$15/hour min wage - opposition op-ed on Slate.com

[s0me0nesmind1]

Oh noes!


I also call bullshit! I won't give right wing propaganda the time of day so if you want to copy and paste the whole article, feel free but before you do, don't even bother doing that if the author didn't bother to cite any of his claims (such as the ones you listed).

Hahahahahahahaha

Oh why am I not surprised? You're too pathetic to even click the link and read the article so I summarize it. Oh, summarizing it isn't enough for you. You want FACTS. You want SOURCES. You know, those things that the articles has right next to every assertion of pay? Yeah, those.

Make up your mind douche. It's getting quite sad.

 

[ivwshane]

Hahahahahahahaha

Oh why am I not surprised? You're too pathetic to even click the link and read the article so I summarize it. Oh, summarizing it isn't enough for you. You want FACTS. You want SOURCES. You know, those things that the articles has right next to every assertion of pay? Yeah, those.

Make up your mind douche. It's getting quite sad.

Yeah I know, I'm a crazy guy because I vet my sources and require facts and citations when people are pushing a particular position. You on the other hand, obviously, don't give a shit where you get your information from or whether or not it's based on fact.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Someone has trouble reading it seems. That's not surprising when it's someone from the left. You tend to have a hard time when things like facts and statistics.

Do you need my commentary for everything? God forbid I just post something informative for you to learn. I feel like I owe you a copy of hooked on phonics or something.

So let me spell it out for you: As the article states, If we were to pay $15/hr to fast food workers, you would be paying fast food workers over or within the ballpark of:
Dental Assistant
Emergency Medical Technician
Radio DJ
Biologists
Mechanics
Biochemists
Teachers
Geologists
Roofers
Bank Tellers
Police Officers
Fire Fighters
Professional Chefs (lol)
Economists

Now then, is a fast wood worker's skills close to those skills? Because your requested salary is more than many of those

So you're saying that EMT's, Biologists, Geologists, Police Officers, Fire Fighters and Economists make, on average, $15/hr or less? Care to site a reference that supports this claim?


Brian

 

[glenn1]

So you're saying that EMT's, Biologists, Geologists, Police Officers, Fire Fighters and Economists make, on average, $15/hr or less? Care to site a reference that supports this claim?


Brian

Who fucking cares? It's not like anyone who advocates for $15 min wage is actually going to hire someone with a minimum wage skillset. Like I said in the OP, they just want some random "rich" person (that isn't them) to pay it since "they don't need the money."

 

[ivwshane]

So you're saying that EMT's, Biologists, Geologists, Police Officers, Fire Fighters and Economists make, on average, $15/hr or less? Care to site a reference that supports this claim?


Brian

Of course he's not going to give you a reference for his claim, he believes it's true, therefore it is true. Facts are for liberals, silly!

 

[ivwshane]

Who fucking cares? It's not like anyone who advocates for $15 min wage is actually going to hire someone with a minimum wage skillset. Like I said in the OP, they just want some random "rich" person (that isn't them) to pay it since "they don't need the money."

Yep! Pro higher minimum wage supporters are just rich hating anti Americans!

You've guys gone from losing on the facts to now just spouting nonsense.

 

[glenn1]

Yep! Pro higher minimum wage supporters are just rich hating anti Americans!

You've guys gone from losing on the facts to now just spouting nonsense.

So when can I look forward to the news story of you hiring unskilled people at $15/hour? You'll have quite a lot of press attention when you do.

Oh, let me guess - it's one of those famous "collective action problems" again which prevent you from it.

 

[OverVolt]

$15 is way too high. Matching the old peak of $10.15 or something like that is fair.

They don't realize the number of people who work in the $15 range who would take those jobs in a heartbeat because they are easier.

 

[Brian Stirling]

$15 is way too high. Matching the old peak of $10.15 or something like that is fair.

They don't realize the number of people who work in the $15 range who would take those jobs in a heartbeat because they are easier.

So, hows the cost of living in SF?

What would be a minimum living wage in SF assuming moderate skills?

How much do YOU make?


Brian

 

[DucatiMonster696]

So, hows the cost of living in SF?

What would be a minimum living wage in SF assuming moderate skills?

How much do YOU make?


Brian

Are you talking about a minimum wage or a "living wage"? The two are different in many ways. Especially in terms of the type labor and skills expected from certain jobs which one would expect to provide a "living wage" versus those which anyone can do and thus are by default minimum wage jobs.

