(12-21-2017 11:49 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 01:58 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  California's $15 Minimum Wage Could Backfire and Cost the State 400,000 Jobs, According to EPI Study

Quote:A newly released longitudinal study on the effects of the rising minimum wage in California reveals it negatively affects low-income workers.

“pproximately 400,000 jobs would be lost” by 2022 “as a consequence” of California gradually imposing the first statewide $15 minimum wage, according to a study from the Employment Policies Institute, a conservative nonprofit research organization. “This estimate is conservative, as it measures the impact of California’s state minimum wage but does not account for job loss in counties that had insufficient data.”

The law will disproportionately harm the very people that lawmakers claim they want to help the most: low-skilled workers. “[N]early half of the observed job loss occurs in food service and retail industries,” the study concludes.

Great...a study by some sort of interest group with an axe to grind. By the way, charity navigator has some sort of warning about this group.

California is doing great.

What axe is that?

Can you in anyway dispute what they posit?

The obvious?

(12-21-2017 06:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  $15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.
This is not difficult.
We as a society have to choose between two options.
Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

How about the employer pays the employee what his production is worth, and we the taxpayers supplement those wages if inadequate to provide food and shelter? That's fair for the employer, his/her consumers, the employee, and taxpayers.

This.

(12-21-2017 06:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  $15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.
This is not difficult.
We as a society have to choose between two options.
Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

How about the employer pays the employee what his production is worth, and we the taxpayers supplement those wages if inadequate to provide food and shelter? That's fair for the employer, his/her consumers, the employee, and taxpayers.

How socialist of you comrade!

(12-22-2017 12:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 06:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  $15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.
This is not difficult.
We as a society have to choose between two options.
Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

How about the employer pays the employee what his production is worth, and we the taxpayers supplement those wages if inadequate to provide food and shelter? That's fair for the employer, his/her consumers, the employee, and taxpayers.

How socialist of you comrade!

Kap, here's the dilemma - the above subsidizes to a degree those that are too stupid/lazy, whatever, that are at least working but have no skills or work ethic to warrant wages above minimum/near minimum. I mean, how much per hour is cooking French fries worth??

Do I really like that idea....nah, but short of turning them into the streets, I'm not sure I have a better answer. And I'd rather do the above than just allow them to sit on the porch and wait for that monthly check.

(12-22-2017 12:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 06:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  $15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.
This is not difficult.
We as a society have to choose between two options.
Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

How about the employer pays the employee what his production is worth, and we the taxpayers supplement those wages if inadequate to provide food and shelter? That's fair for the employer, his/her consumers, the employee, and taxpayers.

How socialist of you comrade!

Well he is desperate to make the USA more like Europe. He sure does love him some VAT/consumption tax(es) and camouflaged single-payer healthcare (Bismarck).

Well, here we are crying over the poor, unskilled labor in California and yet California is giving the middle finger to these same people by WASTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON NOT ONLY ILLEGAL BUT ALSO CRIMINAL ILLEGALS IN SANCTUARY CITIES.

Until California gets their head out of the S's I say screw them. They got into this mess let them go the common sense route and stop their nonsense. Protecting criminals that ARE illegals is the epitome of STUUUPPPIDDDIIITYY!

(12-22-2017 12:20 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Well, here we are crying over the poor, unskilled labor in California and yet California is giving the middle finger to these same people by WASTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON NOT ONLY ILLEGAL BUT ALSO CRIMINAL ILLEGALS IN SANCTUARY CITIES.

Until California gets their head out of the S's I say screw them. They got into this mess let them go the common sense route and stop their nonsense. Protecting criminals that ARE illegals is the epitome of STUUUPPPIDDDIIITYY!

.....but, but it feels right.

(12-22-2017 12:24 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 12:20 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Well, here we are crying over the poor, unskilled labor in California and yet California is giving the middle finger to these same people by WASTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON NOT ONLY ILLEGAL BUT ALSO CRIMINAL ILLEGALS IN SANCTUARY CITIES.

Until California gets their head out of the S's I say screw them. They got into this mess let them go the common sense route and stop their nonsense. Protecting criminals that ARE illegals is the epitome of STUUUPPPIDDDIIITYY!

.....but, but it feels right.

I asked Tommy and he said KY does that.

(12-21-2017 06:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  $15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.

This is not difficult.

We as a society have to choose between two options.

Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

Its actually very difficult. The problem is employers have alternatives these days. If an unskilled burger flipper suddenly cost $15 an hour---the new robotic grillers and self-serve kiosks make alot more sense than living breathing employees. So, 75% of the jobs go away--and a small supervisory crew that manages/services/cleans the machinery is all thats required. Robots were not cost efficient at $8-10 and hour--but they make more sense as the wages rise. The reality is the jobs that unskilled labor do are exactly the kind of mundane simple repetetive tasks that robotics are well suited for.

You better have specialized skills these days if you want to earn a good wage. The old blue collar manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas...now whats left will in danger of displacement by robots/smart machines. Silicon Valley is the most likely place to see this trend start to gain traction as it now has high wages that are increasing and is located at the epicenter of smart technology.

Jobs are going to go no matter what. Spinmeisters said $15 minimum wage would bring the self-order machine to McDonalds. No those are already showing up in Missouri where the minimum wage is $7.65. You build a new building, it's easier to incorporate the new technology.

But technology costs tend to drop. We could cut the minimum back to $3.35 that I made long ago and eventually it would be more profitable to replace a person with a machine.

A $400 tablet has more processing power, storage, and capability than a $10,000 1988 computer had.

The sole impact of wages is setting the price point where automation becomes more profitable than living breathing humans.

Most job losses in the US go back to automation not free trade.

The unskilled jobs that aren't currently viable with automation need to be performed. That's a critical flaw in the losers need to go get skills argument. If they do how do you get those tasks done? The answer is the you hire undocumented workers. Try vegetable or fruit farming without them. Try making a living putting a roof on a house, you will hire illegals.

It's just a matter of time in an unregulated economy before AI begins replacing doctors, lawyers, accountants, computer programmers, and pharmacists.

(12-22-2017 12:18 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 12:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 06:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  $15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.
This is not difficult.
We as a society have to choose between two options.
Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

How about the employer pays the employee what his production is worth, and we the taxpayers supplement those wages if inadequate to provide food and shelter? That's fair for the employer, his/her consumers, the employee, and taxpayers.

How socialist of you comrade!

Kap, here's the dilemma - the above subsidizes to a degree those that are too stupid/lazy, whatever, that are at least working but have no skills or work ethic to warrant wages above minimum/near minimum. I mean, how much per hour is cooking French fries worth??

Do I really like that idea....nah, but short of turning them into the streets, I'm not sure I have a better answer. And I'd rather do the above than just allow them to sit on the porch and wait for that monthly check.

That was the crux of Clinton's workfare program. It worked pretty well in reducing the welfare rolls and helped many folks move out of poverty by allowing them to continue to work while still collecting benefits and move up the ladder eventually weaning them off the public dole. Of course King Zed dismantled those programs for some reason I cant understand.

(12-22-2017 02:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 06:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  $15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.

This is not difficult.

We as a society have to choose between two options.

Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

Its actually very difficult. The problem is employers have alternatives these days. If an unskilled burger flipper suddenly cost $15 an hour---the new robotic grillers and self-serve kiosks make alot more sense than living breathing employees. So, 75% of the jobs go away--and a small supervisory crew that manages/services/cleans the machinery is all thats required. Robots were not cost efficient at $8-10 and hour--but they make more sense as the wages rise. The reality is the jobs that unskilled labor do are exactly the kind of mundane simple repetetive tasks that robotics are well suited for.

You better have specialized skills these days if you want to earn a good wage. The old blue collar manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas...now whats left will in danger of displacement by robots/smart machines. Silicon Valley is the most likely place to see this trend start to gain traction as it now has high wages that are increasing and is located at the epicenter of smart technology.

Jobs are going to go no matter what. Spinmeisters said $15 minimum wage would bring the self-order machine to McDonalds. No those are already showing up in Missouri where the minimum wage is $7.65. You build a new building, it's easier to incorporate the new technology.

Actually, this very board told you what would happen when the $15 per hour push started happening. We said that that would lead to automation, not just for the $15 per hour locations, but for those positions everywhere. And the reason is economy of scale. When you are forced to pay $15 per hour for manual labor thats worth $7, you open the door to get technology adopted. Once the door opens, the economy of scale starts kicking in, and now its cost effective to simply go with automation in more places, even those where the wages are still low.

(12-22-2017 03:06 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 02:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 06:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  $15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.

This is not difficult.

We as a society have to choose between two options.

Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

Its actually very difficult. The problem is employers have alternatives these days. If an unskilled burger flipper suddenly cost $15 an hour---the new robotic grillers and self-serve kiosks make alot more sense than living breathing employees. So, 75% of the jobs go away--and a small supervisory crew that manages/services/cleans the machinery is all thats required. Robots were not cost efficient at $8-10 and hour--but they make more sense as the wages rise. The reality is the jobs that unskilled labor do are exactly the kind of mundane simple repetetive tasks that robotics are well suited for.

You better have specialized skills these days if you want to earn a good wage. The old blue collar manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas...now whats left will in danger of displacement by robots/smart machines. Silicon Valley is the most likely place to see this trend start to gain traction as it now has high wages that are increasing and is located at the epicenter of smart technology.

Jobs are going to go no matter what. Spinmeisters said $15 minimum wage would bring the self-order machine to McDonalds. No those are already showing up in Missouri where the minimum wage is $7.65. You build a new building, it's easier to incorporate the new technology.

Actually, this very board told you what would happen when the $15 per hour push started happening. We said that that would lead to automation, not just for the $15 per hour locations, but for those positions everywhere. And the reason is economy of scale. When you are forced to pay $15 per hour for manual labor thats worth $7, you open the door to get technology adopted. Once the door opens, the economy of scale starts kicking in, and now its cost effective to simply go with automation in more places, even those where the wages are still low.

Yep, econ 101. Come to think of it, they should start teaching econ in elementary school as it's painfully obvious lots of folks have no clue as to how it actually works.

(12-21-2017 05:16 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:49 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 01:58 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  California's $15 Minimum Wage Could Backfire and Cost the State 400,000 Jobs, According to EPI Study

Quote:A newly released longitudinal study on the effects of the rising minimum wage in California reveals it negatively affects low-income workers.

“[A]pproximately 400,000 jobs would be lost” by 2022 “as a consequence” of California gradually imposing the first statewide $15 minimum wage, according to a study from the Employment Policies Institute, a conservative nonprofit research organization. “This estimate is conservative, as it measures the impact of California’s state minimum wage but does not account for job loss in counties that had insufficient data.”

The law will disproportionately harm the very people that lawmakers claim they want to help the most: low-skilled workers. “[N]early half of the observed job loss occurs in food service and retail industries,” the study concludes.

Great...a study by some sort of interest group with an axe to grind. By the way, charity navigator has some sort of warning about this group.

California is doing great.

Failing infrastructure, lack of water, high poverty, 1/5 of all the kids in foster care in the US are in California (60k), tax burdens that are causing people and businesses to leave, overbearing regulations...

Only positive I see is the innovation of Silicon Valley.

How do you figure "doing great"? Most people that I talk to are looking to get out.

I'm not trying to flame you, I just don't get your optimism for California.

Bump.

hmm...Why is it that every time a Liberal is questioned to explain their comments, they either go silent or begin to move the goal posts?

(12-26-2017 03:10 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  hmm...Why is it that every time a Liberal is questioned to explain their comments, they either go silent or begin to move the goal posts?

Have to get updated talking points. That takes some time.

(12-22-2017 02:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 06:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  $15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.

This is not difficult.

We as a society have to choose between two options.

Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

Its actually very difficult. The problem is employers have alternatives these days. If an unskilled burger flipper suddenly cost $15 an hour---the new robotic grillers and self-serve kiosks make alot more sense than living breathing employees. So, 75% of the jobs go away--and a small supervisory crew that manages/services/cleans the machinery is all thats required. Robots were not cost efficient at $8-10 and hour--but they make more sense as the wages rise. The reality is the jobs that unskilled labor do are exactly the kind of mundane simple repetetive tasks that robotics are well suited for.

You better have specialized skills these days if you want to earn a good wage. The old blue collar manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas...now whats left will in danger of displacement by robots/smart machines. Silicon Valley is the most likely place to see this trend start to gain traction as it now has high wages that are increasing and is located at the epicenter of smart technology.

Jobs are going to go no matter what. Spinmeisters said $15 minimum wage would bring the self-order machine to McDonalds. No those are already showing up in Missouri where the minimum wage is $7.65. You build a new building, it's easier to incorporate the new technology.

But technology costs tend to drop. We could cut the minimum back to $3.35 that I made long ago and eventually it would be more profitable to replace a person with a machine.

A $400 tablet has more processing power, storage, and capability than a $10,000 1988 computer had.

