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

[fskimospy]

Thank you eskimospy, for fully addressing it.

Your numbers appear to be quite solid, while I've none in my corner. Until I find a better source, backed by numbers, I will surrender this position. If anyone here in P&N would like to take up the argument, I welcome you to try...

You should know that this "part time employment" argument is frequented among right wing circles. Perhaps that is why DucatiMonster696 spoke of it, and why I tried to back it up. It seems obvious, doesn't it? Add additional costs to the 30 hour work week, and employers will cut those employees in favor of part time. But the numbers don't pan out? I'd love to know how it turned out that way.

Until someone gives a better opposing explanation than you gave us, this is the last you'll hear of it from me... and next time I see it mentioned I will challenge them to support the claim.

Sometimes I forget that you are far more willing to change your mind here than a lot of people, myself included. I really respect that.

 

[Atreus21]

Wait, you didn't want to compare two cities in the U.S. because they were different but now you're willing to compare many countries?

Well, I suppose you have me there. But one would think ivwshane would accept the comparison, considering it was his idea in the first place in this thread.

 

[ivwshane]

Well, I suppose you have me there. But one would think ivwshane would accept the comparison, considering it was his idea in the first place in this thread.

What? I never brought up Seattle or any city for that matter. I just supplied the type of data you said you would need to change your mind.

 

[Atreus21]

What? I never brought up Seattle or any city for that matter. I just supplied the type of data you said you would need to change your mind.

Page 2. Top post.

If I showed you a study of two similar cities, geographically close to each other where one raised minimum wage and the other didn't and no decernable difference was observed between the two, would you continue with your claim?

 

[ivwshane]

Which was a response to this post

Yes, because wages in one city which has a high relative cost of living is clearly applicable to the rest of the country.

Page 2. Top post.

So I'm still not sure why Seattle wasn't good enough for you and to non high cost of living cities in the US also weren't good enough for you but some city/country in Europe meets your requirements.

Are you now back tracking on your original agreement?

Yes, I probably would, because you're still comparing similar situations. If people really think a $15 minimum wage is the same in Jackson, MS as it is Seattle, they're silly.

 

[Atreus21]

Which was a response to this post

I didn't mean that you were the first to bring up Seattle. I meant that you were the first to bring up a comparison between two entities, one with and the other without minimum wage.

So I'm still not sure why Seattle wasn't good enough for you and to non high cost of living cities in the US also weren't good enough for you but some city/country in Europe meets your requirements.

Are you now back tracking on your original agreement?

I already admitted to Eskimo that I was. Further I concede the merit of the study you linked me to. But other studies contradict that finding.

http://americanactionforum.org/rese...unemployment-and-reduced-job-creation-in-2013

The variety amongst state minimum wages provides a natural experiment from which to learn. Nineteen states enforced minimum wages above the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour and thirty-one had minimum wages equal to $7.25 in 2013.[1] This paper uses recent data to analyze the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment among the 50 states. As shown in the following charts, the analysis finds that in 2013, a $1 increase in the minimum wage was associated with a 1.48 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate, a 0.18 percentage point decrease in the net job growth rate, a 4.67 percentage point increase in the teenage unemployment rate, and a 4.01 percentage point decrease in the teenage net job growth rate. Consequently, high state minimum wages increased unemployment by 747,700 workers and reduced job growth by 83,300 jobs.

Looking back through my posts in this thread, my original objection was that federal minimum wage laws are mistaken because they take zero account for cost of living. $15 in NYC isn't the same thing as $15 in New Orleans. Somehow that morphed into an argument about whether it causes unemployment or not.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Why You Don't Deserve $15/Hour

Says it all....

 

[ivwshane]

Why You Don't Deserve $15/Hour

Says it all....

The link alone says it all. The fact that you simply regurgitated the link with zero commentary says even more.

Hint: you are an idiot😉

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The link alone says it all. The fact that you simply regurgitated the link with zero commentary says even more.

Hint: you are an idiot😉

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 😉

 

[theeedude]

You will never have a rightwing rag publish something similar addressed at CEOs like "$15 Million per year, you don't deserve it."
Even when their more successful foreign competitor CEOs are making one tenth the money (Ford $23M vs Toyota $2M as an example).

Instead it's all about pitting middle class against the poor while the rich take the benefits of both of their labors and increased productivity.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You will never have a rightwing rag publish something similar addressed at CEOs like "$15 Million per year, you don't deserve it."
Even when their more successful foreign competitor CEOs are making one tenth the money (Ford $23M vs Toyota $2M as an example).

Instead it's all about pitting middle class against the poor while the rich take the benefits of both of their labors and increased productivity.

No one says CEOs and the cream of the crop rich aren't vastly overpaid here in the US. No one is doubting that. These are 2 different topics. Apples to Oranges.

That doesn't mean crash the economy because retards think $15/hr is in any way, shape, or form sustainable for your average business. (Please for the love of god do not quote X city/state [that has a vastly higher cost of living] has $y minimum wage so I don't have to pimp slap you)

 

[theeedude]

No one says CEOs and the cream of the crop rich aren't vastly overpaid here in the US. No one is doubting that. These are 2 different topics. Apples to Oranges.

That doesn't mean crash the economy because retards think $15/hr is in any way, shape, or form sustainable for your average business. (Please for the love of god do not quote X city/state [that has a vastly higher cost of living] has $y minimum wage so I don't have to pimp slap you)

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

 

[nickqt]

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 😉

And now those jobs command higher salaries.

Economics are fun.

 

[theeedude]

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 😉

For a better perspective: $15/hr is approximately $30K per year.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

And now those jobs command higher salaries.

Economics are fun.

That's the problem.

YOU do not command higher salaries.

The MARKET commands higher salaries.

