Push for $15 minimum wage

[buckshot24]

here is your modern labor force:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

never will happen they said a couple days ago. and then this thing lololol.


watch the whole vid before comment please.

That thing is awesome. I wonder though, do you think people are only good for manual labor? Why wouldn't being more efficient be a good thing for an economy?

 

[JSt0rm]

read the thread retard.

 

[Spungo]

Please stop making fake girl profiles to honey trap men. It doesn't look good for you, friend.

I don't think you understand what a honey trap or honey pot is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_trapping

Honey trapping is the private investigative practice of evaluating the fidelity of partners in marital and nonmarital romantic relationships. Investigators are employed by wives, husbands, and other partners usually when an illicit romantic affair is suspected of the "target", or subject of the investigation.[1] Occasionally the term may be used for the practice of creating an affair for the purpose of taking incriminating photos for use in blackmail.

So, based on that picture and OK Cupid, all men are feminine cuckolds today, because, like, that picture, plus OK Cupid.

If you have a suggestion on where to meet men, I'm all ears.

 

[buckshot24]

read the thread retard.

How insensitive of you. Do you have a problem with me calling Bruce Jenner, Bruce? Just wondering if you were a complete hypocrite or not.

Bottom line here is that there is always going to be room for human labor no matter how automated the economy becomes. It seems to me you think it would be better to employ 30 guys to dig a ditch rather than use excavating equipment. Why do you want people to waste their time doing things that can be done much more efficiently with machines?

 

[JSt0rm]

you could call him gary and I wouldnt care.

As for your argument we been there. Read the thread.

 

[JSt0rm]

I don't think you understand what a honey trap or honey pot is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_trapping



If you have a suggestion on where to meet men, I'm all ears.

You are something weird.

 

[OverVolt]

Yea, a gender bender.

 

[nickqt]

That thing is awesome. I wonder though, do you think people are only good for manual labor? Why wouldn't being more efficient be a good thing for an economy?

An efficient economy doesn't mean that everyone, the majority, or even a sizable minority, of the population benefits from the economic activity.

If one million of the richest people were able to effectively buy up 99.9% of the means of production, and run computers and robots, that economy benefits very, very few people. But it will be, almost by definition, very, very efficient. There will be opportunities for a few people to meet demand, but very, very few people will be able to, and it isn't just that everyone who can't is lazy or stupid.

That is the crux of the issue.

I absolutely believe that the more efficient the economy, the better. The problem is what you do with the unemployed, who aren't unemployed because they're lazy young bucks driving Cadillacs and eating T-Bone steaks, but because their labor isn't needed for that efficient economy.

This is where you get into topics such as negative income taxes. Some people believe that it is just inherently evil for people to not have a job, and think welfare is always abuse, whether it is being abused by the non-worker, or abuses the non-worker by instilling laziness.

But, an efficient economy doesn't need 7,000,000,000 workers. So, what then? And what now?

$15 minimum wages, living wages, etc., are just stopgaps to use right now. Eventually, automation and technology will free people from having to do a lot of the mindless, grueling labor that is still required today. I don't have a problem with that, but that means a lot of free time for a whole lot of people who just aren't needed.

Then what? Pay them to dig a ditch and fill it back up because being able to eat and live indoors without having a job is inherently bad? Sounds awfully Keynesian to me.

An intelligent species should be able to constructively discuss the future, and how civilization should work given particular technological advances. A conversation is either geared towards solutions, or criticism, typically based on whether the arguer is looking forward, or simply looking at today and assuming that today will last forever.

 

[JSt0rm]

An efficient economy doesn't mean that everyone, the majority, or even a sizable minority, of the population benefits from the economic activity.

If one million of the richest people were able to effectively buy up 99.9% of the means of production, and run computers and robots, that economy benefits very, very few people. But it will be, almost by definition, very, very efficient. There will be opportunities for a few people to meet demand, but very, very few people will be able to, and it isn't just that everyone who can't is lazy or stupid.

That is the crux of the issue.

I absolutely believe that the more efficient the economy, the better. The problem is what you do with the unemployed, who aren't unemployed because they're lazy young bucks driving Cadillacs and eating T-Bone steaks, but because their labor isn't needed for that efficient economy.

This is where you get into topics such as negative income taxes. Some people believe that it is just inherently evil for people to not have a job, and think welfare is always abuse, whether it is being abused by the non-worker, or abuses the non-worker by instilling laziness.

But, an efficient economy doesn't need 7,000,000,000 workers. So, what then? And what now?

$15 minimum wages, living wages, etc., are just stopgaps to use right now. Eventually, automation and technology will free people from having to do a lot of the mindless, grueling labor that is still required today. I don't have a problem with that, but that means a lot of free time for a whole lot of people who just aren't needed.

