spending then it is a net negative and the assumptions are wrong.
A tax reduction is not proposed so then the next best thing would be to ensure the amount reduced in program spending be applied to deficit reduction, so basically if we aren't spending it here, we aren't spending it anywhere. However, no such thing has been proposed indicating that the usual budget games will be played where we spend less here but reallocate that money to another place so the net reduction in spending the CBO assumes never actually happens.
And it still doesn't address for me, why are people that need a living wage trying to use minimum wage as a living wage? That is not it's intent so what can we do to move people off of the minimum and near minimum wage to avoid the issue all together?
-
And it still doesn't address for me, why are people that need a living wage trying to use minimum wage as a living wage? That is not it's intent so what can we do to move people off of the minimum and near minimum wage to avoid the issue all together?
What's the point of working if it doesn't provide enough for basic food, clothing and shelter?
Doesn't this incentivize people to collect unemployment or disability (which they do)?
I don't care what the original intent of the minimum wage was, if people can't live off of it, they will suck on the taxpayer's teat. I'd rather have the buden shifted. It's really that simple.
-
It's called the Law of Supply and Demand. If someone doesn't have the talent, skills or experience they simply cannot command higher wages. Businesses would lose money, hire fewer people or go bankrupt. Your is a commendable intent but it just doesn't work in practice.
-
I don't care what the original intent of the minimum wage was, if people can't live off of it, they will suck on the taxpayer's teat. I'd rather have the buden shifted. It's really that simple.
This is what boggles me... the politicians who are pushing for hikes in the minimum wage are the same politicians who have risen to power by offering the taxpayer's teat to those who stand to benefit from said hikes -- if you actually take these people off the teat, they may find that the milk of independence is so much sweeter.
Politics is supposed to be strictly about maintaining and advancing your power & and influence... not about actually helping people. Is the overall intelligence of America rapidly declining, or are Americans merely electing exponentially dumber representatives every two years?
-
This is what boggles me... the politicians who are pushing for hikes in the minimum wage are the same politicians who have risen to power by offering the taxpayer's teat to those who stand to benefit from said hikes -- if you actually take these people off the teat, they may find that the milk of independence is so much sweeter.
Politics is supposed to be strictly about maintaining and advancing your power & and influence... not about actually helping people. Is the overall intelligence of America rapidly declining, or are Americans merely electing exponentially dumber representatives every two years?
Its all about incentives. If people are incentivized to work, they will.
This is why I like things like the earned income tax credit. It is a giveaway to low income folks, but it requires them to work to get it. It was a republican measure introduced during the Bush Administration, although if introduced by Obama every single Republican would oppose it.
But even better than this government giveaway would be companies that paid enough for people to live on.
-
It's called the Law of Supply and Demand. If someone doesn't have the talent, skills or experience they simply cannot command higher wages. Businesses would lose money, hire fewer people or go bankrupt. Your is a commendable intent but it just doesn't work in practice.
LOL. Corporate profit margins are at a record high. Walmart would not go bankrupt if they paid every worker $10 an hour. They just don't want to.
By the way, people made the same arguments about child labor. We outlawed that and American private enterprise came out ok.
-
It's called the Law of Supply and Demand. If someone doesn't have the talent, skills or experience they simply cannot command higher wages. Businesses would lose money, hire fewer people or go bankrupt. Your is a commendable intent but it just doesn't work in practice.
Have there been any significant increases to unemployment as a result of min wage increases in the past?
-
Changing the subject, what do people think about guaranteed basic income?
Quite a few conservatives actually support it, and countries such as Switzerland (a European bastion of the free market) have ballot measures considering it.
It basically goes like this:
-Get rid of every entitlement program (Social Security, Medicaid, SNAP, Disability, Unemployment, housing assistance, Obamacare subsidies, etc. etc.)
-Replace it with a guaranteed basic minimum income to all citizens. Enough to live on, but that's about it (maybe just above poverty level)
-People can choose to work or not. The vast majority will continue to do so, as they will be incentivized to make more money than the poverty level. Those that choose not to work will free up jobs for others.
-Eliminates massive bureaucracies, government staffing, fraud, etc.
-Frees up people to take risks, be entreprenurial, start businesses, etc.
-
Changing the subject, what do people think about guaranteed basic income?
Quite a few conservatives actually support it, and countries such as Switzerland (a European bastion of the free market) have ballot measures considering it.
It basically goes like this:
-Get rid of every entitlement program (Social Security, Medicaid, SNAP, Disability, Unemployment, housing assistance, Obamacare subsidies, etc. etc.)
-Replace it with a guaranteed basic minimum income to all citizens. Enough to live on, but that's about it (maybe just above poverty level)
-People can choose to work or not. The vast majority will continue to do so, as they will be incentivized to make more money than the poverty level. Those that choose not to work will free up jobs for others.
-Eliminates massive bureaucracies, government staffing, fraud, etc.
-Frees up people to take risks, be entreprenurial, start businesses, etc.
Where does the graft fit into that sort of arrangement? Until that question is answered, no such bill will ever make it out of committee in this country.
-
LOL. Corporate profit margins are at a record high. Walmart would not go bankrupt if they paid every worker $10 an hour. They just don't want to.
By the way, people made the same arguments about child labor. We outlawed that and American private enterprise came out ok.
It's easy to say that when it's other people's money. How much margin should Walmart make? Or Mama's bakery? Or GE?
You are right they don't want to why is that an incorrect answer?
-
It's easy to say that when it's other people's money. How much margin should Walmart make? Or Mama's bakery? Or GE?
You are right they don't want to why is that an incorrect answer?
As much money as they want, after they've paid their employees enough to live on.
I own Walmart stock in my index funds. But I should not be their only stakeholder. Employees are another stakeholder.
Why can't companies dump chemicals into rivers? Why can't they employ children under 15? Why can't they put cheap lead in their products?
There are lots of shortcuts. Its just that paying an unliveable wage is one of the few legal ones left.
-
Changing the subject, what do people think about guaranteed basic income?
Quite a few conservatives actually support it, and countries such as Switzerland (a European bastion of the free market) have ballot measures considering it.
It basically goes like this:
-Get rid of every entitlement program (Social Security, Medicaid, SNAP, Disability, Unemployment, housing assistance, Obamacare subsidies, etc. etc.)
-Replace it with a guaranteed basic minimum income to all citizens. Enough to live on, but that's about it (maybe just above poverty level)
-People can choose to work or not. The vast majority will continue to do so, as they will be incentivized to make more money than the poverty level. Those that choose not to work will free up jobs for others.
