Minimum-wage campaign for $15/h could speed arrival of robot-powered restaurants and reduced number
205 replies, posted
[QUOTE=June;48495701]I actually a agree with you, people are going to be very very against the idea of a universal basic income and i think that's the main reason why you'll find the media paints self driving cars in such a negative light; because it's the first step.
I guess i didn't mean that'll it'll be an easy transition, just that the solution is simple. Unfortunately i think unemployment is going to have to reach astounding rates before the people in power even consider universal income, and even then it might take things like massive rioting before they actually do it. I think it'll happen sooner than later though, in 20 years when all transportation is automated you're going to have a lot of angry people without jobs and I hope when it happens they'll be demanding universal income over something stupid like banning robots[/QUOTE]
I wonder how will any country implement basic income if already every country in the world is in debt, which is probably mostly owned by private banks or something. Will they just forgive all the debt and just shut down ? Remember, people in power are not the politicians, but those who put them there. It would require a complete reset of the entire world economy and political order.
[QUOTE=srobins;48495918]There are different types of "poor", people living in New York City section 8 housing are living in a completely different world than the "poor" of Phoenix, AZ. There's a lot of relativity and change from area to area in what the standard of living is for low-income people and families, I just think people should be aware of those differences when discussing poverty as a whole because there's a lot of variation and not all "poor" people are struggling to eat wearing 3rd generation hand-me-down clothes. And yes I understand that as you move up the food-chain in terms of promotion and job growth, there are less positions available; it's the nature of business and competition. Not everyone is destined to be a CEO or manager, and until you hone the skills and experience necessary to do so, you're going to stay where you are.[/QUOTE]
You realize there are many people with college educations working dead end jobs because they just don't have the opportunities?
There are fewer opportunities than people. That's just how it is. Not everyone gets to move up. They can work hard and be good people and they may not move up. That's just how it is. Why do you think those people deserve to be impoverished? Yes, it does matter based on location, but don't act like it's that huge of a difference. Poverty is poverty and I bet you that between every city in the country, there's a large group of homeless, and the people who are just hanging on above that line. Those people will be negatively effected, and you're essentially saying "BOOTSTRAPS" like that's an actual viable solution when as you JUST went over, it clearly is not.
It's a contradiction of that mindset.
[QUOTE=srobins;48495959]My argument isn't that America's poor have it better off than Africa's poor, I'm saying that there are different levels of poverty throughout the country and people should be aware of that when they discuss poverty, or at least define the level of poverty and standard of living that they're talking about when they do talk about poverty.[/QUOTE]
You're thinking of middle class, rich, etc. those are the other categories of people who don't fall into the "poor category".
[QUOTE=srobins;48495959]My argument isn't that America's poor have it better off than Africa's poor, I'm saying that there are different levels of poverty throughout the country and people should be aware of that when they discuss poverty, or at least define the level of poverty and standard of living that they're talking about when they do talk about poverty.[/QUOTE]
The issue is that you're using a subjective and anecdotal poor to describe the "poor" when we're using something much closer to a statistical meaning of poor.
Being poor in the US and Canada doesn't mean you don't have a fridge, or don't have clothing, or don't have a phone. It means that you are in debt to make ends meet, that upwards mobility is a near impossibility as the time investment required to move up is something you just frankly don't fucking have.
Your definition of poor is the issue here.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48495968]You realize there are many people with college educations working dead end jobs because they just don't have the opportunities?
There are fewer opportunities than people. That's just how it is. Not everyone gets to move up. They can work hard and be good people and they may not move up. That's just how it is. Why do you think those people deserve to be impoverished? Yes, it does matter based on location, but don't act like it's that huge of a difference. Poverty is poverty and I bet you that between every city in the country, there's a large group of homeless, and the people who are just hanging on above that line. Those people will be negatively effected, and you're essentially saying "BOOTSTRAPS" like that's an actual viable solution when as you JUST went over, it clearly is not.
It's a contradiction of that mindset.[/QUOTE]
I'm not denying there's a problem with the American job market and economy; it's undeniable that our economy and job market are completely turned upside-down and there are a lot of people suffering as a result. I just think that there should be a better solution than just forcing employers to pay a higher minimum wage, as an attempt at offsetting the difficulties of those who already have jobs and are having trouble getting by with them. Not only is some of this effort going to go to waste on people that can or should be able to survive fine on a lower minimum wage (by lower I mean lower than $15), but it's going to result in less hours and less hiring than we already have! It's a movement with good intentions that I think will result in a poor outcome, I think we need a better solution than just raising the minimum wage to $15 and hoping that things will just magically get better, because they won't. Businesses will maintain their bottom line no matter what, whether it's by laying people off, reducing hiring, cutting hours, adding in automation or customer self-service, it's going to happen.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48495984]The issue is that you're using a subjective and anecdotal poor to describe the "poor" when we're using something much closer to a statistical meaning of poor.
