Minimum-wage campaign for $15/h could speed arrival of robot-powered restaurants and reduced number
205 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48497865]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.[/QUOTE]
Or just a minimum wage that rises/falls with inflation/deflation.
[QUOTE=Monkah;48498158]Or just a minimum wage that rises/falls with inflation/deflation.[/QUOTE]
Which is almost $12 per hour in ten years assuming an ideal inflation rate.
Honestly I feel like it's ridiculous to set a minimum wage on a federal basis in the first place. Money just doesn't mean the same thing everywhere you go. Here in NC I do pretty well compared to everyone else I know, I have my own place and I have a good amount of disposable income, but if I lived less than an hour away but made the same amount of money, I'd be broke as fuck all the time, wouldn't be able to afford to live on my own, etc. Less than an hour away, the standard of living is [I]completely[/I] different.
So instead of forcing everyone to pay the same, why not let the markets themselves determine what people make? This already happens in my line of work and it works very well. Because we generally make tips, the regular minimum wage doesn't apply to us, so there's usually some pre-negotiated base salary that is supplemented by tips. And depending on where you are, that base salary is completely different, and is based on how much tips you'll be getting and that total amount compared to the standard of living in your area. For example I get 2k a month in salary, that plus my tips makes me a decent living in my city. But if I went over to certain parts of Georgia or Tennessee, I'd be making maybe %20 or even %30 more on the salary, around the same in tips, but the cost of living would be so much higher that it evens out and the salary difference is meaningless so the worker's actual buying power in either place is essentially the same.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a minimum wage at all, I'm just saying take it out of the hands of the federal government; Make it more localized and you won't have a problem. Do it on a county by county basis and that'd probably be much more sensible. There are places where right now a $15/hr minimum wage would make perfect sense, and there are places where honestly you could live pretty decent for the next several years on $7.25 unless the local economy suddenly has a dramatic boom.
Minimum wage on a state basis would be ideal because yes purchasing power does vary between and within states, and state governments can delegate minimum wage to county government if they so please. Many states already do these things however some don't and that's why there's a federal minimum wage.
It would of course also be ideal for the market to set wages, that should be a goal as a minimum wage shouldn't be used as a reference as to what you should pay employees. However labour markets in the U.S. like in Australia and the UK are in a labour surplus. There are too many unemployed people to fill vacant jobs; employers are therefore able to put downwards pressure on wages. Something that could be used to put upwards pressure on wages could be something like a job guarantee/public works/workfare program where people are paid a certain rate (an unofficial minimum wage) to do stuff like cleaning streets and public parks and this could force the private market to compete for labour by raising wages. It would be best if that wasn't necessary but there's only so much that economic growth can do.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48497524]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]
No. Automation of jobs. Get it over with so we can react already, and not just be passive about it.
[QUOTE=DohEntertainmen;48498603]No. Automation of jobs. Get it over with so we can react already, and not just be passive about it.[/QUOTE]
It's not as if the CEO of every corporation has a button on their desk with the caption 'FIRE THE SCUM AND AUTOMATE THOSE BITCHES'. Automation will occur when it's cost-effective to implement considering both today and the future, when they can negotiate past trade unions, when they can survive the shock from employee morale loss and when they are prepared to take the consumer backlash and competition from firms that maintain labour. It's also not as if every job has a preset automated alternative; automation is an ever changing thing and we don't even know what the automations in fifty years will be capable of; which jobs they can compete with labour against.
If minimum wage went on a state by state basis wouldn't that make states compete for business by having lower minimum wages? That wouldn't work very well.
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;48493365]This is why technology can be very dangerous. Once we'll be completely replaced, shit will go down.[/QUOTE]
We've been saying that since the wheel was invented, get over yourself.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48499310]We've been saying that since the wheel was invented, get over yourself.[/QUOTE]
No...no we haven't.
We weren't even saying that during the Industrial Revolution.
[QUOTE=Swilly;48499514]No...no we haven't.
We weren't even saying that during the Industrial Revolution.[/QUOTE]
Technically we did. Hence the origin of the term "Ludite".