-Eliminates massive bureaucracies, government staffing, fraud, etc.
-Frees up people to take risks, be entreprenurial, start businesses, etc.
Interesting concept....what establishes the minimum? How is that determined? As an example we have people living below the poverty line with iPhones and big screen tvs. How do we determine what the minimum income is?
How would you determine income sources? What prevents me from being on the minimum income but doing cash jobs on the side for extra income?
I have to admit, at first blush I have a real issue with any concept that gives people the option to do nothing. Not saying that's a good hang up but it would drive me nuts having people literally doing nothing to contribute to society.
-
As much money as they want, after they've paid their employees enough to live on.
I own Walmart stock in my index funds. But I should not be their only stakeholder. Employees are another stakeholder.
They are, does Walmart have trouble finding employees? The answer is no, so why should Walmart pay more? Who establishes what is enough to live on? Don't say the poverty line because it's subjective, Somalia has a whole other poverty line than we do.
-
Interesting concept....what establishes the minimum? How is that determined? As an example we have people living below the poverty line with iPhones and big screen tvs. How do we determine what the minimum income is?
How would you determine income sources? What prevents me from being on the minimum income but doing cash jobs on the side for extra income?
I have to admit, at first blush I have a real issue with any concept that gives people the option to do nothing. Not saying that's a good hang up but it would drive me nuts having people literally doing nothing to contribute to society.
Everyone gets the income. Whether they are making cash on the side or not. Whether they have a W-2 for $200,000 a year or not. Everyone still gets that chunk of change from the government. There is no means testing, which cuts on the bureaucracy. Everyone is mooching off the government equally. You, me, Chicos, Buzz Williams, Derek Wilson, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, and the guy currently living under the overpass all get the exact same check each month.
If people want to spend their minimum on iPhones and TVs, that's their prerogative. But there is nothing else coming from the government. No food stamps, no medical subsidies, no housing subsidies, etc. Its their choice to make what they spend their money on.
I'd say the amount should be just over the poverty level.
It replaces social security. It replaces medicaid. It replaces EVERYTHING. No more massive bureaucracies. No more fraud. No more gaming the system. You just get a check for food, clothes and shelter. If you want more than that, you get a job.
-
It's easy to say that when it's other people's money. How much margin should Walmart make? Or Mama's bakery? Or GE?
You are right they don't want to why is that an incorrect answer?
I already posted the effect on Walmart in an earlier post. Is one penny more per $16 item going to hurt any shoppers? I don't think anyone would even notice? But to employees making less than $10.10 th eraise would make a world of difference.
A boost in the minimum wage to $10.10 would add $200 million -- or less than 1 percent -- to Wal-Mart’s annual labor bill, the University of California Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education estimates.
If Wal-Mart passed along the estimated $200 million in extra labor cost to consumers, it would equal about a penny per $16 item, said Ken Jacobs, the Labor Center’s chairman. Meanwhile, the rise may boost purchases among the chain’s core shoppers, many of whom could see their earnings climb, he said.
-
I'd say the amount should be just over the poverty level.
The poverty level is a relative calculation related to the annual national income so this would move and may or may not account for pricing changes in critical goods. It will go up and down every year.
-
Everyone gets the income. Whether they are making cash on the side or not. Whether they have a W-2 for $200,000 a year or not. Everyone still gets that chunk of change from the government. There is no means testing, which cuts on the bureaucracy. Everyone is mooching off the government equally. You, me, Chicos, Buzz Williams, Derek Wilson, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, and the guy currently living under the overpass all get the exact same check each month.
If people want to spend their minimum on iPhones and TVs, that's their prerogative. But there is nothing else coming from the government. No food stamps, no medical subsidies, no housing subsidies, etc. Its their choice to make what they spend their money on.
I'd say the amount should be just over the poverty level.
It replaces social security. It replaces medicaid. It replaces EVERYTHING. No more massive bureaucracies. No more fraud. No more gaming the system. You just get a check for food, clothes and shelter. If you want more than that, you get a job.
So when someone spends their money and can't afford food, we are just going to turn away from them? Is that really going to happen?
Does that also mean that as an employer I can pay you 5 cents an hour for a job?
Where does the money come from for this living wage? I see a huge savings in bureaucracy and actually a lot of government workers out of a job (not a terrible thing having a smaller government) but I'd love to see a comparison of what the cost of such a program would be. Interesting concept
-
Interesting concept....what establishes the minimum? How is that determined? As an example we have people living below the poverty line with iPhones and big screen tvs. How do we determine what the minimum income is?
How would you determine income sources? What prevents me from being on the minimum income but doing cash jobs on the side for extra income?
I have to admit, at first blush I have a real issue with any concept that gives people the option to do nothing. Not saying that's a good hang up but it would drive me nuts having people literally doing nothing to contribute to society.
this is going to be necessary at some point in the future anyway when technology takes up enough jobs that leaves us without options for employment. people are going to have to be supported somehow
-
I already posted the effect on Walmart in an earlier post. Is one penny more per $16 item going to hurt any shoppers? I don't think anyone would even notice? But to employees making less than $10.10 th eraise would make a world of difference.
A boost in the minimum wage to $10.10 would add $200 million -- or less than 1 percent -- to Wal-Mart’s annual labor bill, the University of California Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education estimates.
If Wal-Mart passed along the estimated $200 million in extra labor cost to consumers, it would equal about a penny per $16 item, said Ken Jacobs, the Labor Center’s chairman. Meanwhile, the rise may boost purchases among the chain’s core shoppers, many of whom could see their earnings climb, he said.
Yep you are correct, which is fine if it's only Walmart impacted. It's any fast food joint, any grocery store, any place a minimum wage job occurs. Those total add up. I'd love to see someone do a year in the life estimate of your average American spending pattern and how it would be impacted by minimum wage increase. Would be very telling one way or the other.
-
So when someone spends their money and can't afford food, we are just going to turn away from them? Is that really going to happen?
Does that also mean that as an employer I can pay you 5 cents an hour for a job?
Where does the money come from for this living wage? I see a huge savings in bureaucracy and actually a lot of government workers out of a job (not a terrible thing having a smaller government) but I'd love to see a comparison of what the cost of such a program would be. Interesting concept
Yes. No minimum wage if everyone is already getting enough to live on.
Money comes from existing funds in social welfare programs, and savings from getting rid of the bureaucracy payroll.
And yes, if people can't afford food, they have to make due until their next check. Everyone is in the same boat.
