That’s very dependent on where you live; around here (Texas), some of the skilled trades are getting killed by those cheaper Mexicans you mentioned upthread. Builders are often willing to hire those guys to do work that would otherwise be done by an apprentice or journeyman, leaving the actual licensed guys either out in the cold, or working for undocumented worker wages.
I can’t blame people for having the high paying white collar job as their ideal, but I have to wonder where the guidance counselors and their parents are… if a kid’s a solid C student, and is going to have to go to some third-tier university or community college, then maybe those adults ought to suggest some sort of trade instead of feeding the beast by shooing them off to college. IMO, that’s as much a part of the problem as the kids being starry eyed and stupid. Probably more so, as the adults should know better.
And… I was totally reminded of the Johnny Cash song “One Piece at a Time” when I read your one-man auto factory tale.
That is terrible logic. Labor is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. It doesn’t matter if a person can’t earn enough to pay their arbitrary expenses. You think someone who is retired, a teenager, someone working a few extra hours a month to accumulate more wealth all need the same “living wage” as a single mother of 7?
Wal-Mart is not responsible for one’s bills. The individual is.
Well, shit. I wasn’t advocating wasting money just because its burning a hole in your pocket. I agree that if you want to engage in long term deficit spending there had better be a pretty good ROI associated with that spending. But for stimulative spending, quickly getting the money into the hands of people that are going to spend it is probably more important than squeezing out an extra couple of basis points from a project.
Depends on how bad the economy is to the brink.
The guy digging the holes can spend it on buorbon and porn. But, thats not exactly whats going on during a recession now is it? The people with money to burn are sitting on it. If they were spending it, there probably wouldn’t be a recession.
And it is a far less effective stimulus to simply try to reallocate your savings into some other guy’s spending because it will contract your spending as well (even if the other guy is going to increase spending more than you will increase savings). DEFICIT spending is stimulative. taxing and spending is not as effective.
If the trend is not reversing, then there is no impact to making the minimum wage higher. There is no logic to the assertion that we must keep MW low in order to keep workers. Better to give people more money now while the jobs are still available than when robots take over
When people have more money, they have more options. To the guy trying to support his family by working 3 jobs, he has no options. But if he can work one job and raise a family, maybe he takes night and weekend classes. Maybe he learns a trade, or invests the extra money. NO ONE is a winner when nearly 100% of the money you make goes to surviving, except the corporations.
What was your solution?
Let’s dispel with the notion (heh heh) that companies are doing workers a favor by having them. They hire people because they need them. That need won’t change with a higher MW, they’re still selling the same things, still manufacturing the same things. They’re not going to fire people just because. However, with that said, I fully expect some to try to cut costs and make do with less because they don’t want their profits to shrink with more expensive labor costs, but that is buttressed by increased consumer purchasing power. You’ve heard of “trickle down”, which is a stupid plan and doesn’t work, but “trickle up”, where we pay people more so they can buy more, actually does work.
And let’s face it, the part about “those left with the few MW type jobs remaining” is just a red herring. You said it yourself, companies will automate with little regard to how it affects employees. No changes to MW will stop them from doing that, so best to give them the money now when those jobs still remain
Can you see the logic in “If we’re going to have automation anyway, then we should give people the opportunity to earn more money while its still possible”?
An old boss once told me that when someone asks what the impact of a budget cut will be, never answer “nothing.” That is admitting you have fat in your organization. I doubt small business owners have a lot of fat. If they could cut out a job, they will. And I agree that if they can automate out a job, they will.
Now, paying more for workers might force them to become more efficient (which could possibly lead to some layoffs) but that is good for the economy. It is easy to be lazy and inefficient with cheap labor, let’s force them to up their game and help the workers also.
[QUOTE=YogSothoth]
If the trend is not reversing, then there is no impact to making the minimum wage higher. There is no logic to the assertion that we must keep MW low in order to keep workers. Better to give people more money now while the jobs are still available than when robots take over
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say keeping MW where it is will reverse the trend. What I said was that raising it up by a large amount (and going from $10/hour to $15/hour is a pretty big jump) will increase the trend.
And how will this help them when most are out of work because we have priced their labor out of the market and companies have responded with more automation? I asked you how it would help and you are tossing platitudes at me. Again…how does it help…IN THE REAL WORLD?
Basic living stipend disconnected to work at all.
Ok, I’ll just glide by the strawman here and push on.
The trend is certainly already happening. It can, however, be accelerated…and accelerating it now before there is a use for that labor will lead to even larger disconnects than we have atm. I think that’s a bad idea, but what the hell.
Can you see the logic that if we push companies to increase the pace of automation that it’s going to lead to more disconnects than we already have? No? Then we aren’t on the same page on this.
We build iphones in China. The profit margin on iphones would support much higher wages than what they pay in China but why should they do that when there is so little resistance to making them in Foxconn facilities in China.
This used to be the “conservative” answer to welfare and as liberals started moving towards it, conservatives started moving away. Its like they think that anything that liberals would accept must be too generous.
I find a lot of merit in the notion of a universal basic income. But, people don’t really understand it and think it will be abused.
And I disagree, for the reasons of a trickle up economic plan. They will adjust, sure, but suddenly they will find, as Henry Ford did, that paying people a decent wage will allow them to afford your products
As I said, in the real world, I don’t believe higher labor costs will lead to mass unemployment. I believe that when labor costs more (ie. higher MW), consumers have more buying power and businesses will flourish. It may take some time to get to an equilibrium, but it will happen.
Sounds like welfare. I’m not entirely opposed to that, I think there are some European countries that have transitioned to that model recently. How would you answer typical conservative retorts like “Giving people money will create dependency and not motivate people to work and produce”?
What makes you think the acceleration of automation will outpace the economic boon experienced by raising people out of poverty?
There are considerations to changing any economic variable. For people like me who believe that $15 is a good amount, the number comes from wage vs. inflation, cost of living vs. current minimum wage. Some of us believe that it is more important to give people a living wage and if the economy takes a hit, so be it. Some of us believe that given the cost of living and inflation, not to mention the increase of salaries at the top of the food chain, $15 is completely bearable. If you understood that, then you can easily see for yourself why not $100. This isn’t a game of slippery slope, one can advocate for $15 without advocating for more. Personally, I think its a fair amount, I think a living wage is important, I think that salaries among the top has gone up much more, and undeservingly so, than salaries at the bottom, and I think the economy can easily bear $15. That’s why $15 and not $100
I’m totally for a federal minimum wage tied to inflation and the salaries of the people at the very top. In fact, I’d go further. I think any CEO of a company of a certain size is required to boost employee compensation by a proportionate amount to their own salary or bonus increase. Fuck those people who get pay raises while slashing jobs
In the real world self serve kiosks and robotics are expanding. Want to see some labor displacement? Wait till self driving trucks are on the road. In the real world manufacturing and service jobs have moved to China, India, etc. In the real world we have millions of illegal immigrants undercutting labor. All of these are known consequences of pricing legal, American labor out of the market.
Labor, like any other commodity, is governed by supply and demand.
Fifteen is greater than 10 and 10 is greater than 5 which is greater than 1.
If fifteen is going to hurt employment, than so is 10, so is 5, and so is 1. The same arguments that make 15 dollars an hour a bad minimum wage apply to a 10 dollar minimum wage. If you accept that line of reasoning any minimum wage is a bad idea.
