Should the Federal Government Be Telling Companies What They Have To Pay Employees?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
Yes new jobs will be created by increased automation, but they won't benefit most of the people who lost their jobs due to that automation because they won't have the skills. We're moving into a time in which a significant percentage of the population will be permanently unemployable. Increasing the minimum wage will just accelerate that.
I agree to some extent. So as I said before, you build a strong social safety net, including a UBI. You also then shorten the full time work week. This will create more job openings for the unskilled labor force, and improve their work life balance, including the time they have for family obligations and training opportunities to develop skills.

In the past, retraining programs have been huge failures. However, I think a big part of this was our determination that everyone should be trained to code. While almost anyone probably could learn, there is a significant portion of the population that can't stand to sit in front of a computer all day. Instead, we need several different training programs available. Our country is in desperate need of investment in infrastructure. Lets get people trained and put to work improving our roads and bridges, updating our energy grid, and improving our internet infrastructure. Lets get people trained as electricians and plumbers. Lets develop some real social services. Lets put people to work in ecological restoration. Lets not inhibit automation just so that people can continue to work meaningless, poverty wage jobs. Instead, lets increase our productivity and take care of people displaced by it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic and dank69

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,442
211
106
Technology is changing jobs so quickly, imagine200 years ago you were a blacksmith 100 years later still a blacksmith.
The pace of change is the issue however we live much better than the wealthy 100 years ago. there are companies out there that work to maximize employee benefits and corporate interests. The quarterly bonus and stock earnings report has created hostile companies suited for the best interest of investors/CEOs and dividend payments over the human chattel in their employ.

Business is a tough game, as is being employee. I couldn't imagine having a pension lost in Enron et al. Figuring out the balance of social benefit over economic survival of the fittest is always going to be a challenge. It bothers me that workable solutions give way to ideology in these types of arguments.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,079
21,200
136
Yes new jobs will be created by increased automation, but they won't benefit most of the people who lost their jobs due to that automation because they won't have the skills. We're moving into a time in which a significant percentage of the population will be permanently unemployable. Increasing the minimum wage will just accelerate that.
So your solution is to have a permanent class of working folks living in poverty or near poverty? Do you see anything problematic with that?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Raising the minimum wage isn't going to help those people in poverty because they're working for $7.25/hour. It's going to hurt them because businesses will use automation to replace their jobs. Better to have a job making $7.25 than no job at all.
This is such luddite bullshit. Automation can only replace jobs that 1) can be fully 100% automated, and 2) require zero human judgment. That is far far fewer jobs than luddite doomsayers would have us believe. In the meantime, automation significantly improves productivity and efficiency, allowing workers to do more and thus the potential to get paid more, and increases employment by creating new jobs (in developing automation).
Luddites have been promising that machines would take our jobs since the first mechanical loom was invented more than 200 years ago, and they have always been wrong.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Yes new jobs will be created by increased automation, but they won't benefit most of the people who lost their jobs due to that automation because they won't have the skills. We're moving into a time in which a significant percentage of the population will be permanently unemployable. Increasing the minimum wage will just accelerate that.

Lots of emotion here to justify why people should be thankful to be slaves, unworthy of enjoying the benefits of advancing technology, and yet not one word of provable fact.
There is never going to be a time where a significant portion of the population will be permanently unemployable. Yes, the farrier lost his job to the horseless carriage, and then went on to make money as an auto mechanic. Both are skilled jobs. That's how this shit works, always has and always will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea and JD50

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
As a business owner with 150 employees and ~70% of them at state minimum wage or within 10% of it, I wouldn't even care. What do you guys think is going to happen if you moved everything to $15.00/hr minimum? I and all of my competitors along with practically every industry that is affected by this change is going to raise their prices. Which is going to be a lot industries. So I'm going to make the exact same amount of money I was before and you are going to pay more for my product. Everyone else in my industry is going to do the exact same thing and these prices will become the new accepted normal. The one thing that it will do is drive my poorly run competitors out of business because the operating capitol that they need is going to be much greater now. So if anything I'm going to make more money.

Now the people who are going to really be hurt by this is everyone on a fixed income. As the pricing structure on everything swings sharply upgrade by a 15/hr minimum, these individuals and families have 0 means of increasing their income levels. Then we need the government to go back through again and adjust SS and various state benefits to help these people.

People on fixed income already get regular cost of living adjustments, there will be no need for govt to back through and adjust anything. They already do that as a matter of routine.

My interests here BTW are the opposite of altruism. The problem here is that low wages are bad for the economy. Because poor people making low wages don't have any money to spend. And because employers who pay low wages tend to be poorly run with no incentive to do better.
A few years back, a friend of mine who runs a smallish contracting business complained to me of poorly skilled unreliable employees and high turnover. I was eventually able to convince him that the solution was to increase his wages so that he could poach skilled reliable workers from his competitors and retain them. Today, his business is growing and more successful than ever.