-
this is going to be necessary at some point in the future anyway when technology takes up enough jobs that leaves us without options for employment. people are going to have to be supported somehow
Happening in droves today.....and you can imagine those that are doing the paying aren't too pleased by it. As those jobs go away, then you continue to shrink the doers and payers. Eventually they're going to look up from their desk and why are they busting their arse for everyone else doing nothing.
-
So if jobs are going to continue to be removed and replaced by technology, can someone explain to me why we have a gov't that refused to enforce our borders and allows the population to swell even more? A population that will also have to be fed, sheltered, clothed, etc?
Why would this be? ::)
-
So if jobs are going to continue to be removed and replaced by technology, can someone explain to me why we have a gov't that refused to enforce our borders and allows the population to swell even more? A population that will also have to be fed, sheltered, clothed, etc?
Why would this be? ::)
yes. votes. but take all the politics and class-bashing out of the discussion. we're going to have to make a decision. post-scarce economy is what i'm talking about. going to be a hell of a transition though. lots of the "haves" are going to be dragged kicking and screaming.
-
When we are all in the same boat I can take my government debit card to strip clubs and casinos too
-
yes. votes. but take all the politics and class-bashing out of the discussion. we're going to have to make a decision. post-scarce economy is what i'm talking about. going to be a hell of a transition though. lots of the "haves" are going to be dragged kicking and screaming.
Of course, because most of those haves worked their ass off to get there. The problem is that many of the have nots are pissed off about and think the haves got there some other way. The idea that the haves went to college, put themselves through grad schools, started a business or two, worked 80 hours a week, etc, etc is lost on some of these folks. Don't get me wrong, there are have nots that just got royally screwed in life and there are haves that did nothing to get there, but were part of the lucky sperm club. I'm not talking about those.
There was also a societal promise to people that if they worked hard in this country they would enjoy the fruits of their labor. You start to penalize even more those that are working and providing jobs, opportunities, etc for everyone, the outcome is not going to be pretty.
-
So if jobs are going to continue to be removed and replaced by technology, can someone explain to me why we have a gov't that refused to enforce our borders and allows the population to swell even more? A population that will also have to be fed, sheltered, clothed, etc?
Why would this be? ::)
Didn't McCain and W propose the original amnesty program?
-
Didn't McCain and W propose the original amnesty program?
McLame ...I have no doubt he wanted a new one.
I'm old enough to remember 1986 when Reagan did and the promise was THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY TIME WE WILL EVER DO THIS.
What a load of crap. It was billed as a ONE TIME AMNESTY. Borders were now going to be enforced, employers penalized, blah blah blah. An absolute pile of dung piled high and deep.
You wonder why so many people aren't thrilled with gov't, it is because of so many BS promises that have been absolutely broken to get legislation, programs, etc passed. People aren't stupid, they are cynical for a reason...except those that are kool aid drinkers.
-
Of course, because most of those haves worked their ass off to get there. The problem is that many of the have nots are pissed off about and think the haves got there some other way. The idea that the haves went to college, put themselves through grad schools, started a business or two, worked 80 hours a week, etc, etc is lost on some of these folks. Don't get me wrong, there are have nots that just got royally screwed in life and there are haves that did nothing to get there, but were part of the lucky sperm club. I'm not talking about those.
There was also a societal promise to people that if they worked hard in this country they would enjoy the fruits of their labor. You start to penalize even more those that are working and providing jobs, opportunities, etc for everyone, the outcome is not going to be pretty.
I was hoping you would focus more on the potential post-scarce economy I had spoken of, but that's ok.
When you talk about people working hard, and enjoying the fruits of their labor, I find that funny. How many people lost their savings and retirement thanks to the recession/housing crash? So much for the fruits of their labor. Similarly to all the pension funds that were raided and then the people who had paid their whole lives were told the states are bankrupt. Problems for everyone: haves, have-nots, lifelong hard workers, etc.
So, what do you think about a post-scarce economy? Would our society and cultural hierarchy be able to handle that situation?
-
So if jobs are going to continue to be removed and replaced by technology, can someone explain to me why we have a gov't that refused to enforce our borders and allows the population to swell even more? A population that will also have to be fed, sheltered, clothed, etc?
Why would this be? ::)
The border the border the border....... As long as there's a wage difference between anywhere and the USA and the better quality of life in the USA people will ALWAYS find a way to get here legally or illegally with the desire to work, and not for handouts. I know of plenty of people who found a way to get here with the plan to stay here and work. And none of them speak Spanish. We can strengthen the border, that's fine, but the people I know would have gotten here regardless.
-
Low-Wage Workers Are Finding Poverty Harder to Escape
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/business/economy/low-wage-workers-finding-its-easier-to-fall-into-poverty-and-harder-to-get-out.html?_r=2
At 7 in the morning, they are already lined up — poultry plant workers, housekeepers, discount store clerks — to ask for help paying their heating bills or feeding their families.
And once Metropolitan Ministries opens at 8 a.m., these workers fill the charity’s 40 chairs, with a bawling infant adding to the commotion. From pockets and handbags they pull out utility bills or rent statements and hand them over to caseworkers, who often write checks — $80, $110, $150 — to patch over gaps in meeting this month’s expenses or filling the gas tank to get to work.
Just off her 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. shift, Erika McCurdy needed help last month with her electricity and heating bill, which jumped to $280 in January from the usual $120 — a result of one of the coldest winters in memory. A nurse’s aide at an assisted living facility, Ms. McCurdy said there were many weeks when she couldn’t make ends meet raising her 19-year-old son and 7-year-old daughter.
“There’s just no way, making $9 an hour as a single parent with two children, that I can live without assistance,” said Ms. McCurdy, 40, a strong-voiced, solidly built Chattanooga native.
She was so financially stretched, she said, that she and her daughter often sneaked into her son’s high school football games free during halftime because she couldn’t afford the $6 tickets. (She proudly noted that her son, Charles, had made the All State football team.) As for her daughter Jer’Maya, who mimics Beyoncé’s every move on her mother’s iPhone, Ms. McCurdy said, “She’d love to take ballet and piano lessons, but there’s no way I can afford that.”
Having worked as a nurse’s aide for 15 years, Ms. McCurdy has been among the nearly 25 million workers in the United States who make less than $10.10 an hour — the amount to which President Obama supports increasing the minimum wage. Of those workers, 3.5 million make the $7.25 federal minimum wage or less.
And like many of them, Ms. McCurdy hasn’t been able to rely on steady full-time hours — she has often been assigned just 20 hours a week. Even if she worked full time year-round, her $9 hourly wage would put her below the poverty threshold of $19,530 for a family of three.