The sole impact of wages is setting the price point where automation becomes more profitable than living breathing humans.

Most job losses in the US go back to automation not free trade.

The unskilled jobs that aren't currently viable with automation need to be performed. That's a critical flaw in the losers need to go get skills argument. If they do how do you get those tasks done? The answer is the you hire undocumented workers. Try vegetable or fruit farming without them. Try making a living putting a roof on a house, you will hire illegals.

It's just a matter of time in an unregulated economy before AI begins replacing doctors, lawyers, accountants, computer programmers, and pharmacists.

Id agree with most everything here. One other thing to also consider--increasing the minimun wage typically results in compression wage increases over time. If skilled labor is getting $30hr and unskilled is at $10hr--bumping unskilled to $15 pushes demands for skilled labor to $35hr becasue the prices for everything has risen to as companies pass those costs on to the end consumers. Remember, business never absorb costs--they simply pass costs on to consumers or they go out of business because their product/service simply isnt profitable enough to sustain itself.

So then end result of the cycle is skilled labor bumps up to $35hr. Supervisors start looking around for a raise and before you know it--everyone is making the equivalent of $5 an hour more. Now the companies pass all those new expenses on the end customer as well as the original unskilled labor $5 raise. In the end, the unskilled labor's $5 raise will end up making no difference in his relative standing in the economic landscape because inflation ate up the raise (sometimes he actually ends up behind if inflation is aggressive enough).

The reality is those crappy jobs arent meant to be the jobs you raise your family with--besides--nobody forces anyone to work at McDonalds or for a landscaping company. Those kind of jobs are meant to be extra jobs, teen starting jobs, or simple jobs for retired people looking to augment retirement. That said---if your good at one of those crappy jobs and stay with it very long--you'll become an assistant manager...or if you are a self starter---you eventually wont be a lawn maintenance worker---you'll buy a mower and start your own landscaping company.

(12-26-2017 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 02:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 06:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  $15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.

This is not difficult.

We as a society have to choose between two options.

Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

Its actually very difficult. The problem is employers have alternatives these days. If an unskilled burger flipper suddenly cost $15 an hour---the new robotic grillers and self-serve kiosks make alot more sense than living breathing employees. So, 75% of the jobs go away--and a small supervisory crew that manages/services/cleans the machinery is all thats required. Robots were not cost efficient at $8-10 and hour--but they make more sense as the wages rise. The reality is the jobs that unskilled labor do are exactly the kind of mundane simple repetetive tasks that robotics are well suited for.

You better have specialized skills these days if you want to earn a good wage. The old blue collar manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas...now whats left will in danger of displacement by robots/smart machines. Silicon Valley is the most likely place to see this trend start to gain traction as it now has high wages that are increasing and is located at the epicenter of smart technology.

Jobs are going to go no matter what. Spinmeisters said $15 minimum wage would bring the self-order machine to McDonalds. No those are already showing up in Missouri where the minimum wage is $7.65. You build a new building, it's easier to incorporate the new technology.

But technology costs tend to drop. We could cut the minimum back to $3.35 that I made long ago and eventually it would be more profitable to replace a person with a machine.

A $400 tablet has more processing power, storage, and capability than a $10,000 1988 computer had.

The sole impact of wages is setting the price point where automation becomes more profitable than living breathing humans.

Most job losses in the US go back to automation not free trade.

The unskilled jobs that aren't currently viable with automation need to be performed. That's a critical flaw in the losers need to go get skills argument. If they do how do you get those tasks done? The answer is the you hire undocumented workers. Try vegetable or fruit farming without them. Try making a living putting a roof on a house, you will hire illegals.

It's just a matter of time in an unregulated economy before AI begins replacing doctors, lawyers, accountants, computer programmers, and pharmacists.

Id agree with most everything here. One other thing to also consider--increasing the minimun wage typically results in compression wage increases over time. If skilled labor is getting $30hr and unskilled is at $10hr--bumping unskilled to $15 pushes demands for skilled labor to $35hr becasue the prices for everything has risen to as companies pass those costs on to the end consumers. Remember, business never absorb costs--they simply pass costs on to consumers or they go out of business because their product/service simply isnt profitable enough to sustain itself.