Being poor in the US and Canada doesn't mean you don't have a fridge, or don't have clothing, or don't have a phone. It means that you are in debt to make ends meet, that upwards mobility is a near impossibility as the time investment required to move up is something you just frankly don't fucking have.
Your definition of poor is the issue here.[/QUOTE]
Well then I probably just jumped the gun and underestimated the consensus on what "poor" meant in the thread, that's on me. I'm just used to seeing Facebook arguments about this kind of topic and having people refer to poor as being basically lower-middle class rather than someone actually in legitimate poverty.
[QUOTE=srobins;48496008]I'm not denying there's a problem with the American job market and economy; it's undeniable that our economy and job market are completely turned upside-down and there are a lot of people suffering as a result. I just think that there should be a better solution than just forcing employers to pay a higher minimum wage, as an attempt at offsetting the difficulties of those who already have jobs and are having trouble getting by with them. Not only is some of this effort going to go to waste on people that can or should be able to survive fine on a lower minimum wage (by lower I mean lower than $15), but it's going to result in less hours and less hiring than we already have! It's a movement with good intentions that I think will result in a poor outcome, I think we need a better solution than just raising the minimum wage to $15 and hoping that things will just magically get better, because they won't. Businesses will maintain their bottom line no matter what, whether it's by laying people off, reducing hiring, cutting hours, adding in automation or customer self-service, it's going to happen.[/QUOTE]
And that's the issue. They're not going to pay a fair share. Those companies can just relocate to a different country, and no longer pay taxes. The country will face enormous issues when things get worse than they are now, and they're already intolerable for a great deal of people. You speak of upward mobility, but it's truly non existent for a huge majority of the american population. A stagnant minimum wage is hurting the country. A hike in the minimum wage will hurt the country. A gradual increase will give companies time to figure out ways to pay the least and get away with what they can.
Minimum wage isn't doing enough as it is, and it needs to go up. When automation really kicks in and we see a large unemployment jump, something will have to be done, but by then I believe it'll be too late.
There's going to have to be a universal income. That's just going to have to happen if you don't want an ever growing homeless problem. But again, companies will just jump country to avoid the tax hike. So unless we have politicians who predict that and try to avoid that, we'll be in a shitty boat sooner or later. I don't see modern republicans or modern democrats doing anything useful here.
I don't see any of my countries representatives having the werewithall to manage it either, so I don't think things are looking good.
Relying on politicians and corporations to do the right thing when they're not under any threat of financial hard ship is pretty hard to do.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48496076]And that's the issue. They're not going to pay a fair share. Those companies can just relocate to a different country, and no longer pay taxes. The country will face enormous issues when things get worse than they are now, and they're already intolerable for a great deal of people. You speak of upward mobility, but it's truly non existent for a huge majority of the american population. A stagnant minimum wage is hurting the country. A hike in the minimum wage will hurt the country. A gradual increase will give companies time to figure out ways to pay the least and get away with what they can.
Minimum wage isn't doing enough as it is, and it needs to go up. When automation really kicks in and we see a large unemployment jump, something will have to be done, but by then I believe it'll be too late.
There's going to have to be a universal income. That's just going to have to happen if you don't want an ever growing homeless problem. But again, companies will just jump country to avoid the tax hike. So unless we have politicians who predict that and try to avoid that, we'll be in a shitty boat sooner or later. I don't see modern republicans or modern democrats doing anything useful here.
I don't see any of my countries representatives having the werewithall to manage it either, so I don't think things are looking good.
Relying on politicians and corporations to do the right thing when they're not under any threat of financial hard ship is pretty hard to do.[/QUOTE]
To be fair I'm really not speaking about upward mobility because I don't really believe in it. I have a pretty bleak perspective on corporate culture and the idea of "upward mobility" just seems like another pipe-dream for the majority of workers because like you said, it really isn't a reality for most people. I agree that at some point a basic income would be viable or reasonable but that's a long way down the road of automation imo. I don't know what the right solution to our problems is, but I don't think it's a $15/hr minimum wage, for the reasons you and I have both mentioned: even if workers get paid more, the businesses will find a way to turn that into less. Less hours, less employees, or just outsourcing and moving their business overseas.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48493173]I know a certain dollar store chain that would love to replace their three cashiers with self checkouts and just plop the manager behind the cigarette and booze counter just to prop up profits even though the stores would be horribly unsafe, horribly loss prone and unkept[/QUOTE]
I know someone who did loss prevention for a dollar store and said how like 75% of their losses were internal. Self checkout could help that.