Climbing above the poverty line has become more daunting in recent years, as the composition of the nation’s low-wage work force has been transformed by the Great Recession, shifting demographics and other factors. More than half of those who make $9 or less an hour are 25 or older, while the proportion who are teenagers has declined to just 17 percent from 28 percent in 2000, after adjusting for inflation, according to Janelle Jones and John Schmitt of the Center for Economic Policy Research.
Today’s low-wage workers are also more educated, with 41 percent having at least some college, up from 29 percent in 2000. “Minimum-wage and low-wage workers are older and more educated than 10 or 20 years ago, yet they’re making wages below where they were 10 or 20 years ago after inflation,” said Mr. Schmitt, senior economist at the research center. “If you look back several decades, workers near the minimum wage were more likely to be teenagers — that’s the stereotype people had. It’s definitely not accurate anymore.”
Continue reading the main story
In Chattanooga, the prevalence of low-wage jobs has contributed to the high poverty rate: 27 percent of the city’s residents live below the poverty line, compared with 15 percent nationwide. Women head about two-thirds of the city’s poor households, and 42 percent of its children are poor, nearly double the rate statewide.
“The face of poverty in this community is women, especially women of color,” said Valerie L. Radu, a professor of social work at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga.
This city was not always a magnet for low-wage jobs. For much of the last century, the city, which hugs the Tennessee River, was a manufacturing hub with dozens of apparel factories, textile mills and metal foundries.
During the last quarter of the 20th century, almost all the factories and foundries were shuttered, and with them disappeared thousands of manufacturing jobs that had once lifted workers, even ones without high school degrees, into the middle class or to the cusp of it. In their place have come thousands of service-sector jobs: at the aquarium and Imax theater built to lure tourists and at hotels, nursing homes, big-box stores, brew pubs, fast-food restaurants, beauty salons and hospitals.
Discount stores dot the landscape, including a Family Dollar downtown near the upscale Bluewater Grille, reflecting how much American cities have experienced a hollowing-out of the middle class.
“Chattanooga has a twofold problem: the low level of educational attainment and the traditional jobs that these people move into have largely disappeared,” said Matthew N. Murray, an economist at the University of Tennessee. Just 23 percent of Tennessee adults have a bachelor’s degree.
JeraLee Kincaid, 23, is an $8.50-an-hour cashier who works at the checkout booth at a parking garage next to the Marriott Courtyard hotel downtown. A solid student in high school, Ms. Kincaid, who lives with her mother, planned to study computer programming in college, but instead her family decided that she needed to help pay the medical bills of a 5-year-old niece who has leukemia.
“She can’t eat, talk or walk by herself,” said Ms. Kincaid. She says she feels stuck, but also grateful that her boss is trying to help find her a scholarship to attend college.
When Volkswagen opened a $1 billion assembly plant in 2011, 80,000 people applied for 2,000 jobs paying an average of $19.50 an hour. Many low-wage workers, like Ms. McCurdy — a high school dropout who later obtained her high school equivalency diploma — would have loved to work there, but they faced difficulty mastering the math tests given for jobs that involve advanced machinery.
“We understand that more individuals have to get some kind of higher education degree or certificate to have a chance in this world,” said Chattanooga’s mayor, Andy Berke. “We don’t want the South to be a place where businesses go to find low-wage, low-education jobs. That’s a long-term problem that midsized cities in the South face.”
Here as well as elsewhere, a college degree cannot guarantee a good job.
Landon Howard graduated from the University of Tennessee campus here four years ago with a bachelor’s degree in social work, but has been unable to find a job in that field. Instead he is a prep cook at the trendy Tupelo Honey Cafe. Often scheduled for just 15 to 20 hours a week at $9.50 an hour, he usually takes home less than $200 a week.
“I’ve had to move back in with my parents,” Mr. Howard said. His most urgent concern is his lack of dental insurance. “One of my teeth is cracked,” he said. “There’s a big gaping hole. I don’t know if I’m going to lose it.”
Ms. McCurdy, as a parent in a modest income bracket, would not usually be eligible for the state’s Medicaid program, although her children would, but she was accepted because of a heart condition requiring costly medications.
Her family has had to make many sacrifices since she was laid off in 2012 from her job as a full-time nurse’s assistant in the emergency room of Memorial Hospital.
Her fall to $9 an hour at the assisted living facility from $13.75 at the hospital forced her to give up a 2,000-square-foot home in Harrison, a local suburb, “which is beautiful, and you have better schools,” she said.
“It was a good life,” she added. “You didn’t have to worry about violence or anyone breaking in.”
After being laid off, “I realized I couldn’t afford to stay in a house where the rent was $625 a month,” she said. So she found a $400-a-month, 1,100-square foot house in Brainerd, known for its gangs and violence. “I stay in at night,” she said. “I put bars on the windows.”
The new house has two modest bedrooms, a largely unfurnished living room, a bathroom and a small shotgun kitchen “where I got to move the table when my son gets up from dinner,” she said. “Imagine being in a two-bedroom place with a 6-2, 280-pound boy and a little girl. Me and my little girl share a room.”
Continue reading the main story
Recent Comments
Karl Bonner
2 days ago
It's time to cut the nonsense about how the working poor deserve to be poor, and any raise in the minimum wage will cause a debilitating...
suzinne
2 days ago
While wages have remained stagnant for many years, the cost of everything has consistently risen. Rents here in NYC are off the charts. ...
MIMA
2 days ago
To Joe BYour words are so true. Infect is the exact way to put it.This has been an infectious epidemic - put on us by the wealthy and...
See All Comments
They also share a bed, but Jer’Maya keeps her dolls, books and clothes in Charles’s room, among his footballs and athletic gear. Ms. McCurdy receives $400 a month in food stamps. Without it, she said, “we wouldn’t be eating.”
Still, Ms. McCurdy worries about her children’s future.
“I have a son that’s graduating in May,” she said. “He’s looking at college. My heart is pounding 99 miles per hour. If he goes on full scholarship, I’ll still need to support him — how to pay his cellphone bill, how to pay for transportation and food during vacations.”
Her February utility bill just arrived and it stunned her: $320. She may again turn to Metropolitan Ministries for help, although she says she hopes the $3,000 or so she expects to receive from the earned-income tax credit will help her pay that bill — and also buy a new living room couch.
Rebecca Whelchel says she has seen big changes in the clientele since she became the executive director of Metropolitan Ministries eight years ago.
