6 ms·

> I agree that a lost job should carry some kind of premium compared to a total increase in wages paid I don't think it's nearly that clear. Western nations ar

> I agree that a lost job should carry some kind of premium compared to a total increase in wages paid I don't think it's nearly that clear. Western nations are at a near record low unemployment rate. We should want to remove low paying jobs.

roenxi 1y ago
But that was the best job they could find. Presumably those people are going to be unemployed now. I mean, maybe they're kids and their families will have enough slack to just adsorb the change but in theory they need welfare checks now to survive since they probably can't justify anyone paying them $20/hr. So it actually costs the broader economy more than the salary they lost - firstly the work they were doing isn't being done, secondly someone else now has to work to earn the keep of the person who was just laid off because the job that paid them around what their skills were worth just got regulated out of existence.
- ghaff 1y ago
  You'd probably have to know more about what the jobs were. Certainly there's more self-service and fewer people waiting around to help customers in large stores than there were at one time. And small-time retail has also fairly visibly declined in favor of big-box and online purchases.
- delusional 1y ago
  > but in theory they need welfare checks now to survive since they probably can't justify anyone paying them $20/hr Are you implying that there are people in the world who just can't do anything productive enough to be worth $20/hour? That they are so useless that this was the only thing worth doing with them? That seems fucking insane. If that's true, we have a huge problem with misallocation of value.
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    I think it's self-evidently true that there is a not ignorable group of people who can't create enough value to be worth being paid $20/hr (plus the employer-paid overheads) and have that be something that an employer would voluntarily do. Around 10% of the population does not score highly enough on the ASVAB (an aptitude test for the military) to qualify for military service. The military, like any large employer, has an awful lot of jobs that require minimal skills and aptitude and for 10% to be Category V [unqualified for military service] based on aptitude, I would expect they wouldn't be the employees to create $20+/hr in value for private sector or other government employers either.
    - delusional 1y ago
      Ohh no, it's Jordan Peterson. Not every job is the military. Most jobs are in fact not the military. Not qualifying for military service does not render you worthless in the general economy. Furthermore, being worthless in the general economy does not render you worthless in society. I wasn't qualified for military service in my country, not because of intelligence but some physical conditions. I became a banker.
    - lupusreal 1y ago
      > I think it's self-evidently true that there is a not ignorable group of people who can't create enough value to be worth being paid $20/hr (plus the employer-paid overheads Ignore the mock outrage of my sibling comment, they are uninformed. You are absolutely right that some people aren't capable of work valuable enough to pay at least the minimum wage, and in fact there are programs in place specifically to serve these people. The Fair Labor Standards Act allows qualifying employers to hire people with disabilities (including mental disabilities) for less than minimum wage. This is specifically to ensure that employment opportunities still exist for such people, who otherwise could not provide labor worth at least the minimum wage. In some cases, other state programs may pay part of the disabled workers income, effectively the state subsidizing the employment of the otherwise unemployable. The real problem I think comes from people who are able-bodied and mentally capable, with no legitimate disability, who are just unwilling to take the jobs available to them because it doesn't fit their desired lifestyle (e.g. let them be lazy and keep their hands clean.) Entry level jobs in manufacturing settings have better pay than being a cashier at a burger joint. A first time factory job for a 19 year old highschool dropout with no developed skills but a willingness to show up on time and try hard will almost always pay more than the minimum wage, but finding people who are willing to even apply to such jobs can be challenging due to perceptions of social status and entitlement. These are people who have no legitimate disability but are unfit to work due to their poor attitudes towards working. Our system doesn't accommodate them, unlike people with legitimate disabilities, because the general consensus is those people need to get bitch slapped by reality and man the fuck up.
  - nradov 1y ago
