8 ms·

So, when a person's job becomes outdone by technology or automation, we should force companies to pay them more? ?

by lhnn 14y ago

robryan 14y ago
Ideally provide them with a better safety net and the means for which to develop skills which would give then a value over the minimum wage.
krapp 14y ago
Companies shouldn't be able to set wages at an arbitrary low. Because then companies could simply set them as low as possible, without any regard to the standard of living for the employees making those wages.
- benaiah 14y ago
  But then any company willing to pay a decent price would instantly have their pick of anyone in the workforce. It's called supply and demand. If there's no demand for cheap laborers, the answer is not to make them more expensive to hire, or to force companies to pay them a minimum. That just exacerbates the problem - now they can't even work for wages they might be able to be worth. It's very difficult to get better at a job unless you're either working at it or have the resources to do it in your free time. Someone who can't get a minimum wage job probably doesn't have the resources to learn the skills to move up. I can personally attest that it's not just teenagers trying to find minimum wage jobs. I am a teenager, and I while I was looking for a summer job (I'm now employed as a software consultant) I was regularly (i.e., every single time) competing with people in their 20s or even, in some cases, older than that, who were simply unable to find work elsewhere.
  - EricDeb 14y ago
    A minimum wage affords unskilled workers some amount of time to learn new skills or improve their lot in life. An unskilled worker who has to work 18 hours a day at $2 an hour to make ends meet will never be able to learn new skills and claw their way out of that hole. It's the same with unemployment benefits - it affords citizens time to learn new skills without worrying about what they will eat that night.
    - chii 14y ago
      perhaps unemployment benefits should give food and other basic necessities in the form of vouchers, and force the benefit taker to take (gov't provided) classes that will reskill them. This way, they can either look for a real job to earn cash, instead of living on "vouchers/food tickets", or have to take classes to reskill/up-skill. They won't be battling for their next meal, but they also can't have leasure time.
- wwwtyro 14y ago
  Hmm. I'm not following the logic, there. If that were true, wouldn't every company have their wages set to the minimum wage right now?
  - krapp 14y ago
    I will admit I can't argue against that.
- baddox 14y ago
  Then I suppose you would consider it stupid and irrational for any company to pay more than minimum wage.
  - krapp 14y ago
    If you're meaning to reply to me, then no. I don't even see how you can draw that inference. I'm only suggesting that a minimum wage is necessary, because there is a cost of living in a modern society. Money pays for shelter. Money pays for healthcare. Money pays for education and food. And unless you're in a socialist system, that money comes from wages. So a standard should be met. Especially in cases where a corporation would otherwise consider someone's labor to be essentially worthless. And yes, perhaps if that standard itself were fair (assuming it's currently unfair), then in some places and in some jobs it might be less than whatever the current minimum wage is, where the minimum wage exists. Elsewhere it might be higher. I don't know, and I'll readily admit I might be bringing a checkers set to a chess match when discussing economics on this forum but I honestly believe it should be something.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      The question is, how much shelter, healthcare or food can you pay when your job is replaced by a machine or an offshore worker because your wage is now too high (relatively to the alternative) to be worthwhile keeping you employed?
      - krapp 14y ago
        Would those companies necessarily choose not to outsource or automate those jobs if they had the option to do so, without a minimum wage requirement? If the standard of living is low enough that, taking the same wages as an outsourced worker, someone doing that job could still survive, you might have an argument against the minimum wage standard there. Otherwise, if only option to retain local employment is to pay what those outsourced workers are making, or less, in a market where more than that means living hand to mouth, then it's a distinction without a difference to me.
    - 14y ago
- markshead 14y ago
  > Companies shouldn't be able to set wages at an arbitrary low. Why not? You seem to think that there is only one big company setting wages for everyone. If company X needs good workers and is only willing to pay $5 per hour, but company Y is willing to pay $12 per hour, company X is not going to get the good workers. If they want better workers they will have to raise their wages. > without any regard to the standard of living for the employees making those wages. The clients who pay me do so without any regard to my standard of living. They pay me with regard to the value I provide. If you are suggesting that low skill employees need to be paid based on something other than the value they provide then you are suggesting that they be given charity rather than wages.
  - EricDeb 14y ago
    Absolutely they should be given charity, and wages not solely determined by value provided. The American economy (and world economy to some degree) is evolving in a way that eventually only high-skilled workers will be needed, as most unskilled work will be fully automated. This continues to raise the bar on citizens for even entry-level positions. 10 years ago a college degree in business or communications was enough to land a salaried-job. Now, to obtain a well-paying job straight out of college either a STEM degree or graduate work is usually required. It is extreme to suggest that citizens either acquire a high-level of education (which many simply cannot complete) or perform work for $2 an hour.
    - chii 14y ago
      > It is extreme to suggest that citizens either acquire a high-level of education (which many simply cannot complete) why is that a wrong ideal to move towards to? I agree that current education is poor, but thats an implementation problem. The idea that every citizen should be highly educated is a good one, and that in the future, in order to provide value (which is rewarded in the form of money), you can't just labour.