“It used to be that folks came in with a single issue — it was like, ‘I have to buy a new tire because my tire blew out,’ or, ‘I’m short on my electrical bill,’ ” Ms. Whelchel said. “Now they come in with a rubber band around a bunch of bills and problems. Everything is wrong. Everything is tangled with everything else.”
At age 34, Nick Mason earns $9 an hour as an assistant manager for a Domino’s, overseeing a crew of six. “I don’t think $9 is fair — I’ve been working in the pizza business for 19 years, since I was 15,” he said.
He attended the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, studying to become a registered nurse, but he dropped out as a sophomore when his marriage fell apart. He returned to work full time, and he and his children moved in with his parents in the suburb of Hixson.
“I just wish we could have our home, but I can’t afford to,” said Mr. Mason, father of 7-year-old Halle and 5-year-old Eli. “That’s what the kids keep asking for.”
“We’ve had to sacrifice a lot of things,” he continued. “I’d love nothing more than to give them what they deserve. As a single father, it’s impossible. I put my kids in karate about a year ago. They loved it, but I got to the point where it was a choice between paying for a cellphone or karate, and as a manager, I need a cellphone for people to keep in touch with me.”
Mr. Mason has heard the criticisms: Stop complaining about your pay; just go back to school and that way you’ll find a better-paying job.
“I would love to go back to school,” he said. “It’s easy for people to say that because they haven’t been in my shoes. I’m already busy every minute of the day. I already don’t get to see my kids enough. I doubt I’ll be able to afford school, and I don’t know where I would find the time.”
His big hope is to be promoted to run a Domino’s, which might mean earning $15 an hour.
Ms. McCurdy, who applied for two dozen jobs this winter, delivered good news with a big smile. She was offered a job as a full-time nurse’s aide on the transition medical floor at Erlanger Health System, a hospital.
“They’re paying me $10.64,” she said, an improvement over the $9 an hour she had been earning. “That gives me a little room to breathe.”
-
I absolutely anticipate being able to replace 90% of what my current employees do with automated systems in the next ten to fifteen years. Not sure how much we will have to cut payroll, but zero jobs will be eliminated.
Obviously, this is anecdotal.
-
I was hoping you would focus more on the potential post-scarce economy I had spoken of, but that's ok.
When you talk about people working hard, and enjoying the fruits of their labor, I find that funny. How many people lost their savings and retirement thanks to the recession/housing crash? So much for the fruits of their labor. Similarly to all the pension funds that were raided and then the people who had paid their whole lives were told the states are bankrupt. Problems for everyone: haves, have-nots, lifelong hard workers, etc.
So, what do you think about a post-scarce economy? Would our society and cultural hierarchy be able to handle that situation?
I think the concept of not enough jobs being available to the population is a myth. If you go back and look at the news and literature of the time in the transition from an agrarian to industrial society in the US, having enough jobs was a major concern. We are in the midst of another such transition and while things will become automated there will be plenty of other things that will need to be done to leverage that automation. Not to mention the jobs required to develop/maintain the automation.
My point is, we shouldn't plan for no jobs, we should be planning for the new jobs as we transition over the next 10-15 years.
-
Yes. No minimum wage if everyone is already getting enough to live on.
Money comes from existing funds in social welfare programs, and savings from getting rid of the bureaucracy payroll.
And yes, if people can't afford food, they have to make due until their next check. Everyone is in the same boat.
How do children play into this? When does one start drawing this minimum wage?
-
Happening in droves today.....and you can imagine those that are doing the paying aren't too pleased by it. As those jobs go away, then you continue to shrink the doers and payers. Eventually they're going to look up from their desk and why are they busting their arse for everyone else doing nothing.
Wouldn't you argue its more equitable if you, and everyone else who works, gets the same check every month, as those who do nothing?
-
How do children play into this? When does one start drawing this minimum wage?
Again, poverty level. Poverty level adjusts for family size. You start drawing when you are no longer claimed as a dependent, same as other poverty level guidelines already in existence. And yes, this would adjust from year to year. Not sure why that would be a bad thing.
According to US Federal poverty guidelines:
Poverty guideline
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,060 for each additional person.
1
$11,670
2
15,730
3
19,790
4
23,850
5
27,910
6
31,970
7
36,030
8
40,090
-
McLame ...I have no doubt he wanted a new one.
I'm old enough to remember 1986 when Reagan did and the promise was THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY TIME WE WILL EVER DO THIS.
What a load of crap. It was billed as a ONE TIME AMNESTY. Borders were now going to be enforced, employers penalized, blah blah blah. An absolute pile of dung piled high and deep.
You wonder why so many people aren't thrilled with gov't, it is because of so many BS promises that have been absolutely broken to get legislation, programs, etc passed. People aren't stupid, they are cynical for a reason...except those that are kool aid drinkers.
So there is clearly some sort of benefit to both parties, rather than liberals just rounding up "taker" votes.
-
Again, poverty level. Poverty level adjusts for family size. You start drawing when you are no longer claimed as a dependent, same as other poverty level guidelines already in existence. And yes, this would adjust from year to year. Not sure why that would be a bad thing.
According to US Federal poverty guidelines:
Poverty guideline
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,060 for each additional person.
1
$11,670
2
15,730
3
19,790
4
23,850
5
27,910
6
31,970
7
36,030
8
40,090
So what mechanism prevents people from having a bunch of kids and grabbing "their" money and neglecting the kids?
Adjusting year to year isn't inherently bad, but it would have physiological impact when it goes down
-
So what mechanism prevents people from having a bunch of kids and grabbing "their" money and neglecting the kids?
Adjusting year to year isn't inherently bad, but it would have physiological impact when it goes down
Nothing is fool proof. I just think this would be better than the system we have. That's all.
-
^ I agree, I wonder about the folks that resist any change because the end result won't be perfect, nothing is, so what if its an big improvement.
I'm not saying the Swiss dole example is the way to go.
-
So if jobs are going to continue to be removed and replaced by technology, can someone explain to me why we have a gov't that refused to enforce our borders and allows the population to swell even more? A population that will also have to be fed, sheltered, clothed, etc?
Why would this be? ::)
When robots replace policeman, teachers and fire fighters we can only hope the politicians will go the way of the dinosaurs as well and then there would be no need for taxes.
-
When robots replace policeman, teachers and fire fighters we can only hope the politicians will go the way of the dinosaurs as well and then there would be no need for taxes.