[editline]20th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48499281]If minimum wage went on a state by state basis wouldn't that make states compete for business by having lower minimum wages? That wouldn't work very well.[/QUOTE]
I feel that bringing state and town legislations under possible influence from corporations trying to get the workplace standards lowered, would cause quite a bit of trouble.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48499281]If minimum wage went on a state by state basis wouldn't that make states compete for business by having lower minimum wages? That wouldn't work very well.[/QUOTE]
That would definitely happen. There are certain industries that will be attracted to certain states based on the minimum wage. However, whether or not it would work well, I don't know. I personally think that it would just work itself out. States already do this competing for the business of certain industries through offering different tax incentives.
So it already happens to a certain extent and sure yes it does have a major effect. But I don't think that a state government would go so far as to undercut its citizens just so it could say now you're allowed to pay shit for labor. Maybe I'm just optimistic, though.
[QUOTE=gufu;48499533]Technically we did. Hence the origin of the term "Ludite".
[/QUOTE]
Luddites were craftsmen who couldn't compete with automation because their practices took time and energy; making them more expensive.
They fought against the Industrial Revolution because they had nowhere else to go because society back then favored the 'by the bootstraps' thinking we have prevailing now. Only it was a lot easier to move on; now and days everything is so specialized that you can be replaced and you're basically fucked nine ways from Sunday.
I've always been against automation of things like buses, cars and other things because not only do we not have the safety nets required to shield people but we don't even have the culture that's prepared for it and this 'survival of the fittest' mentality that permeates heavily right now is not only going to end up shooting off the legs of at least 3/4ths of the population but also just lead to other issues.
When it comes to the concept of automation, I'm mixed. Its a great idea until realize a lot of people actually like doing some the service jobs. Like, I actually love working in the meat department at my grocery store; its engaging and fun especially with the coworkers but if it ever gets automated I've got nowhere else to turn to.
We already have a lack of jobs, automation doesn't help that. Its also inline with an almost unhealthy level of 'keep moving forward' which hasn't really helped in the long run considering Earth's conditions right now.
This will happen anyways because I doubt minimum wage can be realistically stooped to a level where automation isn't cheaper in the long run (unless we go back to some slave ran economy from the roman days). I don't think we can or should stop automation, but the problems arising from that (structural unemployment and decreased purchasing power) should be tackled on a policy level. Businesses will make their profits but their interests have to be balanced by public power. Even if a business tries to rip everyone off it can be investigated and dealt with by legislation. (What's good for a single busines or a group of businesses is rarely if ever automatically good for the economy even though that's a popular view).
[QUOTE=Swilly;48499566]Luddites were craftsmen who couldn't compete with automation because their practices took time and energy; making them more expensive.
They fought against the Industrial Revolution because they had nowhere else to go because society back then favored the 'by the bootstraps' thinking we have prevailing now. Only it was a lot easier to move on; now and days everything is so specialized that you can be replaced and you're basically fucked nine ways from Sunday.
I've always been against automation of things like buses, cars and other things because not only do we not have the safety nets required to shield people but we don't even have the culture that's prepared for it and this 'survival of the fittest' mentality that permeates heavily right now is not only going to end up shooting off the legs of at least 3/4ths of the population but also just lead to other issues.
When it comes to the concept of automation, I'm mixed. Its a great idea until realize a lot of people actually like doing some the service jobs. Like, I actually love working in the meat department at my grocery store; its engaging and fun especially with the coworkers but if it ever gets automated I've got nowhere else to turn to.
We already have a lack of jobs, automation doesn't help that. Its also inline with an almost unhealthy level of 'keep moving forward' which hasn't really helped in the long run considering Earth's conditions right now.[/QUOTE]
What's wrong with having too few jobs? Jobs are not an entitlement. The labour market acts like any other market, if there are not enough jobs for everyone then some people will have to go jobless. At some point, we must acknowledge that not everyone is going to be able to find a place in society where they can do what they want and get paid for it. What we do with these people is a whole other debate entirely.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48493180]Businesses are in it for the money, not the well-being of those who work for them - especially those on the bottom rung.
Every push for them to pay employees higher will just lead them to find another way to circumvent it.[/QUOTE]
And if we never push for them to pay higher then people will just get payed shit until they're replaced anyway because machines will always be cheaper and never fuck up the job like people do.
Once again, shitty logic.
[editline]20th August 2015[/editline]
Robots don't come into work late, they never feel fatigue, they never complain, don't come into work high, and come ready without needed to be trained. This is among a thousand other things machines do better than people when it comes to this kind of work.
It's going to happen eventually. It's not like it's a bad thing either. It's not a legitimate reason to pay people a shitty wage.