The biggest and most damaging myth to small business is the belief that the only way to stay in business is to make a profit off every transaction. For whatever reason, every small business owner takes this as gospel even though not a single successful corporation does business this way. What those companies do is increase their revenue faster than their costs. Because that's the actual bottom line.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
Why not? That's what it's for. As it is now, we fund massive amounts of corporate welfare
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
Yes new jobs will be created by increased automation, but they won't benefit most of the people who lost their jobs due to that automation because they won't have the skills. We're moving into a time in which a significant percentage of the population will be permanently unemployable. Increasing the minimum wage will just accelerate that.

There is zero evidence of that. It is a fact that automation has been happening for decades, it’s also a fact that the unemployment rate has been at historic lows for decades (until covid). It’s also a fact that when minimum wage increases there aren’t massive layoffs or a significant uprise in unemployment.

So I gotta ask, exactly how did you come to the conclusion you did when the facts are so contrary?
 

rstrohkirch

Platinum Member
May 31, 2005
2,434
367
126
As expected. Nobody can tell you are wrong because you run a business which somehow makes you an expert on the subject.

I run a business with an employee pool that specifically relates to the intended change brought up in this thread and I do it successfully at decent scale. I would guess that my opinion on how things will develop is probably more valid than yours. I asked you what direct experience you have on this subject and you didn't respond so obviously none. One would assume if you want to discuss change you would build discussions including the people who give the very thing you want to change, a job and the pay rate associated with it. But perhaps that's not the case.

Like I said, you should probably do some research on the subject, or continue sounding like an idiot. Feel free to look up the many threads here on the subject if you want but I suspect you won't because you aren't interested in the truth, you've got yours and fuck everyone else, right? I bet your attrition rate is pretty good too because you sound like a great boss. Lol

This is just a sad response. You assume that because I'm a business owner or that I question what relevant experience you bring to this subject that I treat my employees poorly? You tell me again to do research after I've told you the outcomes of these changes in my industry from high minimum cities did the exact thing I mentioned. After which you follow this up by calling me an idiot, saying I've fucked others over and that my employee turn over must be well above normal. Man, I hope you function better in real life than you do online.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,125
30,518
136
I run a business with an employee pool that specifically relates to the intended change brought up in this thread and I do it successfully at decent scale. I would guess that my opinion on how things will develop is probably more valid than yours. I asked you what direct experience you have on this subject and you didn't respond so obviously none. One would assume if you want to discuss change you would build discussions including the people who give the very thing you want to change, a job and the pay rate associated with it. But perhaps that's not the case.



This is just a sad response. You assume that because I'm a business owner or that I question what relevant experience you bring to this subject that I treat my employees poorly? You tell me again to do research after I've told you the outcomes of these changes in my industry from high minimum cities did the exact thing I mentioned. After which you follow this up by calling me an idiot, saying I've fucked others over and that my employee turn over must be well above normal. Man, I hope you function better in real life than you do online.
Who buys your widgets? Are your widgets primarily bought by min-wage slaves, everyone else, or both? Everyone else can afford the extra pennies your widgets will cost from higher min-wage. If your widgets are bought by min-wage slaves, higher min-wage means they have more money to buy your widgets.
 

rstrohkirch

Platinum Member
May 31, 2005
2,434
367
126
My interests here BTW are the opposite of altruism. The problem here is that low wages are bad for the economy. Because poor people making low wages don't have any money to spend. And because employers who pay low wages tend to be poorly run with no incentive to do better.

I won't necessarily disagree but I would restate it as I personally feel many businesses aren't run as well as they could be regardless of the labor pool they pull from. I rely on people to do basic tasks, other jobs rely on them to do slightly more advanced tasks and so on. The primary issue it seems in many industries is not creating policy but to make sure it gets performed. I pull 70% of my staff from the very bottom pool of candidates. You and I could have a very lengthy discussion in itself in how your last statement and my prior statement interact.

A few years back, a friend of mine who runs a smallish contracting business complained to me of poorly skilled unreliable employees and high turnover. I was eventually able to convince him that the solution was to increase his wages so that he could poach skilled reliable workers from his competitors and retain them. Today, his business is growing and more successful than ever.

That also assumes that there was a candidate pool available to him that he wasn't accessing because of his determined pay rates. At what point does this not become a solution when there isn't a pool there. Is it 25% more pay, 50% more, 100%? I'm also not sure if you are directing this at me because of my quoted minimum labor pool number. For the other 30% of my staff I pay better than any of my competitors in every location I'm in, that I'm aware of. My managers make well over the industry standard and I offer more time off than any of my industry peers. That doesn't help though when there isn't a pool to hire from.