I would, for one, welcome our new robot overlords
-
The border the border the border....... As long as there's a wage difference between anywhere and the USA and the better quality of life in the USA people will ALWAYS find a way to get here legally or illegally with the desire to work, and not for handouts. I know of plenty of people who found a way to get here with the plan to stay here and work. And none of them speak Spanish. We can strengthen the border, that's fine, but the people I know would have gotten here regardless.
The question is whether you make an effort or not, we make a token effort. The folks we are letting in, only add to the problem long term. Anchor babies get US citizenship, adds to the problem. Low skilled workers who will want the benefits that the gov't is going to give them, only adds to the problem.
-
I was hoping you would focus more on the potential post-scarce economy I had spoken of, but that's ok.
When you talk about people working hard, and enjoying the fruits of their labor, I find that funny. How many people lost their savings and retirement thanks to the recession/housing crash? So much for the fruits of their labor. Similarly to all the pension funds that were raided and then the people who had paid their whole lives were told the states are bankrupt. Problems for everyone: haves, have-nots, lifelong hard workers, etc.
So, what do you think about a post-scarce economy? Would our society and cultural hierarchy be able to handle that situation?
Why did they lose their money? Are we really going to pretend it was merely a housing crash and ignore a systemic policy change made back in the 1960's, reinforced with Glass Stegall repeal in the 1990's, and then policies of giving out money to anyone with a pulse in the mid 2000's. Throw in a lot of people making some really poor decisions. Really poor....and bad things are going to happen. I remember my wife and I buying a home in the early 2000's for a decent chunk of money. Within 3 years it had doubled. It was an absolute joke. I should have sold and paid rent somewhere and I often joked with my wife that we should do that because it can't go on forever. So I feel for people that got hurt, I know many of them. It is also my opinion that the die was cast in the late 1960's and none of this should be surprising. The best is yet to come.
Fruits of our labor....in our lifetimes, I have zero doubt in my mind that our 401Ks will be partially taken by the gov't in some fashion. Absolutely zero doubt. It's revenue and they're going to find a way to grab some of that revenue. Just wait and see. That will just be the tip of the ice burg.
Do I think our society will be able to handle a post-scarce economy? Let me put it this way, there is a reason I'm moving away from California and I believe strongly in the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately, I think our best days are behind us. I don't think post scarcity will work....it's a form of socialism or perhaps communism in my view and the corruption from such forms of order are destined to fail. Some will argue anarchism, but I believe it will just be a different division of the haves and have nots. This idea that everything is free because there are no limits to resources is a pipe dream in my opinion. It's unicorns, green clovers and fairy dust. It will collapse onto itself...technology destroys jobs faster than it creates enough of them....that leads to long term problems. I know the optimists believe the jobs that disappear will open up new channels for new jobs to spring forward. Some of that is true, but I don't think enough of them will pop up. To keep society from imploding, the gov't will have to basically pay people off to stay calm, give them food, shelter, etc...that requires massive incremental taxation, but as those people actually able to pay the taxes are literally taxed to death, the money runs out and the shooting starts.
-
Wouldn't you argue its more equitable if you, and everyone else who works, gets the same check every month, as those who do nothing?
No, how would that be equitable? Why is equality the goal in the first place? I don't believe in equitable pay, there are people that deserve more pay than I do and some that deserve less. This idea that everyone is equal is cute and all, but then there is reality. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a concept I cannot process because of its inherit inequality in an attempt at equality.
-
So there is clearly some sort of benefit to both parties, rather than liberals just rounding up "taker" votes.
In the short term, yes. In the long term, no. In the short term, it is cheap labor. In the long term, stacked voter rolls which eventually will turn every election in this country to one side and when you get one group think way of life, it's over. Truly over.
There's a reason why I don't belong to either major party and never will again in my life, but immigration is one reason. I'm all for LEGAL immigration. It makes the country stronger, brings an influx of talent and producers to the economy. LEGAL immigration.
-
It is truly disappointing that we (Americans) are still debating the merits of a high, or even higher, minimum wage. Among economists, this debate pretty much died in the 70s. Seriously. I know there are 500 economists who signed a letter saying to raise it to $10.10, including several Nobel laureates. However, recall that many of the pop economists have jobs at blogs, newspapers, and other places where the public opinion of them matters. Where were these economists before it became popular to argue that the minimum wage was too low? FWIW, surveys continually show that approximately 80% of economists believe that the minimum wage hikes often do more harm than good.
I only read the first and fifth page of this thread, but if anyone referenced the 500-economists letter, keep in mind that of the economists who signed the letter, only a few actually write scholarly articles on the topic of minimum wage. All of the others who actually write academic articles on the minimum wage have either signed the other letter (don't raise it to $10.10, as that is too high), or they have kept mum.
One notable economist who did not sign the 'raise the minimum wage' letter was David Card, an economist who is notoriously friendly to increases in the minimum wage, as he wrote an article in 1994 that revived the minimum wage debate from its 1970s coma. Even David Card says $10.10 is too high.
******
*****
Raise the minimum wage, what happens? Well, who works minimum wage jobs? Generally low-income people. And what do low-income people do when they get money? They spend it. In fact, lower-income people spend a larger fraction of their income than rich people do. Spending is what we need to boost the economy right now. So far so good.
But there are costs to raising the minimum wage. What are some costs? In many low-income type jobs, labor and capital are substitutes and in high-income jobs, the two are generally complementary. Ok. Well, if you raise the price of labor, without raising the price of capital, what happens? Companies substitute. Companies will either start investing in capital to replace the workers (e.g., self-checkout machines at the grocery store). Or they will substitute to illegal immigrants and, to the extent that it is possible, outsource these jobs. Moreover, Pick 'n' Save hiring engineers to build a self-checkout machine has an opportunity cost--that is time that they are not spending developing machines that have a higher value add to the overall economy. Thus, as these low-income people become unemployed, this decreases aggregate spending in the economy. And in the current economic climate, we want spending.
Thus, we ultimately arrive at an empirical question: If we raise the minimum wage, which effect dominates?
Almost all studies show that at best there is a 0% change in the aggregate unemployment rate and at worst, there is a small increase in the unemployment rate--small, but noticeable. Other studies show that for every one dollar increase in the minimum wage, only about $0.25-$0.35 actually reach someone in poverty, which is not a large share, but it is at least something.
Do we have a more efficient poverty fighting tool? That is to say, is there a way to actually get more of that $1.00 increase in the minimum wage to an impoverished person while also having a smaller effect on unemployment than the minimum wage? The answer, thankfully, is yes, we do. The answer is the earned income tax credit (EITC). The EITC gets more of that $1.00 to someone actually impoverished without the corresponding hit to the unemployment rate. Well, at least not as large of a hit, depending on we fund the EITC. But that's a separate issue.
