For low-skilled workers, life is hard. Minimum-wage hikes make it harder

[Svnla]

As I posted in another thread about McDonalds would start using automation, robots, and other high tech to stream line their costs, higher minimum wage hike is not the answer. Stay tuned for self serve fast foods coming soon to your local burger place?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...make-harder/a5kOAZIfI8Pzncfki2Pu9J/story.html


.

 

[Maxima1]

As I posted in another thread about McDonalds would start using automation, robots, and other high tech to stream line their costs, higher minimum wage hike is not the answer. Stay tuned for self serve fast foods coming soon to your local burger place?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...make-harder/a5kOAZIfI8Pzncfki2Pu9J/story.html


.

It would have happened regardless, so what's your point?

Moreover, it's already done in the middle/upper brackets. A PE teacher makes about double the median income AND gets a pension and subsidized health care. That's a joke. In addition, many middle class jobs are arbitrarily protected. For example, off campus college credits.would kill many instructor jobs. In South Korea, they have web cram school.There's also an issue with the US setting class size limits low when studies show it doesn't affect grades, since no one teaches one-on-one. That's why the US spends so much more per student but for less results, and of course the unions don't want to reform it.

 

[mindless1]

As if fast food workers bagging french fries, that could be replaced with a $35K robot arm, are a significant % of minimum wage earners. His (McD's ex-CEO) statement almost makes him look like an idiot or at least disconnected from reality if he doesn't realize that a worker does more tasks than just the simplicity of dipping fries into and out of oil all day.

This is one mere infobit about a topic that has millions of them and at a minimum, does not provide sufficient evidence to support the argument, while we do have plenty of evidence that poverty is causing record levels of people on public assistance or incarcerated.

The last thing the US ought to do is keep encouraging people to not work and become a burden instead. They can't just trim away the public assistance without increasing crime and causing rioting in the streets, so instead the solution is providing more incentives to work.

Minimum wage has to keep up with cost of living to stop the downward spiral of our economy. We've already tried the "keep them down" tactic and it isn't working.

 

[1prophet]

It would have happened regardless, so what's your point?

Moreover, it's already done in the middle/upper brackets. A PE teacher makes about double the median income AND gets a pension and subsidized health care. That's a joke. In addition, many middle class jobs are arbitrarily protected. For example, off campus college credits.would kill many instructor jobs. In South Korea, they have web cram school.There's also an issue with the US setting class size limits low when studies show it doesn't affect grades, since no one teaches one-on-one. That's why the US spends so much more per student but for less results, and of course the unions don't want to reform it.

It is a joke because the civil servant was given a pension and benefits to make up for the lesser pay compared to the private sector in the past, fast forward to today the public employee looks like they are making out good when it is actually the private sector that has fallen behind and struggling, but instead of asking why it is so you have been brainwashed to point the finger at the "overpaid lazy public servant" because they should be beneath you wage wise so you can feel better about your lousy situation.

 

[Jaskalas]

Labor is losing its value.

Minimum wage is an attempt to restore that value, but ultimately it cannot be as technology replaces labor entirely.
The only real solution is basic income.

 

[nickqt]

Labor is losing its value.

Minimum wage is an attempt to restore that value, but ultimately it cannot be as technology replaces labor entirely.
The only real solution is basic income.

A UBI makes sense. There are not enough jobs for the 7+ billion people living on the planet.

That said, there are multiple solutions.

For example, lower the full-time work week to 28 hours, bump up salaries and benefits, and you've just created jobs, if creating jobs and having everyone performing tasks is the gold standard.

 

[mindless1]

Labor is losing its value.

Minimum wage is an attempt to restore that value, but ultimately it cannot be as technology replaces labor entirely.
The only real solution is basic income.

Minimum wage has been around since 1938, far longer than the average minimum wage worker had any realistic concerns about automation eliminating their job. On the contrary at the time and for the most part since then, the increase in production levels saved jobs, caused growth of the particular companies implementing the automation so they hired more employees.

Tech cannot entirely replace labor any decade soon. You could hand pick some repetitive task, but few minimum wage laborers are doing that simplistic a task and no other tasks, so it would require several robots or fewer very expensive ones. The average skill set of a minimum wage earner would rise to deal with this environment, with an associated higher training cost for employers, but then the employers would have more invested and an incentive to pay a little more to decrease employee turnover rate.

We are long past the point in tech where we could make a robotic arm to dip fries, but robots are suited more for production work at high speed, not periodic and variable tasks. If McDonalds was turning away customers because they couldn't hand out fries fast enough, the hundreds of thousands of dollars to automate the whole system and thousands more in maintenance and repair might make more sense. You still wouldn't be able to get the robotic fry arm to mop the floor or kick a heroin junkie out of the restroom, pick up trash in the parking lot, etc. They already have the level of automation that makes sense with a machine dipping fries into the oil, timing it, and extracting them... at least I know some restaurants use them and would assume McD does too.