No one wants to work fast food. So, I don't see the problem. Let robots do the shitty work.
Ignoring the minimum wage argument, anyone else that prefer "robot" cashiers?
I can take my time to choose my meals it's never wrong i can read what the meals contains etc and i can see all meals they offer rather than their selection above the counter.
And with the new systems they are as responsive as a tablet at home. (Only problem with the current system at a chain here is that you cannot remove or add stuff to ex a burger)
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;48499693]No one wants to work fast food. So, I don't see the problem. Let robots do the shitty work.[/QUOTE]
The problem is lots of people suddenly unemployed. Nobody wants to work fast food, but it's better than being homeless.
You know it sucks that if/when the minimum wage goes up there will be more automated systems installed to save money. But if you work a job that requires no skill and is repetitive that's bound to happen eventually IMO. There's plenty of jobs that will always require a human like working in a group home with the disabled. Also being a CNA and helping people at there homes. All of which require little too no schooling.
[QUOTE=apierce1289;48500996]You know it sucks that if/when the minimum wage goes up there will be more automated systems installed to save money. But if you work a job that requires no skill and is repetitive that's bound to happen eventually IMO. There's plenty of jobs that will always require a human like working in a group home with the disabled. Also being a CNA and helping people at there homes. All of which require little too no schooling.[/QUOTE]
We get it, you like wiping old people's asses :v:
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48501037]We get it, you like wiping old people's asses :v:[/QUOTE]
I used to hate it when I first started but that will be us some day. Plus I don't work with the old people mostly people that are autistic and have down syndrome. If you want a good job in health care you got to work in the trenches first. It's a dirty job but keeping people clean and healthy who can't help themselves is something that I enjoy. The shit I have seen is pretty bad and disgusting. But puts a smile on your face knowing you're helping people. Also pays more than ff.
[QUOTE=Orki;48499747]Ignoring the minimum wage argument, anyone else that prefer "robot" cashiers?
I can take my time to choose my meals it's never wrong i can read what the meals contains etc and i can see all meals they offer rather than their selection above the counter.
And with the new systems they are as responsive as a tablet at home. (Only problem with the current system at a chain here is that you cannot remove or add stuff to ex a burger)[/QUOTE]
Its convenient sure but by removing the human element you're putting thousands of people out of work for the sake of a slightly better service.
Most cases of work being automated results in a more convenient and easier service. But that comes at the cost of putting people that were already making shit money out of work entirely.
[QUOTE=apierce1289;48501097]I used to hate it when I first started but that will be us some day. Plus I don't work with the old people mostly people that are autistic and have down syndrome. If you want a good job in health care you got to work in the trenches first. It's a dirty job but keeping people clean and healthy who can't help themselves is something that I enjoy. The shit I have seen is pretty bad and disgusting. But puts a smile on your face knowing you're helping people. Also pays more than ff.[/QUOTE]
I will die before a face puncher is wiping my old ass
[editline]20th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;48501519]Its convenient sure but by removing the human element you're putting thousands of people out of work for the sake of a slightly better service.
Most cases of work being automated results in a more convenient and easier service. But that comes at the cost of putting people that were already making shit money out of work entirely.[/QUOTE]
Good, the more people out of work and not making shit the sooner the house of cards topples
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48499613]What's wrong with having too few jobs? Jobs are not an entitlement. The labour market acts like any other market, if there are not enough jobs for everyone then some people will have to go jobless. At some point, we must acknowledge that not everyone is going to be able to find a place in society where they can do what they want and get paid for it. What we do with these people is a whole other debate entirely.[/QUOTE]
Well I have a solution but you won't like it.
Give them the jobs back that were automated? Its a key part of the debate because you can't just rush into something that will literally change most of society, a society where people are socialized and encouraged to find work and participate in the economy.
[QUOTE=Swilly;48502854]Well I have a solution but you won't like it.
Give them the jobs back that were automated? Its a key part of the debate because you can't just rush into something that will literally change most of society, a society where people are socialized and encouraged to find work and participate in the economy.[/QUOTE]
Ignoring the massive amount of legislation it would take to be able to do this, it would put any country that did so behind economically. Besides, where do you even draw the line? There are so many things in companies that are automated these days that used to take legions of accountants to do. Not only that, but these systems can react faster than legions of accountants ever could.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.