Then what? Pay them to dig a ditch and fill it back up because being able to eat and live indoors without having a job is inherently bad? Sounds awfully Keynesian to me.

An intelligent species should be able to constructively discuss the future, and how civilization should work given particular technological advances. A conversation is either geared towards solutions, or criticism, typically based on whether the arguer is looking forward, or simply looking at today and assuming that today will last forever.

 

[buckshot24]

First, thank you for that thoughtful reply, much better than calling me a retard.

An efficient economy doesn't mean that everyone, the majority, or even a sizable minority, of the population benefits from the economic activity.

If one million of the richest people were able to effectively buy up 99.9% of the means of production, and run computers and robots, that economy benefits very, very few people. But it will be, almost by definition, very, very efficient. There will be opportunities for a few people to meet demand, but very, very few people will be able to, and it isn't just that everyone who can't is lazy or stupid.

That is the crux of the issue.

I really don't think this type of economy would be efficient, at all, but this isn't really likely anyway in fact, I think it would be impossible. For what purpose would they be producing all of these things? To run other automated factories that don't ultimately produce anything?

 

[nickqt]

First, thank you for that thoughtful reply, much better than calling me a retard.
I really don't think this type of economy would be efficient, at all, but this isn't really likely anyway in fact, I think it would be impossible. For what purpose would they be producing all of these things? To run other automated factories that don't ultimately produce anything?

Right. Supply needs demand. Demand needs supply.

Ultimately, an economy is just the movement of money, through the population, buying and selling to satisfy their wants and needs.

If the majority of the population has no money, they aren't buying stuff. And the rich alone aren't each buying enough shirts, shoes, desks, washing machines, etc., to keep an economy afloat by themselves, to make up for the vast majority not purchasing those items. You only need so many socks and dish washers as an individual. Not to mention, the rich usually purchase "nicer", higher quality things that often don't need replaced as much as the things purchased by someone on a smaller budget.

There's always a line of what the best tax rates are, the best mix of spending/purchasing, finance, etc, and the most efficient economy maximizes everything, which results in a lot of money circulating. If money circulating through the economy is, in fact the economy, the more, the better, as long as there are actual goods and services being purchased. If it's just finance and piles of money being pushed around, back and forth, then its just a bubble that will provide early investors massive ROIs, and often, late investors and the public massive debts.

So, if you tax everyone at 100%, or reduce purchasing to $0.00, money isn't moving and no one is hiring, no one is producing, and no one is getting paid. Credit is frozen, and no one wants to risk their own well-being getting it all going again...which is why Keynesian stimulus spending is what gets an economy out of the freezer, and economies that go through austerity generally stagnate much, much longer.

I think that there is already a glut of labor. If you look back to the conventional wisdom of the day 60-70-80 years ago, "progress", technology, etc, was all going to give the worker a nice 30 hour workweek with 5 weeks of paid vacation, and a decent, middle class life.

So, for example, if you increased wages/salaries today, so that 30 hours a week was full-time, you instantly reduce the labor glut, and increase hiring to make up for the 10 hours of labor lost with the new 30 hour FTE, as people go home after 30 hours and others are required to perform that same labor.

It requires higher wages/salaries...but again, you get people working, you give them more free time to do stuff they want to do (perhaps innovate and start a business), and more people have money to spend on stuff...essentially giving the companies "forced" to pay more, more revenue in return as more people have money to spend than before.

So, cut the full time work week to 30 hours, build in 5 weeks mandatory paid vacation, and more people are working than before, and more money moves around the economy, creating growth.

That is just one of many ways that you can increase employment and wages without destroying capitalism and taxing the JobCreators™ so much that they all move to Somalia. Personally, I think a 30 hour FTE week would be a great way to increase employment and create growth, all while encouraging people to take more risks and create more businesses, which then...wait for it...creates jobs.

But again, even this is a stopgap, and doesn't solve the future situation where there isn't enough jobs for everyone who wants one, even with 30 hour weeks for 48 weeks of the year.

Then what?

 

[Perknose]

Living in today's gynocentric society is frustrating. I know I'm not alone here, but I don't want to date a guy who earns significantly less money than me.

[...]

What self respecting woman would marry any of these losers who major in communications and work at starbucks? We don't want to date losers. We want real men with real jobs that pay real income and are capable of supporting a family. I'm not expecting a free ride. I just want a man capable of contributing something. A husband should be an asset rather than a liability.

So . . . what you're saying is that these men are not Spungo Worthy?

 

[SMOGZINN]

I really don't think this type of economy would be efficient, at all, but this isn't really likely anyway in fact, I think it would be impossible. For what purpose would they be producing all of these things? To run other automated factories that don't ultimately produce anything?