Concisely put, we could tax companies some lump-sum and give that money to its employees. But couldn't that also raise unemployment? After all, companies may have to lay some people off to afford the new tax. Yes, that is true. However, the companies will lay off less people than they would if you raised the minimum wage by a commensurate amount. How so? Because the EITC does not raise the price of labor relative to capital.
To my left-leaning friends who have gotten all the way to this paragraph, please understand that I (and other EITC-backers) do not hate the poor. On the contrary, economic research has actually shown a more effective way to help them. Keep in mind that the EITC is not a partisan issue. If we are going to help the poor (that is the partisan issue), we should at least be doing so in the most efficient way possible.
As is said in the profession of economics, the minimum wage is the "5th best poverty fighting tool that we have."
And for those who would like an appeal to authority, I present Christina Romer, the former chief economic advisor to President Obama, as quoted in the NYT, to boot
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/the-minimum-wage-employment-and-income-distribution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
For those who don't want to click, I give you the key paragraph:
"If a higher minimum wage were the only anti-poverty initiative available, I would support it. It helps some low-income workers, and the costs in terms of employment and inefficiency are likely small. But we could do so much better if we were willing to spend some money. A more generous earned-income tax credit would provide more support for the working poor and would be pro-business at the same time."
-
No, how would that be equitable? Why is equality the goal in the first place? I don't believe in equitable pay, there are people that deserve more pay than I do and some that deserve less. This idea that everyone is equal is cute and all, but then there is reality. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a concept I cannot process because of its inherit inequality in an attempt at equality.
You are twisting my words around. So I'm not going to engage in discussion with you on this any further.
-
You are twisting my words around. So I'm not going to engage in discussion with you on this any further.
That wasn't my intent. Please clarify, if I didn't interpret your question correctly that is my fault.
-
That wasn't my intent. Please clarify, if I didn't interpret your question correctly that is my fault.
well you started quoting Karl Marx in response to what I wrote. This is not a Marxist proposal. It is being floated by one of the most capitalist countries in the world....Switzerland.
In my opinion it is more equitable because it actually balances it back towards high earners...it gives them the same benefits the poor and non-working are already getting, but still leaves a safety net for those at the bottom.
-
I appreciate the clarity. Are you referencing the 1:12 initiative in Switzerland?
-
He s 100% correct, raise the minimum wage and these jobs will be automated away.
Quote from a letter from 600 economist to Obama, Boehner, Reid, Cantor, McConnell and Pelosi.
In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.
-
Quote from a letter from 600 economist to Obama, Boehner, Reid, Cantor, McConnell and Pelosi.
In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.
Battle of economists....over 500 oppose it, including nobel laureates.
What's interesting is that the economists that are for it sure got a lot of billing on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, NY Times, etc. Yet those that oppose it, well you have to find that on sites like Daily Caller, Fox, and just a few others.
Weird. ::)
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/13/over-500-economists-against-federal-minimum-wage-increase/
-
I appreciate the clarity. Are you referencing the 1:12 initiative in Switzerland?
No this is something else
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-16/inequality-fight-swiss-will-vote-on-minimum-income
-
Battle of economists....over 500 oppose it, including nobel laureates.
What's interesting is that the economists that are for it sure got a lot of billing on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, NY Times, etc. Yet those that oppose it, well you have to find that on sites like Daily Caller, Fox, and just a few others.
Weird. ::)
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/13/over-500-economists-against-federal-minimum-wage-increase/
O-M-G!!!
Guys, READ MY POST!!! It's like six posts above this!!
David Card is not on the "raise the minimum wage to $10.10" letter.
-
There are only a few labor economists on that "$10.10" letter. Not all economists are the same. Just as not all doctors are not all the same. Each has his own specialization. How much stock would you put into a letter signed by a bunch of dermatologists and pediatricians with respect to cardiovascular surgery? Well, that's fine, but my first question would be: Where are all of the cardiovascular surgeons?
Labor economists, the guys who devote thousands (yes, thousands) of hours researching things like the minimum wage at the highest level possible (peer-reviewed journals like Econometrica, AER, QJE, etc.) have not signed the letter.
Again, even David Card is not on that letter. That should tell you something.
-
O-M-G!!!
Guys, READ MY POST!!! It's like six posts above this!!
David Card is not on the "raise the minimum wage to $10.10" letter.
I did, I was responding to the other post about the validity of raising the minimum wage because 600 economists says so. Yup, and about that many say not to. What I find interesting is that those saying to raise it get a lot of buzz, ink space, time on the tube, etc. Those that don't....very little. But remember, the media isn't liberal.
-
There are only a few labor economists on that "$10.10" letter. Not all economists are the same. Just as not all doctors are not all the same. Each has his own specialization. How much stock would you put into a letter signed by a bunch of dermatologists and pediatricians with respect to cardiovascular surgery? Well, that's fine, but my first question would be: Where are all of the cardiovascular surgeons?
Labor economists, the guys who devote thousands (yes, thousands) of hours researching things like the minimum wage at the highest level possible (peer-reviewed journals like Econometrica, AER, QJE, etc.) have not signed the letter.
Again, even David Card is not on that letter. That should tell you something.
Yup, agree.
It's like when Obamacare came out and they couldn't wait to say the AMA supported it. Of course, actual surveys of doctors opposed it, but because the AMA is an organization, the media and the administration ran wild with telling people how great it is because even the AMA backs it. The little tidbit about how many doctors don't even belong to the AMA any more or the surveys after surveys done with actual doctors saying what a f'ing disaster it would be....totally ignored.
-
No this is something else
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-16/inequality-fight-swiss-will-vote-on-minimum-income
Well, this article does talk about the 1:12 initiative, so it is partially linked. The Swiss voted that down.
Fundamentally, paying someone a minimum amount whether they work or not is a recipe for disaster in my opinion. It will breed contempt from those that are footing the bill and those on the lower end of the scale will all too gladly say I'd rather get a check than work this crappy job. Once you keep adding more and more people to that list, you're going to have a hard time getting them off and actually doing something for themselves or the community if the time comes and the whole idea totally tanks, which I suspect it will.
-
Battle of economists....over 500 oppose it, including nobel laureates.
What's interesting is that the economists that are for it sure got a lot of billing on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, NY Times, etc. Yet those that oppose it, well you have to find that on sites like Daily Caller, Fox, and just a few others.
