3 ms·

> But that's what would happen regardless if the human worker could find another job that pays more than the one being automated. The issue is that the human wo

> But that's what would happen regardless if the human worker could find another job that pays more than the one being automated. The issue is that the human worker would prefer $5/hour to unemployment, and the employer would prefer a $5/hour employee to automation but prefer automation to an $8/hour employee, so an $8 minimum wage puts the employee on the unemployment line. Putting people who perform work we can do cheaper with automation on the unemployment line is a side-effect of a good thing. Think of what the first wave of industrialization brought us. People can now invest time learning skills they're actually needed for, without reducing economic output (and later supplementing it). > Which is more undignified, working a job supplemented by government assistance or being unemployed and 100% reliant on government assistance? Honestly? Rather than slaving away at McDonalds working for 7 dollars an hour, effectively kissing the ass of that horrible company, just to receive government aid anyways to get me to the end of the month I'd just not work at all. At least that way FastFoodChainX can't use me to leech off the government and myself. Just because you introduce a minimum wage restaurants and junk food chains aren't going to go away. They're gonna get more expensive, sure. But you'll lessen the burden they create on society, as well as raising a class of neglected workers to the point where they can afford to dine at such places themselves. > Both of those benefit larger entities. Suppose you sell a unit for $100 and your previous unit cost was $80 but with the more expensive materials it's $90. What's really gonna happen is that it'll now sell for $110. Or probably $115 to cover the advertising for the new "High quality ingredients! Now 95% less poisonous!"

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Putting people who perform work we can do cheaper with automation on the unemployment line is a side-effect of a good thing. Think of what the first wave of industrialization brought us. In that case we should be taxing wages and using the money to subsidize automation. That way it's everyone paying for the benefits of automation rather than only those at the very bottom. > People can now invest time learning skills they're actually needed for, without reducing economic output (and later supplementing it). But they could already do this without a minimum wage. There is no law against quitting your crappy job so you can learn a new trade. > Honestly? Rather than slaving away at McDonalds working for 7 dollars an hour, effectively kissing the ass of that horrible company, just to receive government aid anyways to get me to the end of the month I'd just not work at all. Again, if people actually believed this and unemployment is really better than a crappy job then why don't they quit? > Just because you introduce a minimum wage restaurants and junk food chains aren't going to go away. They do at the margin. A restaurant in the heart of New York City is not going to close on account of raising the minimum wage. One in rural Nebraska very well might. > They're gonna get more expensive, sure. ...which hurts their low income customers. And wasn't the benefit of automation supposed to be lower prices? That doesn't work when you force the automation by prohibiting its competition. > But you'll lessen the burden they create on society How does causing them to lose their jobs lessen the burden they create on society? > What's really gonna happen is that it'll now sell for $110. Or probably $115 to cover the advertising for the new "High quality ingredients! Now 95% less poisonous!" At which point the higher price causes price-sensitive customers to drop out of the market and the smaller company fails for lack of volume rather than lack of margins. Either way the smaller company is more likely to be destroyed than the larger one.
- chmod775 8y ago
  > There is no law against quitting your crappy job so you can learn a new trade. > Again, if people actually believed this and unemployment is really better than a crappy job then why don't they quit? Speaking from a German perspective there is such a law. They will cut your unemployment benefits if you can't prove you're hunting for a job, or just go around quitting them. Not sure about the states. We have a minimum wage, but it's not that high (just slightly above the US "minimum wage"). > ...which hurts their low income customers. Low income customers? We have a minimum wage now remember? If at all it's gonna hurt richer customers who are now a little less rich compared to the rest. > How does causing them to lose their jobs lessen the burden they create on society? I was speaking of the burden places like Walmart etc. create because of indirect government subsidies. > At which point the higher price causes price-sensitive customers to drop out of the market and the smaller company fails for lack of volume rather than lack of margins. Either way the smaller company is more likely to be destroyed than the larger one. There's a lack of logical connection between those two sentences, probably a third sentence missing in between? --- Livable minimum wages: The point I seem to fail to bring across is that you're paying the higher prices for goods produced fairly RIGHT NOW. You're just not paying them at the counter, you're paying them with your taxes. They're unfair subsidies to companies who pay dumpster wages - rewards for treating their workers like shit. These forms of subsidies are arguably even less "free market" than the alternative.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Speaking from a German perspective there is such a law. They will cut your unemployment benefits if you can't prove you're hunting for a job, or just go around quitting them. Then doesn't the same thing happen to the person who loses their job to a minimum wage increase? You can't spend all day learning a new trade if you have to spend all day chasing jobs you're not qualified to do yet. It seems like your quarrel is with the unemployment rules, e.g. maybe they should be replaced with a UBI. > Low income customers? We have a minimum wage now remember? If at all it's gonna hurt richer customers who are now a little less rich compared to the rest. Your argument is that raising consumer prices hurts rich people more than poor people? > I was speaking of the burden places like Walmart etc. create because of indirect government subsidies. I have a hard time faulting a company for hiring people who would otherwise be unemployed. And the subsidies are ostensibly there to help the employees. Who do you expect it to hurt more if we got rid of them, the company or the workers? > There's a lack of logical connection between those two sentences, probably a third sentence missing in between? The premise is that regulatory overhead is increasing unit costs. In response a company can do one of two things. If they don't raise prices then they maintain their customer volume but have reduced margins. If they do raise prices then they maintain their margins but suffer reduced customer volume. In both cases they make less money and the smaller company may no longer be making enough to cover their fixed costs. > The point I seem to fail to bring across is that you're paying the higher prices for goods produced fairly RIGHT NOW. You're just not paying them at the counter, you're paying them with your taxes. The direct cause of that is social assistance to low income people. It makes no sense to at the same time have a policy of providing assistance to the working poor and prohibit them from working at those wages. At least one of them is wrong. When the alternative to $5 wages isn't higher wages but higher unemployment, the company paying the $5 wages isn't a drain in society -- it's reducing by $5/hr the amount of social assistance needed to keep those people from starving. The real source of the problem is that there are people whose labor is not worth a living wage. But minimum wage doesn't change that. If there was someone willing to pay $20/hr then they wouldn't be working for $5/hr. Prohibiting them from working for low wages just makes them unemployed and even more reliant on social assistance. If you want an actual solution, try policies that reduce the market price of necessities like housing and medicine, so that the wages of unskilled labor are survivable without the need for social assistance.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> Putting people who perform work we can do cheaper with automation on the unemployment line is a side-effect of a good thing. Think of what the first wave of industrialization brought us. In that case we should be taxing wages and using the money to subsidize automation. That way it's everyone paying for the benefits of automation rather than only those at the very bottom. > People can now invest time learning skills they're actually needed for, without reducing economic output (and later supplementing it). But they could already do this without a minimum wage. There is no law against quitting your crappy job so you can learn a new trade. > Honestly? Rather than slaving away at McDonalds working for 7 dollars an hour, effectively kissing the ass of that horrible company, just to receive government aid anyways to get me to the end of the month I'd just not work at all. Again, if people actually believed this and unemployment is really better than a crappy job then why don't they quit? > Just because you introduce a minimum wage restaurants and junk food chains aren't going to go away. They do at the margin. A restaurant in the heart of New York City is not going to close on account of raising the minimum wage. One in rural Nebraska very well might. > They're gonna get more expensive, sure. ...which hurts their low income customers. And wasn't the benefit of automation supposed to be lower prices? That doesn't work when you force the automation by prohibiting its competition. > But you'll lessen the burden they create on society How does causing them to lose their jobs lessen the burden they create on society? > What's really gonna happen is that it'll now sell for $110. Or probably $115 to cover the advertising for the new "High quality ingredients! Now 95% less poisonous!" At which point the higher price causes price-sensitive customers to drop out of the market and the smaller company fails for lack of volume rather than lack of margins. Either way the smaller company is more likely to be destroyed than the larger one.