So then end result of the cycle is skilled labor bumps up to $35hr. Supervisors start looking around for a raise and before you know it--everyone is making the equivalent of $5 an hour more. Now the companies pass all those new expenses on the end customer as well as the original unskilled labor $5 raise. In the end, the unskilled labor's $5 raise will end up making no difference in his relative standing in the economic landscape because inflation ate up the raise (sometimes he actually ends up behind if inflation is aggressive enough).

The reality is those crappy jobs arent meant to be the jobs you raise your family with--besides--nobody forces anyone to work at McDonalds or for a landscaping company. Those kind of jobs are meant to be extra jobs, teen starting jobs, or simple jobs for retired people looking to augment retirement. That said---if your good at one of those crappy jobs and stay with it very long--you'll become an assistant manager...or if you are a self starter---you eventually wont be a lawn maintenance worker---you'll buy a mower and start your own landscaping company.

Those starter jobs are the jobs now.
What they may have been meant to be doesn't really matter because few of those jobs are filled by teens.
Fact of the matter is if you own a fast food joint and have a choice between a 30 year old and an 18 year old you likely hire the 30 year old because the 18 year old is likely going to be a pain to schedule.

I have a friend who owns a lawn care business and he's had exactly one worker in 20 years buy his own mower and start a competing business and had one other who took side jobs and used my friend's equipment.

What they were meant to be doesn't really matter because unlike the entry jobs of 50 years ago, you don't learn the skills needed to move up. I know a lady who is now manager of a McDonalds and the only reason the owner sent her off for the training was because she got pissed at being passed over and took an entry level job at Taco Bell (at age 38) and a year and half later the local McDonald's franchisee called her up and promised if she worked as assistant manager again for a year he'd send her for the training.

Ronald Reagan once spoke at an event honoring FDR. He was asked why he would speak there since he was trying to undo the New Deal. He responded I'm for the New Deal, it's the Great Society I want to repeal.

LBJ's plan did knock poverty down and we've stayed at the levels initially achieved.

The Great Society was an improvement but not the solution and it has had numerous flaws (most notably it punishes marriage and can leave the working poor worse off if they gain more hours or earn a raise). Nixon's contribution SSI for kids is out of date. Most of what it was designed to do is now done by other programs. Schools have to provide counseling for mental health issues, make accommodations for disabilities, Medicaid and CHiP now address the need to receive medical treatment and drugs. So now it's just a revenue source if your kids have problems.

Brazil has reformed their welfare system so mothers receive more money if their kids are in school, more if they are doing well, more if they get all their vaccinations and wellness visits on schedule. It rewards positive behavior rather than rewarding kids for having anti-social behavior.

But back to Reagan's point.

FDR's programs were built around work.
Those Euro programs Bernie and his fans love so much often have a work element (that never seems to come up). In many European countries you do get 75% or so of your salary on unemployment. Left out of the fawning over that is that you are often required to be in job training or school or on-site applying for work or doing some of the basic office tasks like answering phones and filing.

I'm for helping people out but it certainly didn't sit well with me that my wife had to return to work two weeks after our oldest was born and a week after our youngest was born when a person on assistance doesn't have to start seeking work for two years. Both sides of that equation anger me. No paid maternity leave means women are less likely to want to have children and it raises the risk of abortion and the idea that the non-working get a better deal on that particular aspect is infuriating.

(12-27-2017 01:19 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 02:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 06:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  $15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.

This is not difficult.

We as a society have to choose between two options.

Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

Its actually very difficult. The problem is employers have alternatives these days. If an unskilled burger flipper suddenly cost $15 an hour---the new robotic grillers and self-serve kiosks make alot more sense than living breathing employees. So, 75% of the jobs go away--and a small supervisory crew that manages/services/cleans the machinery is all thats required. Robots were not cost efficient at $8-10 and hour--but they make more sense as the wages rise. The reality is the jobs that unskilled labor do are exactly the kind of mundane simple repetetive tasks that robotics are well suited for.

You better have specialized skills these days if you want to earn a good wage. The old blue collar manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas...now whats left will in danger of displacement by robots/smart machines. Silicon Valley is the most likely place to see this trend start to gain traction as it now has high wages that are increasing and is located at the epicenter of smart technology.

Jobs are going to go no matter what. Spinmeisters said $15 minimum wage would bring the self-order machine to McDonalds. No those are already showing up in Missouri where the minimum wage is $7.65. You build a new building, it's easier to incorporate the new technology.

But technology costs tend to drop. We could cut the minimum back to $3.35 that I made long ago and eventually it would be more profitable to replace a person with a machine.