Weird. ::)
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/13/over-500-economists-against-federal-minimum-wage-increase/
I have no horse in this race but reading your post that implies that 600 economists pimp themselves on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, NY Times, etc. seems like those channels sure must have a lot of guest economists if they feature anywhere near 600!
-
I have no horse in this race but reading your post that implies that 600 economists pimp themselves on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, NY Times, etc. seems like those channels sure must have a lot of guest economists if they feature anywhere near 600!
That's not what I'm saying. The articles, stories, reports about 600 economists signing a letter in support of the minimum wage that POTUS is pushing is receiving a lot of coverage on CNN, CBS, NBC, PBS, etc. The flip side, over 500 economists saying they think it is bad news, has very few outlets carrying their views.
-
I'm not as smart as most of you guys on Scoop and my experience veered away from finance but when I look at raising the minimum wage I can't help but wonder if you are paying each person in a shift over $10 plus benefits and Social Security, etc. how many burgers do you have to move per hour to pay employees, insurance ,supplies, utilities and debt service before you turn a profit?
-
That's not what I'm saying. The articles, stories, reports about 600 economists signing a letter in support of the minimum wage that POTUS is pushing is receiving a lot of coverage on CNN, CBS, NBC, PBS, etc. The flip side, over 500 economists saying they think it is bad news, has very few outlets carrying their views.
And there are over 700 PhD'd scientists who have signed a letter saying that evolution is 100% false. The other side has come back and said "oh yea, well have a letter with 700 PhD'd scientists named Steve who say evolution is 100% correct."
My point of this is that surveys have already been done on economists and the vast majority say it's bad and is an at best inferior policy (EITC, among others, being superior) Look in Greg Mankiw's macroeconomics textbook (the most popular macro book in the world, BTW). It has a survey saying that 80% of economists agree that the minimum wage does more harm than good.
To be sure, I don't even think surveying ALL economists is relevant. If you are absolutely serious about the minimum wage at the highest academic level possible, then survey labor economists...that is, the guys who study the labor market. You will find that they do not like the wage hike. David Card.
Note: Chicos I quoted you, but am speaking in general
-
I'm not as smart as most of you guys on Scoop and my experience veered away from finance but when I look at raising the minimum wage I can't help but wonder if you are paying each person in a shift over $10 plus benefits and Social Security, etc. how many burgers do you have to move per hour to pay employees, insurance ,supplies, utilities and debt service before you turn a profit?
Exactly. Eventually you get this
(http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/1239000/ngbbs3f2e5546af963.jpg)
If the minimum wage continues to increase, the guy back there pouring the salt on the fries will also be replaced by a robot. Worse yet, there is a threshold where it will be more profitable to higher an almost all robot crew and the real kicker is that the engineers who are building these robots are not doing other important things like building clean air technology for the EU (sup Keefe). In other words, there is a high opportunity costs to have our engineers building burger-flipping robots.
Finally, we rob low-income people from valuable work experience. Many of these people went to public schools or dropped out of school altogether. Often times, the only way that they can prove themselves as a reliable person is to get a job, keep it, and advance. The advent of these machines, prompted by an arbitrary increase in the price of labor, precludes that possibility. You end up doing more harm than good.
I want to help the poor. They spend a bigger fraction of their income than rich people do. The aggregate economy could use spending. But the minimum wage is the most inefficient way to achieve that goal.
-
Exactly. Eventually you get this
(http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/1239000/ngbbs3f2e5546af963.jpg)
If the minimum wage continues to increase, the guy back there pouring the salt on the fries will also be replaced by a robot. Worse yet, there is a threshold where it will be more profitable to higher an almost all robot crew and the real kicker is that the engineers who are building these robots are not doing other important things like building clean air technology for the EU (sup Keefe). In other words, there is a high opportunity costs to have our engineers building burger-flipping robots.
Finally, we rob low-income people from valuable work experience. Many of these people went to public schools or dropped out of school altogether. Often times, the only way that they can prove themselves as a reliable person is to get a job, keep it, and advance. The advent of these machines, prompted by an arbitrary increase in the price of labor, precludes that possibility. You end up doing more harm than good.
I want to help the poor. They spend a bigger fraction of their income than rich people do. The aggregate economy could use spending. But the minimum wage is the most inefficient way to achieve that goal.
BINGO....but they just don't get it. Sigh
-
I would, for one, welcome our new robot overlords
You might even fall in love with them
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/375028/scitech/technology/robot-sex-workers-may-be-commonplace-by-2025-pew-research
All I ask, have them learn to drive a little better and avoid hitting the dog (allegedly)
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-street-view-car-hits-a-dog-in-chile-2014-8
-
Soon Bill Gates will be replaced by a robot!
(http://0.tqn.com/d/animatedtv/1/7/o/2/bender.jpg)
-
Exactly. Eventually you get this
(http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/1239000/ngbbs3f2e5546af963.jpg)
If the minimum wage continues to increase, the guy back there pouring the salt on the fries will also be replaced by a robot. Worse yet, there is a threshold where it will be more profitable to higher an almost all robot crew and the real kicker is that the engineers who are building these robots are not doing other important things like building clean air technology for the EU (sup Keefe). In other words, there is a high opportunity costs to have our engineers building burger-flipping robots.
Finally, we rob low-income people from valuable work experience. Many of these people went to public schools or dropped out of school altogether. Often times, the only way that they can prove themselves as a reliable person is to get a job, keep it, and advance. The advent of these machines, prompted by an arbitrary increase in the price of labor, precludes that possibility. You end up doing more harm than good.
I want to help the poor. They spend a bigger fraction of their income than rich people do. The aggregate economy could use spending. But the minimum wage is the most inefficient way to achieve that goal.
The machines have nothing to do with the minimum wage. They are in place because we have the technology to do this now.
-
You might even fall in love with them
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/375028/scitech/technology/robot-sex-workers-may-be-commonplace-by-2025-pew-research
All I ask, have them learn to drive a little better and avoid hitting the dog (allegedly)
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-street-view-car-hits-a-dog-in-chile-2014-8
Eh, if insurance companies or whomever is deciding whether a human or robot is the better driver, it all comes down to the bottom line. Robots/automated driving doesn't have to be 100% safe or accident-free, it just has to be better than humans.
-
"OBAMA!!!!" (He said, clenching his fists and shaking them at nobody in particular.)
-
You might even fall in love with them
https://www.youtube.com/v/gHwm8gUh7N0
-
My sophomore year (1979-80), my best friend wrote a paper for a class entitled: "Computers ... They Must Be Stopped!"
How prescient!