It's simple economics, and I've said it time and time again.
A company can either pay [I]x[/I] for labor, or they can pay [I]5x[/I] for labor.
If companies are forced to pay $15/hr minimum wages, we're going to lose a good number of jobs, companies will automate/outsource, and the value of the dollar itself is going to plummet due to increased profits needed to pay workers.
Suddenly, cashiers, factory workers, taxi drivers, waiters, cooks, labor workers, truck drivers, etc. are mostly if not all unemployed. Seems like an easy way to dig us a few inches deeper.
[QUOTE=Timof2009;48493490]Addressing your last point, Nothing of value is free. If you want to get out of poverty you better get creative on how you make money. That is how people have done it is the past and how it will happen in the future. Minimum wage was set with the intention of preventing worker abuse, but it did not have the intention of being able to support a livelihood.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
Yea, but it is considered pennies in Africa, and south america.[/QUOTE]
"You shouldn't be able to support a livelihood/be happy on minimum wage" are you like some 14 year old libertarian who visits reddit or something? You really sound like one.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
Like, I used to be that then I grew up.
The worst opinion in this thread is 'outlaw automation/outsourcing'. Not keeping up with other countries in terms of economy is probably one of the worst economical moves possible to make-- and trying to push some law to stop progress isn't going to work without companies simply leaving the US.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48496255]"You shouldn't be able to support a livelihood/be happy on minimum wage" are you like some 14 year old libertarian who visits reddit or something? You really sound like one.
Like, I used to be that then I grew up.[/QUOTE]are you like some 15 year old socialist who visits reddit or something? You really sound like one.
Like, I used to use ad hominem, but then I grew up.
[QUOTE=srobins;48495918] And yes I understand that as you move up the food-chain in terms of promotion and job growth, there are less positions available; it's the nature of business and competition. Not everyone is destined to be a CEO or manager, and until you hone the skills and experience necessary to do so, you're going to stay where you are.[/QUOTE]
How far up should someone need to go to deserve to live decently? How available are those jobs? How are you supposed to move up when you're struggling to make ends meet? Lastly, how can you justify any of that knowing how wealth is distributed in this country?
[QUOTE=Timof2009;48493676]Ah I see, sort of like Soda jerks. My question is why should I as a business owner pay someone $15 an hour for just making a sandwich? If I have to I'll just cut people, and find a more efficient and cost effective way. Working at a job like McDonalds, or Chic-fil-a should not be a job that can support people because it is a job most anyone can walk up and do.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
But we have the largest economy and highest level of productivity on the planet. How then is it so hard to get out of poverty?[/QUOTE]
It's really hard to get out of poverty because we have a pitifully low minimum wage, college tuition are ridiculously expensive and you need to hamper yourself with student debt to get that (Which you need to even get a decent paying job), tax cuts to the rich are creating an insane income inequality where the top own most of the wealth and it doesn't go back into the economy (really, trickle down economics is garbage. Rich people and corporations don't make high-risk investments or spend their money, they often put their funds in offshore low risk investments or save them, study after study of economics have shown this)
Your argument boils down to "People are too lazy to get out of poverty" which is wrong and fairly disgusting thing to say, the world is more complex than that and there's more factors going into poverty than "these people need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get working". You can't suddenly start a small business, even if you have a great idea because that idea requires investments and money to develop which if you don't have you're shit out of luck. We have a very large economy, but due to income inequality we have a dying middle class where most of the money isn't going to them and instead goes to the top.
[url]http://fortune.com/2015/06/11/income-inequality/[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States[/url]
It's a problem recognized by many economist for years and the Republican parties solutions like tax cuts to the rich in fact make the problem worse [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9[/url]
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48496375]It's really hard to get out of poverty because we have a pitifully low minimum wage, college tuition are ridiculously expensive and you need to hamper yourself with student debt to get that (Which you need to even get a decent paying job), tax cuts to the rich are creating an insane income inequality where the top own most of the wealth and it doesn't go back into the economy (really, trickle down economics is garbage.[/QUOTE]
This is absolute BS. Inequality has grown because most of the wealth generation is coming from investment, not rising wages, which goes almost exclusively to older, wealthier people. Of course this is exactly what the fed has been encouraging with it's current policies. So I'm not sure what people expect.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48493387]But it does raise the bar of entry a lot. Education costs a fuckton and poor people are only getting more disadvantaged as time goes on.[/QUOTE]
This seriously pisses me off.