 

[ivwshane]

This study disagrees with the talking points from the conservative the OP decide to cite.

http://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/MinWageReport-July2016_Final.pdf

 

[Maxima1]

It is a joke because the civil servant was given a pension and benefits to make up for the lesser pay compared to the private sector in the past, fast forward to today the public employee looks like they are making out good when it is actually the private sector that has fallen behind and struggling, but instead of asking why it is so you have been brainwashed to point the finger at the "overpaid lazy public servant" because they should be beneath you wage wise so you can feel better about your lousy situation.

No, some of it is clearly excessive. If they tried to reach fair compensation for everyone without axing public sector, you would get inflation problems. One part of the problem is unionization without market penetration allows some sectors in the US economy to get high premiums, but they become lower if most of the work force is unionized.Another issue is that amenities in different states allow the state public sector to extract premiums like a monopoly to the point that the taxpayers would start to favor other states instead. Btw. I'm a government employee. I know the game.

 

[agent00f]

This study disagrees with the talking points from the conservative the OP decide to cite.

http://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/MinWageReport-July2016_Final.pdf

Just pointing out that OP & friends parrot talking points exactly because they aren't exactly in the business of comprehending anything more complicated.

 

[DrDoug]

The automation of jobs is not a valid reason to keep the minimum wage where it's at or even eliminate it, that automation is coming anyway. Keeping the minimum wage where it's at now or even eliminating it isn't going to stop automation, is it?

No.

 

[Exterous]

This study disagrees with the talking points from the conservative the OP decide to cite.

http://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/MinWageReport-July2016_Final.pdf

Wait - so you disagree with the article in the OP by posting a study that was used in the original article to support the story? (Hint: the link you posted was the exact same link used in the article) I guess you couldn't be bothered to read the article to see that that is already posted and couldn't be bothered to read the study:

From the study you (AND the article) cited:

Yet, our best estimates find that the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance appears to have lowered employment rates of low-wage workers.

Just pointing out that OP & friends parrot talking points exactly because they aren't exactly in the business of comprehending anything more complicated.

Ironic given you parroted the talking point of ivwshane despite the lack of comprehension displayed by his post

 

[flexy]

Yeah totally, higher wages are bad for you guys. BAAAAD!- Donald Trump

Your OP is almost too retarded to reply, TBH.

But..tell us more how large corporates, McD, Walmart, Chipotle etc, doesn't like to pay their employees higher wages, and any of the 9000 reasons they would tell you and me why higher wages would be bad.

OP: You know they're having food drives at Walmart so EMPLOYEES can afford having a thanksgiving dinner.

Oh, and here:

Jim Walton Net Worth $36.5 billion
Alice Walton Net Worth $35.3 billion
S. Robson Walton Net Worth $35 billion
Lukas Walton Net Worth $11 billion
Christy Walton Net Worth $5.5 billion
Ann Walton Kroenke Net Worth $4.9 billion
Nancy Walton Laurie Net Worth $4.4 billion

So, tell us more please.

 

[agent00f]

Wait - so you disagree with the article in the OP by posting a study that was used in the original article to support the story? (Hint: the link you posted was the exact same link used in the article) I guess you couldn't be bothered to read the article to see that that is already posted and couldn't be bothered to read the study:

From the study you (AND the article) cited:

Ironic given you parroted the talking point of ivwshane despite the lack of comprehension displayed by his post

If you can bother to read a few lines further either in the study or the article, you'll find that it says "The effects of disemployment appear to be roughly offsetting the gain in hourly wage rates, leaving the earnings for the average low-wage worker unchanged."

This hardly supports the title of: "For low-skilled workers, life is hard. Minimum-wage hikes make it harder". When things are largely unchanged, they aren't harder. If anything things are easier when people work less for the same earnings.

It's typically the case that dummies link articles that don't support their argument, and for their friends to have about as much trouble grasping basic logic. It's also typical for both to exit these situations still believing they're the smart ones, only to repeat the experience for the rest of their lives.

 

[dainthomas]

It would have happened regardless, so what's your point?

Moreover, it's already done in the middle/upper brackets. A PE teacher makes about double the median income AND gets a pension and subsidized health care. That's a joke. In addition, many middle class jobs are arbitrarily protected. For example, off campus college credits.would kill many instructor jobs. In South Korea, they have web cram school.There's also an issue with the US setting class size limits low when studies show it doesn't affect grades, since no one teaches one-on-one. That's why the US spends so much more per student but for less results, and of course the unions don't want to reform it.

You're going to tell me my daughter receives the same quality of instruction in her fourth grade class of 30 as I did in a class of 20 at that age? I call shens.

If 1:1 is best, and 100:1 obviously terrible, then the effectiveness of instruction obviously decreases at some rate between those two numbers.

 

[bshole]

Minimum wage has to keep up with cost of living to stop the downward spiral of our economy. We've already tried the "keep them down" tactic and it isn't working.

More than that, it MUST exceed by a comfortable margin what they can get though entitlements, welfare, etc.... In some cases, it is more profitable for minimum wage earners to be on welfare.

 

[Moonbeam]

More than that, it MUST exceed by a comfortable margin what they can get though entitlements, welfare, etc.... In some cases, it is more profitable for minimum wage earners to be on welfare.

Your point being, I hope, that the minimum wage should go up rather than that welfare be less than it currently is???????????