    There are a significant number of people with developmental conditions such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Down's Syndrome who, realistically, are never going to be capable of generating $20/hr of economic value. The higher we raise the minimum wage, the more of those people we condemn to permanent dependence on government aid.
    - delusional 1y ago
      Where I live we solve this in part with state sponsored offsets in wages. If you hire a person with a medically diagnosed handicap, you get some of the wages back from the government. That way they aren't "dependent on government aid". They get to work for a fair comparable wage, avoid having to deal with too much additional paperwork, and don't have to be constantly faced with a stigma of being worth less. They are treated equally, and the employer gets to handle their crap on the back end. It's not some insurmountable gotcha to drag people with a handicap into the conversation.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >The higher we raise the minimum wage, the more of those people we condemn to permanent dependence on government aid. Condemn? You mean take care of the least among us, which is, as many have observed, a KPI for a just society.
      - nradov 1y ago
        I support caring for those who can't care for themselves, but most people want to be able to make a positive contribution. Being taken care of is humiliating.
        nobody9999 1y ago
        >I support caring for those who can't care for themselves, but most people want to be able to make a positive contribution. Being taken care of is humiliating. And so in your ideal world, if they can make a positive contribution, just not enough to live on, we can let them live on the street? Having a "Let them eat cake"[0] moment, are we? Who is to say that folks being subsidized because they don't have the means or wherewithal to support themselves can't make a positive contribution? Does that contribution have to be that they mop floors, clean toilets or flip burgers? Perhaps they might contribute positively to society in other ways, just perhaps not those that have monetary (and ones that don't allow them to pay rent or eat healthy at that) rewards? You know what's humiliating? Living on the street. Rooting through garbage cans to find food to eat. Having to listen to wealthy, entitled folks tell them they're worth less than everyone else and that they should be happy that they're "contributing" to get scraps from their tables. Forcing those with nothing to jump through hoops just to feed themselves and their children. Those things are much more humiliating than getting a helping hand to make ends meet so one can have a roof and electricity and maybe even food. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
- ItsMonkk 1y ago
  The abstract states that there are 2.7% less fast food jobs, not 2.7% less jobs. There might be 2.7% less fast food restaurants as a result of this change, but in their place will be other businesses that employ people of higher than minimum wage. Those businesses might hire the best fast food workers while the average fast food worker continues to be employed doing fast food. As a result, there may be no people who have now become unemployed as a result of this change, and only increases in wages. The data is inconclusive. Regardless, instead of arguing over which commercial property takes which spot and trying to engineer the perfect fit with the limitations we are dealing with, we should be increasing the amount of places that are zoned for commerce. This will bring increased demand for labor, which will increase wages.
  - lxm 1y ago
    > their place will be other businesses that employ people of higher than minimum wage Worth noting that California’s regime extends to fast food industry exclusively. Presumably some of those job losses were absorbed by industries still paying minimum wage - retail, construction, warehousing, etc. Presumably if those losses were not absorbed by those low-skill sectors, the job loss figure would've been higher. So I guess, as you said, data is conclusive.
  - thfuran 1y ago
    >in their place will be other businesses that employ people of higher than minimum wage. Why would raising fast food minimum wage create these businesses?
    - ItsMonkk 1y ago
      If one of these fast food places shuts down, it's not like the lot is just going to sit vacant forever. The primary effect of these types of laws is that businesses that employ fast food workers are less profitable, and thus when they compete against other businesses for a given lot, will bid less for the land. If the marginal buyer changes, it would have to do so to a business that relies less on minimum wage fast food workers.
p1dda 1y ago
What do you think happened to the tens of thousands that lost their jobs? Are they homeless now?
- delusional 1y ago
  I'd hope we could find something more productive for them to do.
  - parineum 1y ago
    Hope in one hand...