chmod775 8y ago
> There is no law against quitting your crappy job so you can learn a new trade. > Again, if people actually believed this and unemployment is really better than a crappy job then why don't they quit? Speaking from a German perspective there is such a law. They will cut your unemployment benefits if you can't prove you're hunting for a job, or just go around quitting them. Not sure about the states. We have a minimum wage, but it's not that high (just slightly above the US "minimum wage"). > ...which hurts their low income customers. Low income customers? We have a minimum wage now remember? If at all it's gonna hurt richer customers who are now a little less rich compared to the rest. > How does causing them to lose their jobs lessen the burden they create on society? I was speaking of the burden places like Walmart etc. create because of indirect government subsidies. > At which point the higher price causes price-sensitive customers to drop out of the market and the smaller company fails for lack of volume rather than lack of margins. Either way the smaller company is more likely to be destroyed than the larger one. There's a lack of logical connection between those two sentences, probably a third sentence missing in between? --- Livable minimum wages: The point I seem to fail to bring across is that you're paying the higher prices for goods produced fairly RIGHT NOW. You're just not paying them at the counter, you're paying them with your taxes. They're unfair subsidies to companies who pay dumpster wages - rewards for treating their workers like shit. These forms of subsidies are arguably even less "free market" than the alternative.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Speaking from a German perspective there is such a law. They will cut your unemployment benefits if you can't prove you're hunting for a job, or just go around quitting them. Then doesn't the same thing happen to the person who loses their job to a minimum wage increase? You can't spend all day learning a new trade if you have to spend all day chasing jobs you're not qualified to do yet. It seems like your quarrel is with the unemployment rules, e.g. maybe they should be replaced with a UBI. > Low income customers? We have a minimum wage now remember? If at all it's gonna hurt richer customers who are now a little less rich compared to the rest. Your argument is that raising consumer prices hurts rich people more than poor people? > I was speaking of the burden places like Walmart etc. create because of indirect government subsidies. I have a hard time faulting a company for hiring people who would otherwise be unemployed. And the subsidies are ostensibly there to help the employees. Who do you expect it to hurt more if we got rid of them, the company or the workers? > There's a lack of logical connection between those two sentences, probably a third sentence missing in between? The premise is that regulatory overhead is increasing unit costs. In response a company can do one of two things. If they don't raise prices then they maintain their customer volume but have reduced margins. If they do raise prices then they maintain their margins but suffer reduced customer volume. In both cases they make less money and the smaller company may no longer be making enough to cover their fixed costs. > The point I seem to fail to bring across is that you're paying the higher prices for goods produced fairly RIGHT NOW. You're just not paying them at the counter, you're paying them with your taxes. The direct cause of that is social assistance to low income people. It makes no sense to at the same time have a policy of providing assistance to the working poor and prohibit them from working at those wages. At least one of them is wrong. When the alternative to $5 wages isn't higher wages but higher unemployment, the company paying the $5 wages isn't a drain in society -- it's reducing by $5/hr the amount of social assistance needed to keep those people from starving. The real source of the problem is that there are people whose labor is not worth a living wage. But minimum wage doesn't change that. If there was someone willing to pay $20/hr then they wouldn't be working for $5/hr. Prohibiting them from working for low wages just makes them unemployed and even more reliant on social assistance. If you want an actual solution, try policies that reduce the market price of necessities like housing and medicine, so that the wages of unskilled labor are survivable without the need for social assistance.