The biggest and most damaging myth to small business is the belief that the only way to stay in business is to make a profit off every transaction. For whatever reason, every small business owner takes this as gospel even though not a single successful corporation does business this way. What those companies do is increase their revenue faster than their costs. Because that's the actual bottom line.

I don't feel this is relevant as much to the conversation and it should be a completely separate discussion of it's own.
 

rstrohkirch

Platinum Member
May 31, 2005
2,434
367
126
Who buys your widgets? Are your widgets primarily bought by min-wage slaves, everyone else, or both? Everyone else can afford the extra pennies your widgets will cost from higher min-wage. If your widgets are bought by min-wage slaves, higher min-wage means they have more money to buy your widgets.

I'm confused and feel like you need to re-read what I said. I have zero issues with a higher federal minimum being enacted for all of the reasons I stated. There was zero sarcasm in my first post.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
I run a business with an employee pool that specifically relates to the intended change brought up in this thread and I do it successfully at decent scale. I would guess that my opinion on how things will develop is probably more valid than yours. I asked you what direct experience you have on this subject and you didn't respond so obviously none. One would assume if you want to discuss change you would build discussions including the people who give the very thing you want to change, a job and the pay rate associated with it. But perhaps that's not the case.



This is just a sad response. You assume that because I'm a business owner or that I question what relevant experience you bring to this subject that I treat my employees poorly? You tell me again to do research after I've told you the outcomes of these changes in my industry from high minimum cities did the exact thing I mentioned. After which you follow this up by calling me an idiot, saying I've fucked others over and that my employee turn over must be well above normal. Man, I hope you function better in real life than you do online.

The fact that you won't even do some basic research on the subject tells me all I need to know about you. I stand by my comments, that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Your anecdotal experience doesn't mean Jack shit just as my anecdotal experience doesn't mean Jack shit which why it's laughable that you think my experience is playing any role in deciding whether or not your claims are bull shit.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
I'm confused and feel like you need to re-read what I said. I have zero issues with a higher federal minimum being enacted for all of the reasons I stated. There was zero sarcasm in my first post.

You are confused because you have a serious lack of understanding of current economic theory. Theory based off of modern studies and real world examples. Its exactly why I said you should get an update on your education because the economic theories you grew up with have changed and been debunked.
 

owensdj

Golden Member
Jul 14, 2000
1,711
6
81
There is zero evidence of that. It is a fact that automation has been happening for decades, it’s also a fact that the unemployment rate has been at historic lows for decades (until covid). It’s also a fact that when minimum wage increases there aren’t massive layoffs or a significant uprise in unemployment.

So I gotta ask, exactly how did you come to the conclusion you did when the facts are so contrary?
The only reason the unemployment rate has been so low is due to so many people taking low-paying McJobs in fast food and retail. These people would have had better paying manufacturing jobs in the past, but off-shoring and automation eliminated those positions, at least here in the USA. What are the McJob people going to do when increases in minimum wage make it cheaper to replace them with machines?
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,117
10,937
136
The only reason the unemployment rate has been so low is due to so many people taking low-paying McJobs in fast food and retail. These people would have had better paying manufacturing jobs in the past, but off-shoring and automation eliminated those positions, at least here in the USA. What are the McJob people going to do when increases in minimum wage make it cheaper to replace them with machines?
maybe if their jobs paid better in the first place they'd have the economic flexibility to re-skill or relocate and adjust to the changing job market? just a thought..
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
The only reason the unemployment rate has been so low is due to so many people taking low-paying McJobs in fast food and retail. These people would have had better paying manufacturing jobs in the past, but off-shoring and automation eliminated those positions, at least here in the USA. What are the McJob people going to do when increases in minimum wage make it cheaper to replace them with machines?

That makes zero sense. Automation and offshoring have been happening regardless of what the minimum wage was. I have seen no evidence of an offset of manufacturing jobs for retail/fast food jobs, so post a source for that claim.

Here are the facts you have to contend with:

Wages have been stagnant or have increased only slightly for decades.
Minimum wage increases have not led to any appreciable employment loses.
Inflation has been steady and low.
The unemployment rate has been at historical lows with a downward trend.
Manufacturing output and worker efficiency has increased for decades.
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,442
211
106
There are good jobs in construction and as our infrastructure ages lots of opportunity there and well as migrating to new energy platforms.
Robots have taken a lot of manufacturing jobs tis true but there are jobs that can only be done locally but you can't do that if you aggregate all the money to the 1%.
rich people hoard they don't trickle, thats why getting money to poor people works because the have to spend every $ and then that reciprocates through the economy
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,117
10,937
136
There are good jobs in construction and as our infrastructure ages lots of opportunity there and well as migrating to new energy platforms.
Robots have taken a lot of manufacturing jobs tis true but there are jobs that can only be done locally but you can't do that if you aggregate all the money to the 1%.
rich people hoard they don't trickle, thats why getting money to poor people works because the have to spend every $ and then that reciprocates through the economy
You're telling me that Bezos, musk, etc. aren't going to liquidate their hundreds of billions in stock holdings and actually spend it all? 😳

