5 ms·

I agree that one needs both and that they serve complementary purposes. But a minimum wage is useful to the extent that there are jobs for your lowest skill, l

by mlyle 5y ago

I agree that one needs both and that they serve complementary purposes. But a minimum wage is useful to the extent that there are jobs for your lowest skill, least desirable workers. And ensuring that may take reducing the work week.

xupybd 5y ago
Higher minimum wage laws do hurt low skilled workers. We have two great big machines at work each will pay for it's self in under a year at current minimum wage rates. There is no choice but to replace the people for machines if we want to remain competitive.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  It is a win-win. They force other businesses who can't buy a machine to pay a higher floor. If no jobs exist at all those voters will bring in someone who will tax companies like yours and spread the wealth. Your company gets more productive. Paying some a lower wage because it delays another machine purchase is not a long term solutiom
  - loonster 5y ago
    > If no jobs exist at all those voters will bring in someone who will tax companies like yours and spread the wealth. And those companies will calculate the ROI for moving into a lower tax burdensome area. After the company leaves the people wont have a job or the tax revenue.
    - midasuni 5y ago
      Which is why all companies move to Somalia rather than say California
      - loonster 5y ago
        Tesla? Some companies are leaving California.
      - xapata 5y ago
        No one lives in California; it's too crowded.
      - selimthegrim 5y ago
        I hear Hargeisa is nice these days.
  - xupybd 5y ago
    That job was not a long term position most would either move on or up. People are more flexible than machines. They're a better choice if you can afford it. Living off of redistributed hand outs sounds like a horrible way to live. How do you improve your life? How do you find meaning? I live in a country that has 3rd generation beneficiaries. Their lives don't appear enjoyable. Once in that mind set it's so hard to get out. They often turn to drugs and mindless entertainment.
    - frickinLasers 5y ago
      You're on a site full of motivated self-learners who would hopefully use that free time to improve their selves and contribute to far more interesting, useful, and fulfilling things than making the widgets the machine can make. Most of us also probably live in countries where a significant fraction of the population would choose Playstation/Netflix/heroin instead. That's their choice, but you're probably right that much of it is learned behavior. Perhaps some significant resources (government funded or volunteered) should be applied toward teaching people how to make better use of their free time, if that's what they want. It's certainly a better vision than making widgets 40 hours a week for a company with dubious social impact.
- myohmy 5y ago
  If the machines can replace people then they will replace people regardless. Its a capex vs opex decision and capex is almost always better in the long run. That's why that argument is a bit of a red herring. Self checkout came regardless of whether the state had a minimum wage increase or not. As soon as the technology was mature enough it was rolled out.
dv_dt 5y ago
We should consider thinking of those jobs not as lowest skill, but jobs where the workers have the lowest negotiating power.
- mlyle 5y ago
  They go hand in hand. Why do the workers have the lowest negotiating power in these jobs? It's because they are the most easily replaced and the net benefit from employing them is smallest. [There are some edge cases, where a field is swamped from people doing the job for the love of it... But this is not the typical case.]
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Isn't the whole point of the minimum wage that the federal / state / local governments are the negotiator of last resort? I.e. people with minimum wage jobs would be paid even less, but for the government using its power to negotiate for them
    - mlyle 5y ago
      > Isn't the whole point of the minimum wage that the federal / state / local governments are the negotiator of last resort? Yes. And it's a necessary thing to have. On the other hand... if someone is doing work that returns $15.50/hour on average to the business, and is employed at $10/hour, raising the minimum wage to $15/hour doesn't get that person a raise: it gets them laid off. The things that IMO really help the fundamentals are: * Raising the demand for low-skill labor (e.g. economic growth above productivity improvements) * Raising the average skill level of the workforce, and/or * Reducing the supply of labor.
      - vkou 5y ago
        > On the other hand... if someone is doing work that returns $15.50/hour on average to the business, and is employed at $10/hour, raising the minimum wage to $15/hour doesn't get that person a raise: it gets them laid off. No, what it does is it causes prices to go up, which are amortized across all of society - between both people who are paid $15/hour, and people who are paid $150/hour. On average, it is a small wealth transfer from the average person to the working poor.