As for the cost of living in SF it's not getting any cheaper. If one were to raise the minimum wage to try to turn it into a "living wage" in SF for minimum wage tier jobs then you'd see that cost of living skyrocket faster than it is already rising.

As well witnessing large swaths of people either losing their jobs. Either due to businesses shutting down, or the high wage costs justifying the acceleration automation, or outsourcing, or people just being locked out of the job market because they don't have to skills to justify paying them a higher wage that is far and above what they can bring to the table in terms of skills or experience.

 

[ivwshane]

So when can I look forward to the news story of you hiring unskilled people at $15/hour? You'll have quite a lot of press attention when you do.

Oh, let me guess - it's one of those famous "collective action problems" again which prevent you from it.

Ah, so now all minimum wage makers are unskilled laborers now. I guess it's easy to defend your position when you demonize those you are rallying against.

 

[brycejones]

I'll do so. Thanks for the opportunity.

-John

Still working on this?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Of course he's not going to give you a reference for his claim, he believes it's true, therefore it is true. Facts are for liberals, silly!

Do you ever contribute anything worthy to a debate/conversation?

So you're saying that

EMT's - According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average salary in 2012 was $31,020 per year, and $14.91 an hour. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $20,180

EMT

biologists, auto mechanics, biochemists, teachers, geologists, roofers and bank tellers. - Source on the article 404'd (at least for me). However here is a quick link showing the lower end being somewhat close ~$37k for the lower 10%. You know, the amounts people START with much like a minimum wage.
Biologist
Geologist
Auto Mechanic - Lower than $15/hr
Teacher
Roofers - Lower than $15/hr
Bank Teller - Lower than $15/hr

Police Officers - The average starting salaries of new police officers ranged from $26,600 to $49,500, with larger jurisdictions generally paying higher wages,
Police Officers,

Fire Fighters - Those in the lowest 10 percent of all earners reported wages of up to $10.81 per hour or $22,480 per year, while the lower 25 percentile earned up to $15.24 per hour or $31,690 per year.
Fire Fighters

and Economists - As the article states, "I know you might not care about the economics of this thing. After all, you aren’t economists (but with $15 an hour you’d almost be in the same income bracket)"

Economists

make, on average, $15/hr or less? Care to site a reference that supports this claim?

Brian

/Facepalm, I already said it. I understand you guys are lazy, but come the fuck on? Read the article. It has sources at every single part.

And no, I didn't say, "on average", nor did I say every single one of them. Why would you compare AVERAGE salaries to MINIMUM wages? The point was simply that making the minimum wage $15/hr will put you over what many of those professions are being paid.

I said $15/hr was "over or within the ballpark of" what the professions made. W

It's like you're children that we have to spoon feed everything to.

 

[glenn1]

Ah, so now all minimum wage makers are unskilled laborers now. I guess it's easy to defend your position when you demonize those you are rallying against.

How is "demonizing"? Seems to me that if you're claiming to skilled labor it's either a skill completely unrelated to the job you're in thus not giving you pricing power for your wage, or the "skill" in question has no economic value since the job pays the minimum legally required. I guess you could have a guy with a PhD in astrophysics that moonlights as a min-wage tour guide at the Science Museum since it's a passion, but examples like that are hardly applicable to the topic at hand since it's not like that's his sole income source anyway.

 

[senseamp]

I don't necessarily see it as a problem that minimum wage increase will eliminate some low skill jobs that can be automated. Elevators used to have a person operating them too. It's a net gain to society when jobs that can be automated are. It creates incentive for people to increase their skills so they can be employed to do other jobs.

 

[Atreus21]

Aside from calling people names, you haven't really offered anything to back $15/hour being unsustainable.

What rate would you consider unsustainable?

 

[Atreus21]

I don't necessarily see it as a problem that minimum wage increase will eliminate some low skill jobs that can be automated. Elevators used to have a person operating them too. It's a net gain to society when jobs that can be automated are. It creates incentive for people to increase their skills so they can be employed to do other jobs.

wait what?

 

[fskimospy]

wait what?

More automation is almost always better than less, as generally machines can do tasks more efficiently than people can.

 

[Atreus21]

More automation is almost always better than less, as generally machines can do tasks more efficiently than people can.