A $400 tablet has more processing power, storage, and capability than a $10,000 1988 computer had.

The sole impact of wages is setting the price point where automation becomes more profitable than living breathing humans.

Most job losses in the US go back to automation not free trade.

The unskilled jobs that aren't currently viable with automation need to be performed. That's a critical flaw in the losers need to go get skills argument. If they do how do you get those tasks done? The answer is the you hire undocumented workers. Try vegetable or fruit farming without them. Try making a living putting a roof on a house, you will hire illegals.

It's just a matter of time in an unregulated economy before AI begins replacing doctors, lawyers, accountants, computer programmers, and pharmacists.

Id agree with most everything here. One other thing to also consider--increasing the minimun wage typically results in compression wage increases over time. If skilled labor is getting $30hr and unskilled is at $10hr--bumping unskilled to $15 pushes demands for skilled labor to $35hr becasue the prices for everything has risen to as companies pass those costs on to the end consumers. Remember, business never absorb costs--they simply pass costs on to consumers or they go out of business because their product/service simply isnt profitable enough to sustain itself.

So then end result of the cycle is skilled labor bumps up to $35hr. Supervisors start looking around for a raise and before you know it--everyone is making the equivalent of $5 an hour more. Now the companies pass all those new expenses on the end customer as well as the original unskilled labor $5 raise. In the end, the unskilled labor's $5 raise will end up making no difference in his relative standing in the economic landscape because inflation ate up the raise (sometimes he actually ends up behind if inflation is aggressive enough).

The reality is those crappy jobs arent meant to be the jobs you raise your family with--besides--nobody forces anyone to work at McDonalds or for a landscaping company. Those kind of jobs are meant to be extra jobs, teen starting jobs, or simple jobs for retired people looking to augment retirement. That said---if your good at one of those crappy jobs and stay with it very long--you'll become an assistant manager...or if you are a self starter---you eventually wont be a lawn maintenance worker---you'll buy a mower and start your own landscaping company.

Those starter jobs are the jobs now.
What they may have been meant to be doesn't really matter because few of those jobs are filled by teens.
Fact of the matter is if you own a fast food joint and have a choice between a 30 year old and an 18 year old you likely hire the 30 year old because the 18 year old is likely going to be a pain to schedule.

I have a friend who owns a lawn care business and he's had exactly one worker in 20 years buy his own mower and start a competing business and had one other who took side jobs and used my friend's equipment.

What they were meant to be doesn't really matter because unlike the entry jobs of 50 years ago, you don't learn the skills needed to move up. I know a lady who is now manager of a McDonalds and the only reason the owner sent her off for the training was because she got pissed at being passed over and took an entry level job at Taco Bell (at age 38) and a year and half later the local McDonald's franchisee called her up and promised if she worked as assistant manager again for a year he'd send her for the training.

You make a great point about those starter jobs being "the jobs"

I live in a tourist economy. It is very hard to make a living here supporting a family lworking a normal job as there are just not that many here . You either have to own your own business or be a state/local/hospital employee.

Everything else is just service/retail which dont give you any meaningful skills to progress

(12-24-2017 05:54 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 05:16 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:49 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 01:58 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  California's $15 Minimum Wage Could Backfire and Cost the State 400,000 Jobs, According to EPI Study

Quote:A newly released longitudinal study on the effects of the rising minimum wage in California reveals it negatively affects low-income workers.

“[A]pproximately 400,000 jobs would be lost” by 2022 “as a consequence” of California gradually imposing the first statewide $15 minimum wage, according to a study from the Employment Policies Institute, a conservative nonprofit research organization. “This estimate is conservative, as it measures the impact of California’s state minimum wage but does not account for job loss in counties that had insufficient data.”

The law will disproportionately harm the very people that lawmakers claim they want to help the most: low-skilled workers. “[N]early half of the observed job loss occurs in food service and retail industries,” the study concludes.

Great...a study by some sort of interest group with an axe to grind. By the way, charity navigator has some sort of warning about this group.

California is doing great.

Failing infrastructure, lack of water, high poverty, 1/5 of all the kids in foster care in the US are in California (60k), tax burdens that are causing people and businesses to leave, overbearing regulations...

Only positive I see is the innovation of Silicon Valley.

How do you figure "doing great"? Most people that I talk to are looking to get out.

I'm not trying to flame you, I just don't get your optimism for California.

Bump.

Bump for Tom