by mlyle 5y ago

xupybd 5y ago

Higher minimum wage laws do hurt low skilled workers. We have two great big machines at work each will pay for it's self in under a year at current minimum wage rates. There is no choice but to replace the people for machines if we want to remain competitive.

ipaddr 5y ago
It is a win-win. They force other businesses who can't buy a machine to pay a higher floor. If no jobs exist at all those voters will bring in someone who will tax companies like yours and spread the wealth. Your company gets more productive. Paying some a lower wage because it delays another machine purchase is not a long term solutiom
- loonster 5y ago
  > If no jobs exist at all those voters will bring in someone who will tax companies like yours and spread the wealth. And those companies will calculate the ROI for moving into a lower tax burdensome area. After the company leaves the people wont have a job or the tax revenue.
  - midasuni 5y ago
    Which is why all companies move to Somalia rather than say California
    - loonster 5y ago
      Tesla? Some companies are leaving California.
    - xapata 5y ago
      No one lives in California; it's too crowded.
    - selimthegrim 5y ago
      I hear Hargeisa is nice these days.
- xupybd 5y ago
  That job was not a long term position most would either move on or up. People are more flexible than machines. They're a better choice if you can afford it. Living off of redistributed hand outs sounds like a horrible way to live. How do you improve your life? How do you find meaning? I live in a country that has 3rd generation beneficiaries. Their lives don't appear enjoyable. Once in that mind set it's so hard to get out. They often turn to drugs and mindless entertainment.
  - frickinLasers 5y ago
    You're on a site full of motivated self-learners who would hopefully use that free time to improve their selves and contribute to far more interesting, useful, and fulfilling things than making the widgets the machine can make. Most of us also probably live in countries where a significant fraction of the population would choose Playstation/Netflix/heroin instead. That's their choice, but you're probably right that much of it is learned behavior. Perhaps some significant resources (government funded or volunteered) should be applied toward teaching people how to make better use of their free time, if that's what they want. It's certainly a better vision than making widgets 40 hours a week for a company with dubious social impact.
myohmy 5y ago
If the machines can replace people then they will replace people regardless. Its a capex vs opex decision and capex is almost always better in the long run. That's why that argument is a bit of a red herring. Self checkout came regardless of whether the state had a minimum wage increase or not. As soon as the technology was mature enough it was rolled out.

dv_dt 5y ago

We should consider thinking of those jobs not as lowest skill, but jobs where the workers have the lowest negotiating power.

mlyle 5y ago
They go hand in hand. Why do the workers have the lowest negotiating power in these jobs? It's because they are the most easily replaced and the net benefit from employing them is smallest. [There are some edge cases, where a field is swamped from people doing the job for the love of it... But this is not the typical case.]
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Isn't the whole point of the minimum wage that the federal / state / local governments are the negotiator of last resort? I.e. people with minimum wage jobs would be paid even less, but for the government using its power to negotiate for them
  - mlyle 5y ago
    > Isn't the whole point of the minimum wage that the federal / state / local governments are the negotiator of last resort? Yes. And it's a necessary thing to have. On the other hand... if someone is doing work that returns $15.50/hour on average to the business, and is employed at $10/hour, raising the minimum wage to $15/hour doesn't get that person a raise: it gets them laid off. The things that IMO really help the fundamentals are: * Raising the demand for low-skill labor (e.g. economic growth above productivity improvements) * Raising the average skill level of the workforce, and/or * Reducing the supply of labor.
    - vkou 5y ago
      > On the other hand... if someone is doing work that returns $15.50/hour on average to the business, and is employed at $10/hour, raising the minimum wage to $15/hour doesn't get that person a raise: it gets them laid off. No, what it does is it causes prices to go up, which are amortized across all of society - between both people who are paid $15/hour, and people who are paid $150/hour. On average, it is a small wealth transfer from the average person to the working poor.