...right, which generally is heralded by liberals as another means by which the poor are disenfranchised. Now, senseamp sounds like a cold-hearted conservative, expecting people to adapt. It's confusing. I thought liberals didn't concede that minimum wage had any affect on unemployment, outsourcing, automation, etc.

 

[umbrella39]

Hmm... OP still hasn't updated the topic title to reflect the truth yet.

/shock

 

[fskimospy]

...right, which generally is heralded by liberals as another means by which the poor are disenfranchised. Now, senseamp sounds like a cold-hearted conservative, expecting people to adapt. It's confusing. I thought liberals didn't concede that minimum wage had any affect on unemployment, outsourcing, automation, etc.

Studies on the minimum wage generally show pretty small effects on unemployment, this is true. That's simply the state of the economics literature.

Embracing automation has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism though, where did you get that idea? Liberalism is fundamentally about allowing people to reach their greatest potential, and relegating tasks that machines can do better to those machines is a great way to help. It increases the sum total of material wellbeing in the world.

One of the side effects of greater automation is that it helps concentrate wealth in the hands of those who own the machines, but that's pretty easily solved through domestic policy.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

More automation is almost always better than less, as generally machines can do tasks more efficiently than people can.

I don't necessarily see it as a problem that minimum wage increase will eliminate some low skill jobs that can be automated. Elevators used to have a person operating them too. It's a net gain to society when jobs that can be automated are. It creates incentive for people to increase their skills so they can be employed to do other jobs.

Atreus said "Wait what??" because you liberals are always crying about the low-skill jobs going away. WHERE WILL THESE PEOPLE WORK?!?!??!

No seriously, where will they work? Look at other countries. They have governments that are completely opposed to getting rid of stupid jobs for this very reason (not that I support it).

I was in Brazil last year. They hire people to do the roadways to clear the grass. I saw the following:
1 Guy doing the edging
1 Guy Holding the Left side of a net for said edger
1 Guy Holding the Right side of a net for said edger
3 People to do edging :biggrin: The point being to stop little grass pieces from hitting people's car that drove by.

Also, in every gas station there were the following
12+ Workers outside. When you pump your gas you have:
1 Person to pump your gas
1 Person to take your payment
1 Person to clean your windshields.... AT EACH PUMP! So there were a bunch of people sitting around doing nothing the majority of the time

Went into some stores at the Airport... There were 8 PEOPLE in the store working as sales associate. That means sitting at every corner of the room and inbetween standing still... because no one was in the store but me. That doesn't include people working in the back, at the register, etc...

 

[Atreus21]

Studies on the minimum wage generally show pretty small effects on unemployment, this is true. That's simply the state of the economics literature.

mmmI've seen contradictory studies.

Embracing automation has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism though, where did you get that idea? Liberalism is fundamentally about allowing people to reach their greatest potential, and relegating tasks that machines can do better to those machines is a great way to help. It increases the sum total of material wellbeing in the world.

It's just an impression I got: Liberals tend to view increased automation as threatening to wages and workers, the same way they view outsourcing. Woolfe was on here awhile back talking about how automation will inevitably lead to widespread unemployment which would require an equally widespread social safety net.

In terms of economics, you must admit you tend to lean more to the right than your other liberal colleagues on this board.

 

[First]

mmmI've seen contradictory studies.

It's just an impression I got: Liberals tend to view increased automation as threatening to wages and workers, the same way they view outsourcing. Woolfe was on here awhile back talking about how automation will inevitably lead to widespread unemployment which would require an equally widespread social safety net.

In terms of economics, you must admit you tend to lean more to the right than your other liberal colleagues on this board.

I think your worldview of ideology is a little bit over-generalized. I don't find very many liberals here in CA, particularly in bastions like Silicon Valley or SF, that would honestly argue that because automation might disenfranchise some low-income people that suddenly we should actively work against the idea of technological progress. It's become inevitable, at least in the minds of millennial liberals.

 

[werepossum]

Oh noes!


I also call bullshit! I won't give right wing propaganda the time of day so if you want to copy and paste the whole article, feel free but before you do, don't even bother doing that if the author didn't bother to cite any of his claims (such as the ones you listed).

No great loss to right wing propaganda since you would probably report the time of day as the color twelve. Frankly, anything to which you don't respond has dodged a big ol' bullet of foamy stupid.