You hit the nail on the head. This is the failure of Capitalism in general. They are producing products that people want, people just can't pay for those because our entire economy is based on labor, something that we are diligently working on removing. We need to base our economy on something else if we want it to survive.

Right. Supply needs demand. Demand needs supply.

The demand is there, it is the ability to pay that our hypothetical economy is missing. This is not a problem of supply and demand, but a breakdown of the fundamental paradigm of the economy. A labor based economy can not survive when labor is nearly free.

And we are going to keep replacing (human) labor with automation. We are going to continue to become more and more efficient with our labor because this is what Capitalism demands. Each individual company is competing with each other company primarily on their ability to be more efficient. So while as a whole it is self defeating, any company that does not hold on that cutting edge will lose out to those that do. It is a giant game of chicken with the entire economy as the stake and no one is going to flinch. We will run the entire economy off the cliff trying to be just a little more efficient than the next person.

Because while people need to do labor, in order to make money, in order to pay for my product, I shouldn't have to be the one to pay them!

But again, even this is a stopgap, and doesn't solve the future situation where there isn't enough jobs for everyone who wants one, even with 30 hour weeks for 48 weeks of the year.

Then what?

Then you lower the hours to 20 for 45 weeks. Then 15 for 43. Eventually all this free time will hopefully allow society to develop a new form of value system.
Either that or we all blow each other up.

 

[buckshot24]

You hit the nail on the head. This is the failure of Capitalism in general. They are producing products that people want, people just can't pay for those because our entire economy is based on labor, something that we are diligently working on removing. We need to base our economy on something else if we want it to survive.

This scenario hasn't happened so how can you say this is a failure of capitalism?

There will always be room for human labor.

 

[buckshot24]

Right. Supply needs demand. Demand needs supply.

Ultimately, an economy is just the movement of money, through the population, buying and selling to satisfy their wants and needs.

If the majority of the population has no money, they aren't buying stuff. And the rich alone aren't each buying enough shirts, shoes, desks, washing machines, etc., to keep an economy afloat by themselves, to make up for the vast majority not purchasing those items. You only need so many socks and dish washers as an individual. Not to mention, the rich usually purchase "nicer", higher quality things that often don't need replaced as much as the things purchased by someone on a smaller budget.

Right and this is why this type of economy will never happen. The worst way (IMO) to avoid getting close to it would be to put in further regulation where money and influence becomes more influential.

So, if you tax everyone at 100%, or reduce purchasing to $0.00, money isn't moving and no one is hiring, no one is producing, and no one is getting paid. Credit is frozen, and no one wants to risk their own well-being getting it all going again...which is why Keynesian stimulus spending is what gets an economy out of the freezer, and economies that go through austerity generally stagnate much, much longer.

If you tax 100% no amount of stimulus would do anything to get things moving.

I think that there is already a glut of labor. If you look back to the conventional wisdom of the day 60-70-80 years ago, "progress", technology, etc, was all going to give the worker a nice 30 hour workweek with 5 weeks of paid vacation, and a decent, middle class life.

There is a glut of unskilled labor.

So, for example, if you increased wages/salaries today, so that 30 hours a week was full-time, you instantly reduce the labor glut, and increase hiring to make up for the 10 hours of labor lost with the new 30 hour FTE, as people go home after 30 hours and others are required to perform that same labor.

If those 30 hours aren't worth the wages being mandated then employers aren't going to bring them on. I think you'd do the exact opposite since more people are going to want those jobs and employers are going to be able to provide fewer of them. What will happen, if anything, is the people working the 30 hours are going to be asked to do more to make up the difference.

It requires higher wages/salaries...but again, you get people working, you give them more free time to do stuff they want to do (perhaps innovate and start a business), and more people have money to spend on stuff...essentially giving the companies "forced" to pay more, more revenue in return as more people have money to spend than before.

This is why I think not digging ditches by hand where machines can do the job much more efficiently is a good thing. They don't need to break their bodies doing something AND they have more time to do something else.

So, cut the full time work week to 30 hours, build in 5 weeks mandatory paid vacation, and more people are working than before, and more money moves around the economy, creating growth.

Who eats the extra labor cost? Why would they do so?

 

[glenn1]

So, cut the full time work week to 30 hours, build in 5 weeks mandatory paid vacation, and more people are working than before, and more money moves around the economy, creating growth.

That is just one of many ways that you can increase employment and wages without destroying capitalism and taxing the JobCreators™ so much that they all move to Somalia. Personally, I think a 30 hour FTE week would be a great way to increase employment and create growth, all while encouraging people to take more risks and create more businesses, which then...wait for it...creates jobs.

But again, even this is a stopgap, and doesn't solve the future situation where there isn't enough jobs for everyone who wants one, even with 30 hour weeks for 48 weeks of the year.