You pay out the ass to have a decent education, so you're either really really good, really really lucky, or got money either by being rich or by saying goodbye to your life and working a fuckton of jobs.
I suggest everyone read Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut.
Here are two my cents about whole $15/h etc..
I don't see logic behind asking for $15/h wage for those who work at McDonalds.
I mean yeah they are looking at other jobs like paramedics and others and think they are being basically kept as slaves working for low wage.
If McDonalds and other fast food workers get $15/h wage, wouldn't that cause some kind of economic damage?
I mean people who wanted to get degrees and get decent wage will see: "oh he doesn't have degree and gets decent cash, I will go for that, fuck college", in modern society more and more people seem to have attitude of "I wanna do nothing and earn a lot", if McDonalds paid say 15-20 eur per hour I would fuck my degree into bin, leave my current job and go work in McDonalds.
Also wouldn't that cause inflation and eventually raise in wages for other jobs? Say FF workers get raise, then those they saw getting more than them get raise too because of inflation, so they start bitching again that they are not getting enough money and this loop would go on and on.
I mean if you want to earn decent living wage, go get educated or learn something that will be useful, flipping burgers isn't worth $15/h I think.
I know I will most likely get a lot of hate for what I said, but I am seriously wondering if that wouldnt' cause other job sector wages to spike up.
[QUOTE=arleitiss;48496788]
I know I will most likely get a lot of hate for what I said, but I am seriously wondering if that wouldnt' cause other job sector wages to spike up.[/QUOTE]
No hate, you just say the same thing that anyone who breezes over an entire thread without bothering to read it says when he doesn't realize the entirety of his post has been covered a few times over.
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;48496906]No hate, you just say the same thing that anyone who breezes over an entire thread without bothering to read it says when he doesn't realize the entirety of his post has been covered a few times over.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;48493422]Let that happen. The fact of the matter is replacing all people with automation simply creates a non-functioning economy. You can't have a majority unemployed and expect those automated processes to be functioning for any real purpose in an economy where no one has spending power.
In a future where robots replace service industry jobs, we either create jobs for our people or we head towards massive unemployment. This fearmongering bullshit is propaganda. I fully support $15/hr minimum wage.
Come take our jobs.[/QUOTE]
This isn't addressing it, it's dismissing it.
People have said Arleitiss's comments a few times, but they've yet to get a proper answer that isn't eyeroll-worthy. "its just fearmongering don't listen to them!!!" isnt an answer to actual economic concerns.
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;48496906]No hate, you just say the same thing that anyone who breezes over an entire thread without bothering to read it says when he doesn't realize the entirety of his post has been covered a few times over.[/QUOTE]
From knowing FP, all pages are most likely of two users arguments.
[editline]20th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Monkah;48496944]This isn't addressing it, it's dismissing it.
People have said Arleitiss's comments a few times, but they've yet to get a proper answer that isn't eyeroll-worthy. "its just fearmongering don't listen to them!!!" isnt an answer to actual economic concerns.[/QUOTE]
That quoted text is a users opinion, I would like to understand economical system behind whole deal.
I mean really, it can't go all good if ff workers start earning as much as people with degrees?
[QUOTE=Monkah;48496944]This isn't addressing it, it's dismissing it.
People have said Arleitiss's comments a few times, but they've yet to get a proper answer that isn't eyeroll-worthy. "its just fearmongering don't listen to them!!!" isnt an answer to actual economic concerns.[/QUOTE]
Congratulations on quoting 1/15th of my total contributions to the thread. That goes for you arleitiss too, no one is going to care about your opinion if you don't even care to read the thread.
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;48496996]Congratulations on quoting 1/15th of my total contributions to the thread. That goes for you arleitiss too, no one is going to care about your opinion if you don't even care to read the thread.[/QUOTE]
I just got to third page, you seem a bit aggressive.
Also, most people discussed AI or college fees up to page 3.
[QUOTE=Timof2009;48493447]Correct, depending on the society you are in. I know you can do that in America, but I am unsure about other places in the world. Of course, that never stops those determined to survive and thrive from trying.[/QUOTE]
How old are you, Tim? Are you in college? Have you looked at the costs entailed, and how much scholarships tend to actually pay?
[QUOTE=arleitiss;48497004]I just got to third page, you seem a bit aggressive.