roenxi 1y ago

But that was the best job they could find. Presumably those people are going to be unemployed now. I mean, maybe they're kids and their families will have enough slack to just adsorb the change but in theory they need welfare checks now to survive since they probably can't justify anyone paying them $20/hr. So it actually costs the broader economy more than the salary they lost - firstly the work they were doing isn't being done, secondly someone else now has to work to earn the keep of the person who was just laid off because the job that paid them around what their skills were worth just got regulated out of existence.

ghaff 1y ago
You'd probably have to know more about what the jobs were. Certainly there's more self-service and fewer people waiting around to help customers in large stores than there were at one time. And small-time retail has also fairly visibly declined in favor of big-box and online purchases.
delusional 1y ago
> but in theory they need welfare checks now to survive since they probably can't justify anyone paying them $20/hr Are you implying that there are people in the world who just can't do anything productive enough to be worth $20/hour? That they are so useless that this was the only thing worth doing with them? That seems fucking insane. If that's true, we have a huge problem with misallocation of value.
- sokoloff 1y ago
  I think it's self-evidently true that there is a not ignorable group of people who can't create enough value to be worth being paid $20/hr (plus the employer-paid overheads) and have that be something that an employer would voluntarily do. Around 10% of the population does not score highly enough on the ASVAB (an aptitude test for the military) to qualify for military service. The military, like any large employer, has an awful lot of jobs that require minimal skills and aptitude and for 10% to be Category V [unqualified for military service] based on aptitude, I would expect they wouldn't be the employees to create $20+/hr in value for private sector or other government employers either.
  - delusional 1y ago
    Ohh no, it's Jordan Peterson. Not every job is the military. Most jobs are in fact not the military. Not qualifying for military service does not render you worthless in the general economy. Furthermore, being worthless in the general economy does not render you worthless in society. I wasn't qualified for military service in my country, not because of intelligence but some physical conditions. I became a banker.
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    > I think it's self-evidently true that there is a not ignorable group of people who can't create enough value to be worth being paid $20/hr (plus the employer-paid overheads Ignore the mock outrage of my sibling comment, they are uninformed. You are absolutely right that some people aren't capable of work valuable enough to pay at least the minimum wage, and in fact there are programs in place specifically to serve these people. The Fair Labor Standards Act allows qualifying employers to hire people with disabilities (including mental disabilities) for less than minimum wage. This is specifically to ensure that employment opportunities still exist for such people, who otherwise could not provide labor worth at least the minimum wage. In some cases, other state programs may pay part of the disabled workers income, effectively the state subsidizing the employment of the otherwise unemployable. The real problem I think comes from people who are able-bodied and mentally capable, with no legitimate disability, who are just unwilling to take the jobs available to them because it doesn't fit their desired lifestyle (e.g. let them be lazy and keep their hands clean.) Entry level jobs in manufacturing settings have better pay than being a cashier at a burger joint. A first time factory job for a 19 year old highschool dropout with no developed skills but a willingness to show up on time and try hard will almost always pay more than the minimum wage, but finding people who are willing to even apply to such jobs can be challenging due to perceptions of social status and entitlement. These are people who have no legitimate disability but are unfit to work due to their poor attitudes towards working. Our system doesn't accommodate them, unlike people with legitimate disabilities, because the general consensus is those people need to get bitch slapped by reality and man the fuck up.
- nradov 1y ago
  There are a significant number of people with developmental conditions such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Down's Syndrome who, realistically, are never going to be capable of generating $20/hr of economic value. The higher we raise the minimum wage, the more of those people we condemn to permanent dependence on government aid.
  - delusional 1y ago
    Where I live we solve this in part with state sponsored offsets in wages. If you hire a person with a medically diagnosed handicap, you get some of the wages back from the government. That way they aren't "dependent on government aid". They get to work for a fair comparable wage, avoid having to deal with too much additional paperwork, and don't have to be constantly faced with a stigma of being worth less. They are treated equally, and the employer gets to handle their crap on the back end. It's not some insurmountable gotcha to drag people with a handicap into the conversation.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >The higher we raise the minimum wage, the more of those people we condemn to permanent dependence on government aid. Condemn? You mean take care of the least among us, which is, as many have observed, a KPI for a just society.
    - nradov 1y ago
      I support caring for those who can't care for themselves, but most people want to be able to make a positive contribution. Being taken care of is humiliating.
      - nobody9999 1y ago
        >I support caring for those who can't care for themselves, but most people want to be able to make a positive contribution. Being taken care of is humiliating. And so in your ideal world, if they can make a positive contribution, just not enough to live on, we can let them live on the street? Having a "Let them eat cake"[0] moment, are we? Who is to say that folks being subsidized because they don't have the means or wherewithal to support themselves can't make a positive contribution? Does that contribution have to be that they mop floors, clean toilets or flip burgers? Perhaps they might contribute positively to society in other ways, just perhaps not those that have monetary (and ones that don't allow them to pay rent or eat healthy at that) rewards? You know what's humiliating? Living on the street. Rooting through garbage cans to find food to eat. Having to listen to wealthy, entitled folks tell them they're worth less than everyone else and that they should be happy that they're "contributing" to get scraps from their tables. Forcing those with nothing to jump through hoops just to feed themselves and their children. Those things are much more humiliating than getting a helping hand to make ends meet so one can have a roof and electricity and maybe even food. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
ItsMonkk 1y ago
The abstract states that there are 2.7% less fast food jobs, not 2.7% less jobs. There might be 2.7% less fast food restaurants as a result of this change, but in their place will be other businesses that employ people of higher than minimum wage. Those businesses might hire the best fast food workers while the average fast food worker continues to be employed doing fast food. As a result, there may be no people who have now become unemployed as a result of this change, and only increases in wages. The data is inconclusive. Regardless, instead of arguing over which commercial property takes which spot and trying to engineer the perfect fit with the limitations we are dealing with, we should be increasing the amount of places that are zoned for commerce. This will bring increased demand for labor, which will increase wages.
- lxm 1y ago
  > their place will be other businesses that employ people of higher than minimum wage Worth noting that California’s regime extends to fast food industry exclusively. Presumably some of those job losses were absorbed by industries still paying minimum wage - retail, construction, warehousing, etc. Presumably if those losses were not absorbed by those low-skill sectors, the job loss figure would've been higher. So I guess, as you said, data is conclusive.
- thfuran 1y ago
  >in their place will be other businesses that employ people of higher than minimum wage. Why would raising fast food minimum wage create these businesses?
  - ItsMonkk 1y ago
    If one of these fast food places shuts down, it's not like the lot is just going to sit vacant forever. The primary effect of these types of laws is that businesses that employ fast food workers are less profitable, and thus when they compete against other businesses for a given lot, will bid less for the land. If the marginal buyer changes, it would have to do so to a business that relies less on minimum wage fast food workers.

p1dda 1y ago

What do you think happened to the tens of thousands that lost their jobs? Are they homeless now?

delusional 1y ago
I'd hope we could find something more productive for them to do.
- parineum 1y ago
  Hope in one hand...