Shocked. Shocked I say. Well. Not that shocked.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,079
21,200
136
The only reason the unemployment rate has been so low is due to so many people taking low-paying McJobs in fast food and retail. These people would have had better paying manufacturing jobs in the past, but off-shoring and automation eliminated those positions, at least here in the USA. What are the McJob people going to do when increases in minimum wage make it cheaper to replace them with machines?

is your solution to have a permanent working class living in poverty or near poverty?
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
This is such luddite bullshit. Automation can only replace jobs that 1) can be fully 100% automated, and 2) require zero human judgment.
Nice stawman. That is not how automation works. Automation chips away at the edges. You don't have to 100% automate a job. Automation can make it 20% faster or more efficient to do, meaning that the company needs 20% fewer manhours to pay, and so cuts 20% of their workers hours. Do that year after year, and soon you only have a handful of employees to do the few things the automation can't, or more likely that it is cheaper to pay a person to do.

You would be surprised at how good we are getting at surpassing human judgement with computer automation. Hell, the truth is humans are terrible at most things we think we are good at. Our judgement is faulty a large percentage of the time. Automation is already starting to chip away at those sort of jobs, it will onyl accelerate.

Your argument is basically a spiritual one. It comes down to a belief that there is some magical thing about humans or the human mind that can't be replicated or even improved on by automation. So far we have not found such a thing. It is really more about the cost then the ability.

is your solution to have a permanent working class living in poverty or near poverty?

It has been our societies solution for the last 50 years. I don't expect that will change any time soon.
 

rstrohkirch

Platinum Member
May 31, 2005
2,434
367
126
The fact that you won't even do some basic research on the subject tells me all I need to know about you. I stand by my comments, that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Your anecdotal experience doesn't mean Jack shit just as my anecdotal experience doesn't mean Jack shit which why it's laughable that you think my experience is playing any role in deciding whether or not your claims are bull shit.

You are confused because you have a serious lack of understanding of current economic theory. Theory based off of modern studies and real world examples. Its exactly why I said you should get an update on your education because the economic theories you grew up with have changed and been debunked.


I'm baffled as to why you're so upset at my responses. Though you may not be actually upset but the way you phrase your responses makes you seem emotional. One generally doesn't continue to make inferences as you have without that being the case. This thread started off as a question as to whether the Federal government had a say in employee wages from which it predictably, almost immediately morphed into the subject of minimum wage and then living wage. The current subject is primarily on whether there should be a high living wage or not. I chime in and state I would have no issues with this, employ many employees it would affect and in the end it won't affect me personally for mentioned reasons. You then follow up and have repeatedly done so, telling me that my solution and how my specific industry will adapt to these changes....is not correct according to you. But not specifically you, other unmentioned sources. So, what exactly are you trying to debate here? Is it that there should be a high minimum wage at the federal level or that you don't believe I know how to acclimate my businesses to a higher than current minimum wage? If it's the second one, would it help you to know that I live in a state with a stepped minimum wage that's been in affect for years now and I routinely get market data on how similar businesses in my industry adjust their pricing based on such things?

Again, you have me pretty confused here.
 
Last edited:

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,442
211
106
I'm baffled as to why you're so upset at my responses. Though you may not be actually upset but the way you phrase your responses makes you seem emotional. One doesn't generally doesn't continue to make inferences as you have without that being the case. This thread started off as a question as to whether the Federal government had a say in employee wages from which it predictably, almost immediately morphed into the subject of minimum wage and then living wage. The current subject is primarily on whether there should be a high living wage or not. I chime in and state I would have no issues with this, employ many employees it would affect and in the end it won't affect me personally for mentioned reasons. You then follow up and have repeatedly done so, telling me that my solution and how my specific industry will adapt to these changes....is not correct according to you. But not specifically you, other unmentioned sources. So, what exactly are you trying to debate here? Is it that there should be a high minimum wage at the federal level or that you don't believe I know how to acclimate my businesses to a higher than current minimum wage? If it's the second one, would it help you to know that I live in a state with a stepped minimum wage that's been in affect for years now and I routinely get market data on how similar businesses in my industry adjust their pricing based on such things?

Again, you have me pretty confused here.
I think you two have a macro micro argument going on
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
Should that be a State level issue?

If people were provided a Basic Income, then I would say yes. When a minimum wage is not needed, then feel free to pay people as you see fit. Until then, Capitalism is falling apart all around us. People are left behind, and Democrats are generally following the European model for addressing it. That includes minimum wages.

Federal or State? Economic destitution and ruin among our fellow Americans cannot be allowed. If the States abdicate their duty to help our fellow man, as they clearly have already, then it falls to the Federal to act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane