3 ms·

> The majority of these positions are things like service jobs not subject to global workforces. They are subject to automation. If you make service labor more

> The majority of these positions are things like service jobs not subject to global workforces. They are subject to automation. If you make service labor more expensive than robots, you'll be buying your Big Macs from robots instead of human cashiers.

ajross 7y ago
Trivially disproven by the handful of high minimum wage metropolitain areas. If New Yorker cooks aren't getting displaced at $15/hour, I think Missisippi or Wyoming employees probably have safe jobs too. There's always an excuse. Yet real wages continue to drop.
- hollerith 7y ago
  It is not trivial to estimate how many unemployed people would have jobs as cooks in New York if New York's minimum wage were lower. The fact that NY's minimum wage didn't eliminate all the cook jobs does not by itself allow us to make the estimate. Grandparent talks about robots, but it might also be the case that many cook jobs were displaced by the decision of consumers who would've eaten out if the minimum wage were lower deciding instead to cook at home or brown-bag it. Make the US minimum wage high enough and the US might become like Spain where in 2014, 57.9% of young people in were unemployed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_unemployment_in_Spain#Current_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_unemployment_in_Spain#Cu... Spain had a minimum wage of 752 euros per month in 2014: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=ml9s8a132hlg_&met_y=minimum_wage&idim=country:es:fr:pt&fdim_y=currency:eur&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=minimum_wage&fdim_y=currency:eur&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:es&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=ml9s8a132hlg_&m... Of course, Spain was in the middle of an economic slowdown in 2014, but it is not impossible for a severe slowdown to hit the US, and if it does, the US government probably would not compensate for the slowdown by lowering the minimum wage. (The Spanish government didn't lower its minimum in response to their slowdown.)
  - ajross 7y ago
    > it might also be the case that many cook jobs were displaced by the decision of consumers who would've eaten out if the minimum wage were lower So... paying people more makes them less likely to eat at a restaurant? That logic doesn't work, you're forgetting the other side of the consumer equation. Look: you can find all the excuses you want. There will always be excuses.[1] But in real terms wages are declining at the bottom of the income scale, and that's not something you get to brush away as not a problem via some cherry picked data. Is it genuinely your opinion that there is money in the US economy to give the super elite a 10x raise but none at all for anyone flipping burgers? Just say it if so and argue the moral level instead of all the excuse-making. [1] Hell, Spain isn't even the only crazy outlier from 2014! Go look at Greece! Gosh, it's like both of those countries had something else going on besides simple market pressure due to wages, but whatever. There will always be an excuse.
    - mrmuagi 7y ago
      > So... paying people more makes them less likely to eat at a restaurant? That logic doesn't work, you're forgetting the other side of the consumer equation. It is often argued that it does, particularly by opponents of minimum wage increase. If they need to pay their salaries, they'll increase menu item prices, and a la supply and demand, fewer sales. This argument is for a single business only, I imagine the aggregate supply and demand is affected differently if one were to apply a minimum wage law instead of a hypothetical at one restaurant. Basic form of the argument would be if everyone makes more in a region, perhaps increases in prices are cancelled out. I'm not an economist, ymmv.
      - ajross 7y ago
        > If they need to pay their salaries, they'll increase menu item prices, and a la supply and demand, fewer sales. You whooshed on the point. If their workers are paid higher salaries, they'll turn around and spend that money, and a la supply and demand, more sales! Details matter, making an argument like this without numbers isn't analysis, it's excuse-making. And the counter point (with numbers!) is that people at the bottom of society are getting poorer. And that this is more important as an immediate issue than a innumerate macroeconomic excuse.
freehunter 7y ago
So by keeping minimum wage below the poverty line, not only are we not realizing efficiencies the market could be providing, but we're also subsidizing the lack of market efficiency in social welfare benefits. All while the companies increase their profits on the backs of every taxpayer who subsidizes the employees those companies are not paying appropriately. If replacing humans with robots is so easy, we should do it. We're already giving those humans taxpayer money to survive anyway. It's not like we're saving money with the current system, we're just funneling taxpayer money straight into the pockets of Walmart, McDonalds, etc.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
maximente 7y ago
believe me, capital will find a way to automate any potentially automatable job: it's just a matter of time and incentives. if you believe in what Andrew Yang has to say, truck driving and even some white collar stuff is on the chopping block, and those people aren't making minimum wage. therefore one must conclude that automation is driven by capital trying to save on labor, and the rest is a matter of intensity and investment/risk/reward tradeoff. sure, you may turn the dial up on the acceleration by bumping the minimum wage, but if you're arguing that people working full time yet still being relatively poor is worth briefly "saving" these jobs, i think you won't win many people over.