Also, most people discussed AI or college fees up to page 3.[/QUOTE]
Sorry if I seem aggressive. Thanks for reading the thread.
[QUOTE=arleitiss;48496788]Here are two my cents about whole $15/h etc..
-snip-[/QUOTE]What most people here are stating is that prices are going to skyrocket, or the employment rate is going to drop significantly-- all on a case by case basis, really. It really depends on whether or not business owners decide to simply maintain their employment levels and raise the prices to make up for the lost revenue, or they choose to change the number of people they have employed and find a production method that's easier on the wallet.
In my personal opinion, after a short while, the prices of human-made/run goods/services will fall further and further behind the prices of that of which are performed by machine, and the only economical solution would be to sack & upgrade. Companies have a tendency to maximize profits, and being able to pay a one-time fee for a 24/7 worker is a huge bonus as well as not having to deal with unions, promotions, etc. would be a huge bonus.
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;48496996]Congratulations on quoting 1/15th of my total contributions to the thread. That goes for you arleitiss too, no one is going to care about your opinion if you don't even care to read the thread.[/QUOTE]
I've read all of your posts so far, and they're all incredibly dismissive. You've barely even refuted anyone's point throughout this entire thread. You're not sourcing claims, debunking theories, or making any good points. You're just mocking people.
[QUOTE]Yeah, less than $15k annual is really the envy of Europe...[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Not only that, but this guy is full of shit.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I'm sorry that your grandfather is the apparent antithesis of all that America once stood for. Sounds really credible.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]If that is your assertion, you are foolish.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]you would do good to actually research these things[/QUOTE]
You can't claim to have some logos high-ground when you've just been dismissing and insulting people for what makes up a majority of this thread. You certainly can't claim that you've 'refuted' these arguments because you posted some mocking comment, followed by an unsourced statistic or two.
[QUOTE=Monkah;48497233]What most people here are stating is that prices are going to skyrocket, or the employment rate is going to drop significantly-- all on a case by case basis, really. It really depends on whether or not business owners decide to simply maintain their employment levels and raise the prices to make up for the lost revenue, or they choose to change the number of people they have employed and find a production method that's easier on the wallet.
In my personal opinion, after a short while, the prices of human-made/run goods/services will fall further and further behind the prices of that of which are performed by machine, and the only economical solution would be to sack & upgrade. Companies have a tendency to maximize profits, and being able to pay a one-time fee for a 24/7 worker is a huge bonus as well as not having to deal with unions, promotions, etc. would be a huge bonus.
I've read all of your posts so far, and they're all incredibly dismissive. You've barely even refuted anyone's point throughout this entire thread. You're not sourcing claims, debunking theories, or making any good points. You're just mocking people.
You can't claim to have some logos high-ground when you've just been dismissing and insulting people for what makes up a majority of this thread. You certainly can't claim that you've 'refuted' these arguments because you posted some mocking comment, followed by an unsourced statistic or two.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty ironic since you are epitomizing everything you just insinuated I did. Haha
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
Ps I never claimed I refuted anything he said. You always prove to be a confusing person monkah
Just get it over, already, then.
The faster this comes, the faster people will be to insubordinate.
It's better than slowly pulling the wool over our eyes.
[QUOTE=DohEntertainmen;48497398]Just get it over, already, then.
The faster this comes, the faster people will be to insubordinate.
It's better than slowly pulling the wool over our eyes.[/QUOTE]
Doubling the minimum wage? The faster than happens, the worse. Any significant increase to minimum wage would also have to involve concessions - eg cutting corporate income tax or removing the FICA payroll taxes. It would have to be a gradual change anyways so as to not cause hyperinflation.
[QUOTE=download;48493287]It's why I think the sudden jump to $15/h is a terrible idea. You need to bring it in slowly while also slowly increasing the food cost.
You bring it in like this and all of a sudden expensive automation starts looking economical.[/QUOTE]
Food is already expensive enough as it is.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;48497800]Food is already expensive enough as it is.[/QUOTE]
Not a reason to make it even-more expensive. However something does need to be done about income, just gradually. The U.S. can't sit at $7.25 forever. Ten years down the line, $7.25 USD will have the same purchasing power as roughy $5.94 USD today. Inflation is ever-occurring, and wages need to keep up. $7.25 back in 2009 when the current U.S. federal minimum wage rate was set would feel like $8.17 today.
[editline]20th August 2015[/editline]
A reasonable goal would be a gradual increase to $12 per hour over the next ten years.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.