 

[woolfe9998]

Minimum wage has been around since 1938, far longer than the average minimum wage worker had any realistic concerns about automation eliminating their job. On the contrary at the time and for the most part since then, the increase in production levels saved jobs, caused growth of the particular companies implementing the automation so they hired more employees.

Tech cannot entirely replace labor any decade soon. You could hand pick some repetitive task, but few minimum wage laborers are doing that simplistic a task and no other tasks, so it would require several robots or fewer very expensive ones. The average skill set of a minimum wage earner would rise to deal with this environment, with an associated higher training cost for employers, but then the employers would have more invested and an incentive to pay a little more to decrease employee turnover rate.

We are long past the point in tech where we could make a robotic arm to dip fries, but robots are suited more for production work at high speed, not periodic and variable tasks. If McDonalds was turning away customers because they couldn't hand out fries fast enough, the hundreds of thousands of dollars to automate the whole system and thousands more in maintenance and repair might make more sense. You still wouldn't be able to get the robotic fry arm to mop the floor or kick a heroin junkie out of the restroom, pick up trash in the parking lot, etc. They already have the level of automation that makes sense with a machine dipping fries into the oil, timing it, and extracting them... at least I know some restaurants use them and would assume McD does too.

I agree, but there is at least several people employed taking people's orders at given time, both in store and at the drive through. In super markets and big box retail they already have automated check out. There is nothing preventing fast food places from replacing those employees with machines. So the burger flippers are probably safe, but not necessarily the cashiers.

I've noticed that in supermarkets with automated checkout, customers tend to use them for smaller purchases, like fewer than 10 items, but with larger ones, they tend to go to the human cashiers. Fast food orders typically involve low numbers of items, like 1 to 6 items. Fast food would seem if anything more ideally suited for automated ordering on a touch screen than supermarkets. The other day I was at a drive through for In & Out Burger and they had a person standing outside taking people's orders through their car windows and punching them into a hand held touch screen. I was wondering why they needed the employee. I could just punch the order into the touch screen myself.

 

[woolfe9998]

IMO minimum wage hikes should be relatively slow and should track inflation. I'm for having a minimum wage, which means periodically increasing it to account for inflation, but I agree with the analysis in the OP's article that too high a minimum wage can reduce total employment opportunities. Setting a minimum wage correctly is a balancing act. It shouldn't be too high or too low because of someone's ideology.

 

[Zaap]

IMO minimum wage hikes should be relatively slow and should track inflation. I'm for having a minimum wage, which means periodically increasing it to account for inflation, but I agree with the analysis in the OP's article that too high a minimum wage can reduce total employment opportunities. Setting a minimum wage correctly is a balancing act. It shouldn't be too high or too low because of someone's ideology.

Agree.

 

[Exterous]

If you can bother to read a few lines further either in the study or the article, you'll find that it says "The effects of disemployment appear to be roughly offsetting the gain in hourly wage rates, leaving the earnings for the average low-wage worker unchanged."

This hardly supports the title of: "For low-skilled workers, life is hard. Minimum-wage hikes make it harder". When things are largely unchanged, they aren't harder. If anything things are easier when people work less for the same earnings.

If you can bother to read into the report a bit more you will see that there is a decreased chance of being employed. Saying "When things are largely unchanged, they aren't harder." fails to take that into account. There are winners (those who remain employed and get a small bump in wages) and losers (those who got fired or who weren't hired). While those numbers come close to balancing out in the aggregate there are still losers and life for the losers is harder meaning the title is not incorrect

It's typically the case that dummies link articles that don't support their argument, and for their friends to have about as much trouble grasping basic logic. It's also typical for both to exit these situations still believing they're the smart ones, only to repeat the experience for the rest of their lives.

Agreed but you may not be on the side in that argument that you think you are on

 

[bshole]

Your point being, I hope, that the minimum wage should go up rather than that welfare be less than it currently is???????????

Yes.

 

[SharpHawk]

Minimum wage should be set at $30, that would solve everyone's problems. We could do it too, if it weren't for those meddling conservatives.

 

[Maxima1]

You're going to tell me my daughter receives the same quality of instruction in her fourth grade class of 30 as I did in a class of 20 at that age? I call shens.

If 1:1 is best, and 100:1 obviously terrible, then the effectiveness of instruction obviously decreases at some rate between those two numbers.

I agree that it's more important in elementary school. However, I personally have found there's no difference for higher grades to college. I've been in classes with a few hundred. Many students dislike instruction in college because one can simply read a power point themselves and your grade is most dependent on your outside hours than class instruction.

 

[itsmydamnation]

As an Australian I always find these topic's mind blowing. Our minimum wage is around ~$17 AUD an hour (AUD= 0.75 USD right now), our employment rate has been tied to global economic performance just like the US. Economy's around the world are going nowhere after the GFC because wealth has been redistributed to the rich. The rich don't spend their money like the middle class do. When there is no one left to buy your products what will organisations do?

The removal of the middle class in the first world to me is one of the biggest issue for modern societies that isn't being addressed in anyway. lots of people with a bit of disposable income is a lot better then a few people with lots of disposable income.