ajross 7y ago

Trivially disproven by the handful of high minimum wage metropolitain areas. If New Yorker cooks aren't getting displaced at $15/hour, I think Missisippi or Wyoming employees probably have safe jobs too. There's always an excuse. Yet real wages continue to drop.

hollerith 7y ago
It is not trivial to estimate how many unemployed people would have jobs as cooks in New York if New York's minimum wage were lower. The fact that NY's minimum wage didn't eliminate all the cook jobs does not by itself allow us to make the estimate. Grandparent talks about robots, but it might also be the case that many cook jobs were displaced by the decision of consumers who would've eaten out if the minimum wage were lower deciding instead to cook at home or brown-bag it. Make the US minimum wage high enough and the US might become like Spain where in 2014, 57.9% of young people in were unemployed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_unemployment_in_Spain#Current_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_unemployment_in_Spain#Cu... Spain had a minimum wage of 752 euros per month in 2014: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=ml9s8a132hlg_&met_y=minimum_wage&idim=country:es:fr:pt&fdim_y=currency:eur&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=minimum_wage&fdim_y=currency:eur&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:es&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=ml9s8a132hlg_&m... Of course, Spain was in the middle of an economic slowdown in 2014, but it is not impossible for a severe slowdown to hit the US, and if it does, the US government probably would not compensate for the slowdown by lowering the minimum wage. (The Spanish government didn't lower its minimum in response to their slowdown.)
- ajross 7y ago
  > it might also be the case that many cook jobs were displaced by the decision of consumers who would've eaten out if the minimum wage were lower So... paying people more makes them less likely to eat at a restaurant? That logic doesn't work, you're forgetting the other side of the consumer equation. Look: you can find all the excuses you want. There will always be excuses.[1] But in real terms wages are declining at the bottom of the income scale, and that's not something you get to brush away as not a problem via some cherry picked data. Is it genuinely your opinion that there is money in the US economy to give the super elite a 10x raise but none at all for anyone flipping burgers? Just say it if so and argue the moral level instead of all the excuse-making. [1] Hell, Spain isn't even the only crazy outlier from 2014! Go look at Greece! Gosh, it's like both of those countries had something else going on besides simple market pressure due to wages, but whatever. There will always be an excuse.
  - mrmuagi 7y ago
    > So... paying people more makes them less likely to eat at a restaurant? That logic doesn't work, you're forgetting the other side of the consumer equation. It is often argued that it does, particularly by opponents of minimum wage increase. If they need to pay their salaries, they'll increase menu item prices, and a la supply and demand, fewer sales. This argument is for a single business only, I imagine the aggregate supply and demand is affected differently if one were to apply a minimum wage law instead of a hypothetical at one restaurant. Basic form of the argument would be if everyone makes more in a region, perhaps increases in prices are cancelled out. I'm not an economist, ymmv.
    - ajross 7y ago
      > If they need to pay their salaries, they'll increase menu item prices, and a la supply and demand, fewer sales. You whooshed on the point. If their workers are paid higher salaries, they'll turn around and spend that money, and a la supply and demand, more sales! Details matter, making an argument like this without numbers isn't analysis, it's excuse-making. And the counter point (with numbers!) is that people at the bottom of society are getting poorer. And that this is more important as an immediate issue than a innumerate macroeconomic excuse.

freehunter 7y ago

So by keeping minimum wage below the poverty line, not only are we not realizing efficiencies the market could be providing, but we're also subsidizing the lack of market efficiency in social welfare benefits. All while the companies increase their profits on the backs of every taxpayer who subsidizes the employees those companies are not paying appropriately. If replacing humans with robots is so easy, we should do it. We're already giving those humans taxpayer money to survive anyway. It's not like we're saving money with the current system, we're just funneling taxpayer money straight into the pockets of Walmart, McDonalds, etc.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

maximente 7y ago

believe me, capital will find a way to automate any potentially automatable job: it's just a matter of time and incentives. if you believe in what Andrew Yang has to say, truck driving and even some white collar stuff is on the chopping block, and those people aren't making minimum wage. therefore one must conclude that automation is driven by capital trying to save on labor, and the rest is a matter of intensity and investment/risk/reward tradeoff. sure, you may turn the dial up on the acceleration by bumping the minimum wage, but if you're arguing that people working full time yet still being relatively poor is worth briefly "saving" these jobs, i think you won't win many people over.