Then what?

Why would reducing the work week help anything? The 80/20 rule will still apply and artificially limiting the hours of the most skilled, productive, and value-creating employees isn't going to help the company, economy, or society in general. If anything we'd want to use those less productive employees for lower value-add tasks so the more productive employees could work even more on what they do well.

Think about it - if you were having a hugely complex brain tumor operated on, would you want the procedure to be done by the most experienced neurosurgeon with the best outcomes, or would you prefer to "create economic growth" by instead using two med school students who've never done the surgery just so we can 'spread the wealth'? Or think in terms of politics, would you rather replace a single Obama with multiple Trumps, Ted Cruzes, Marco Rubios, etc. all doing no more than 30 hours a week in the Oval Office just so we could increase employment?

 

[SMOGZINN]

This scenario hasn't happened so how can you say this is a failure of capitalism?

I should have said a failure point of capitalism. If this should happen, capitalism would fail.

There will always be room for human labor.

I'm not so confidant of that. But even assuming you are right, it does not matter if that labor has little to no value due to too little of it being needed and too many people to do it.

 

[buckshot24]

I should have said a failure point of capitalism. If this should happen, capitalism would fail.

Ah ok, that makes more sense.

 

[werepossum]

let's not forget our elite workforces of the 1970's; no doubt without them the USA would not be where it is today.

But please, let's continue to rail on how millennials/hipsters look.

Well, yeah, but after the Grateful Dead concert was over we took a shower and went back to work without demanding that anybody support us.

I ran with some serious druggies/hippies and at no time did any of them say that anyone owed them anything just for gracing the world with their presence. They accepted being poor as the price for emphasizing music, drugs, hang-gliding, etc. above careers.

 

[Spungo]

Why would reducing the work week help anything? The 80/20 rule will still apply and artificially limiting the hours of the most skilled, productive, and value-creating employees isn't going to help the company, economy, or society in general. If anything we'd want to use those less productive employees for lower value-add tasks so the more productive employees could work even more on what they do well.

Let's follow the logic train and see where it leads.
-Due to our accumulation of capital and efficient economies, first world countries can afford more welfare and social programs than any other point in history. We get 12 free years of education! That's amazing and wonderful.
-It's politically impossible to destroy the welfare state for as long as the welfare state can be supported by a strong and efficient economy.
-Try to ruin the economy by limiting the amount of hours people can work and limit the efficiency of new technologies. This would drive up the cost of living and make a welfare state impossible to sustain.
-Welfare state collapses.

Mission accomplished :thumbsup:

If anything, we should encourage people to work as much as possible. People should not be forced to work ridiculous hours, but it should be something that is respected. Those people who work more and produce more drive the cost of living down. Our food production is so high that obesity is killing more people than starvation. I love it.

 

[JSt0rm]

Well, yeah, but after the Grateful Dead concert was over we took a shower and went back to work without demanding that anybody support us.

I ran with some serious druggies/hippies and at no time did any of them say that anyone owed them anything just for gracing the world with their presence. They accepted being poor as the price for emphasizing music, drugs, hang-gliding, etc. above careers.

You will hallucinate on your death bed that the baby boomers were an over all positive on society when all markers point to the opposite.

 

[Ackmed]

Going along with the $15 push, Seattle is trying to make more labor changes. "Livable schedules". No more closing and then opening the next day. 11 hours between schedules, among other changes.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...chedules-employers-cry-foul.html?intcmp=hpbt3

 

[JSt0rm]

good. In my industry we have whats called forced call. If you don't get a 8 hour break between shifts you get double time for that next shift.

 

[Ackmed]

I like it as well, my wife often times gets less than 11 hours between. Especially during the holidays.

We already have this in place where I work. Example, Monday after shift we got told to be at work at 0645 instead of 0700 on Tuesday. We have a policy that if we do not get 48 hours notice, we get 1.5x pay for the entire shift. I also worked 15 minutes past the 8 hour day (since we came in 15 minutes early), we have a rule if we work at least 5 minutes past the shift we get paid for 4 extra hours. Unless we work say 3 hours, then it is 1.5x pay. Whichever benefits us the most. So Tuesday I got overtime pay for the entire day, and an extra 4 hours of regular pay. A pretty good chunk of change. All for coming in 15 minutes early. Not bad, our union is good in that regard.

 

[heymrdj]

good. In my industry we have whats called forced call. If you don't get a 8 hour break between shifts you get double time for that next shift.

Yeah i suffered through that during college. What little free time I had doing 18 credit hours and working 2 jobs was destroyed by it because they could call me in at any time up to 1 hour before any of the 3 shift starts. So I could never go anywhere because that would be the time they fricken called me in!