And if anything, right now they are commanding that the pay for fast food industry go DOWN... Or else your not going to have a fast food industry because it will be entirely employed by robots.

If we could all just command higher salaries that would just be dandy wouldn't it? World doesn't work that way bubba.

 

[theeedude]

Market doesn't work in a vacuum.

 

[soundforbjt]

That's the problem.

YOU do not command higher salaries.

The MARKET commands higher salaries.

And if anything, right now they are commanding that the pay for fast food industry go DOWN... Or else your not going to have a fast food industry because it will be entirely employed by robots.

If we could all just command higher salaries that would just be dandy wouldn't it? World doesn't work that way bubba.

Can't wait to see the dishwashing robots and the bathroom cleaning robots, etc. I want one...

 

[michal1980]

You will never have a rightwing rag publish something similar addressed at CEOs like "$15 Million per year, you don't deserve it."
Even when their more successful foreign competitor CEOs are making one tenth the money (Ford $23M vs Toyota $2M as an example).

Instead it's all about pitting middle class against the poor while the rich take the benefits of both of their labors and increased productivity.

cant stay on topic can you.

 

[theeedude]

I find it amusing that the right is arguing we shouldn't raise minimum wage because doing so may stimulate technological progress and increased automation.

 

[Exophase]

I find it amusing that the right is arguing we shouldn't raise minimum wage because doing so may stimulate technological progress and increased automation.

As far as I know I'm the only one who said that in this thread, unless I missed something.

I am not "the right" and I don't think improvements in automation are a bad thing nor would I like to see it happen less. But it's undeniable that such a thing would result in lost jobs for humans and I have no confidence that all those jobs are waiting to be replaced with something else. This is something that we as a society need to be prepared for - being less dependant on employment.

 

[First]

That's the problem.

YOU do not command higher salaries.

The MARKET commands higher salaries.

And if anything, right now they are commanding that the pay for fast food industry go DOWN... Or else your not going to have a fast food industry because it will be entirely employed by robots.

If we could all just command higher salaries that would just be dandy wouldn't it? World doesn't work that way bubba.

Markets are diverse, as large as billions or as small or one or two people.

So no, you (human peeples) can indeed command higher salaries. It has proven quite successful. See unions.

 

[nickqt]

As far as I know I'm the only one who said that in this thread, unless I missed something.

I am not "the right" and I don't think improvements in automation are a bad thing nor would I like to see it happen less. But it's undeniable that such a thing would result in lost jobs for humans and I have no confidence that all those jobs are waiting to be replaced with something else. This is something that we as a society need to be prepared for - being less dependant on employment.

The thing is, this isn't a new idea. The concept that automation and technology would replace labor has been in existence since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

The thing is, the world population is rising. Even if it slowed down, we're already at 7B. We don't have enough work for 7B people, otherwise there would be no unemployment, leaving aside children, elderly and disabled.

So, how do we cope with this? I'd argue let's advance technology and automation as much as possible, because most labor can be done through automation and technology better and more efficiently than with humans.

Humans, though, have one attribute that automation and technology cannot compete with, which is imagination/ingenuity/invention.

Free up as many human beings to do the things they like. Some people will sit at home watching television, playing games, sleeping, whatever. But we don't need every single human being working anyway.

But, for many people, doing something is better than doing nothing, especially if it is because you enjoy doing it. So, allowing people to free themselves from menial BS work would be a great way to get more innovation/imagination/invention.

Unfortunately, if the ultra wealthy do everything in their power to protect their wealth and power, while making it necessary for everyone else to do anything just to survive, well, you end up with human automatons just trying to make it day-to-day. Serfdom existed before, and it can exist again.

Economics is how a society decides to focus itself in production. Rather than worshiping wealth as the ultimate goal, we can increase overall wealth through advanced technology. It doesn't require everyone to be similarly wealthy/poor, but it is a policy where society is devoted to advancement, and not just attainment/protection of the status quo.

There is no bigger defender of the status quo then the people who are already wealthy and powerful. The media isn't libruul. It's a defender of the status quo. Politicians are rarely conservative or libruul, they are usually defenders of the status quo. Some politicians may pay lip service to "change", or populism, socialism, libertarianism, but that is to get money and votes so that they can join the members of the wealth and powerful, and then maintain the status quo.

For me, Libertarianism is the ultimate political philosophy, economic and social. I'd be a libertarian, if we had molecular fabricators and could travel in space freely. Since I'm trapped here on earth with everyone else, I'm an economic liberal, because I believe we should be devoting almost all of our resources to technology, science, invention, automation, etc, so that we can all live 100% free from every other human being. To do that, to devote our society to advancement, we need to free up as much human imagination/ingenuity/invention from menial labor, which technology does. Luddites are people who want to go backwards because they had it better "before". I think everyone will be better off if we go forward.

Here is an interesting read for anyone who likes reading interesting things.

Four Futures

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/

In this article, four different possible futures are imagined.

I believe that the status quo that is being set up and maintained is "hierarchy and abundance: rentism". I am against that future.

 

[ivwshane]

Market doesn't work in a vacuum.

Actually the markets do work in a vacuum, the problem for him is that people don't work in a vacuum. It's why right wing economic policies don't work nor have they ever worked.

 

[theeedude]

As far as I know I'm the only one who said that in this thread, unless I missed something.

I am not "the right" and I don't think improvements in automation are a bad thing nor would I like to see it happen less. But it's undeniable that such a thing would result in lost jobs for humans and I have no confidence that all those jobs are waiting to be replaced with something else. This is something that we as a society need to be prepared for - being less dependant on employment.

Nope, you aren't alone, sorry.

And if anything, right now they are commanding that the pay for fast food industry go DOWN... Or else your not going to have a fast food industry because it will be entirely employed by robots.

 

[ivwshane]

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 😉

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).