So, when a person's job becomes outdone by technology or automation, we should force companies to pay them more? ?

by lhnn 14y ago

So, when a person's job becomes outdone by technology or automation, we should force companies to pay them more? ?

Ideally provide them with a better safety net and the means for which to develop skills which would give then a value over the minimum wage.

krapp 14y ago

Companies shouldn't be able to set wages at an arbitrary low. Because then companies could simply set them as low as possible, without any regard to the standard of living for the employees making those wages.

benaiah 14y ago
But then any company willing to pay a decent price would instantly have their pick of anyone in the workforce. It's called supply and demand. If there's no demand for cheap laborers, the answer is not to make them more expensive to hire, or to force companies to pay them a minimum. That just exacerbates the problem - now they can't even work for wages they might be able to be worth. It's very difficult to get better at a job unless you're either working at it or have the resources to do it in your free time. Someone who can't get a minimum wage job probably doesn't have the resources to learn the skills to move up. I can personally attest that it's not just teenagers trying to find minimum wage jobs. I am a teenager, and I while I was looking for a summer job (I'm now employed as a software consultant) I was regularly (i.e., every single time) competing with people in their 20s or even, in some cases, older than that, who were simply unable to find work elsewhere.
- EricDeb 14y ago
  A minimum wage affords unskilled workers some amount of time to learn new skills or improve their lot in life. An unskilled worker who has to work 18 hours a day at $2 an hour to make ends meet will never be able to learn new skills and claw their way out of that hole. It's the same with unemployment benefits - it affords citizens time to learn new skills without worrying about what they will eat that night.
  - chii 14y ago
    perhaps unemployment benefits should give food and other basic necessities in the form of vouchers, and force the benefit taker to take (gov't provided) classes that will reskill them. This way, they can either look for a real job to earn cash, instead of living on "vouchers/food tickets", or have to take classes to reskill/up-skill. They won't be battling for their next meal, but they also can't have leasure time.
wwwtyro 14y ago
Hmm. I'm not following the logic, there. If that were true, wouldn't every company have their wages set to the minimum wage right now?
- krapp 14y ago
  I will admit I can't argue against that.
baddox 14y ago
Then I suppose you would consider it stupid and irrational for any company to pay more than minimum wage.
- krapp 14y ago
  If you're meaning to reply to me, then no. I don't even see how you can draw that inference. I'm only suggesting that a minimum wage is necessary, because there is a cost of living in a modern society. Money pays for shelter. Money pays for healthcare. Money pays for education and food. And unless you're in a socialist system, that money comes from wages. So a standard should be met. Especially in cases where a corporation would otherwise consider someone's labor to be essentially worthless. And yes, perhaps if that standard itself were fair (assuming it's currently unfair), then in some places and in some jobs it might be less than whatever the current minimum wage is, where the minimum wage exists. Elsewhere it might be higher. I don't know, and I'll readily admit I might be bringing a checkers set to a chess match when discussing economics on this forum but I honestly believe it should be something.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    The question is, how much shelter, healthcare or food can you pay when your job is replaced by a machine or an offshore worker because your wage is now too high (relatively to the alternative) to be worthwhile keeping you employed?
    - krapp 14y ago
      Would those companies necessarily choose not to outsource or automate those jobs if they had the option to do so, without a minimum wage requirement? If the standard of living is low enough that, taking the same wages as an outsourced worker, someone doing that job could still survive, you might have an argument against the minimum wage standard there. Otherwise, if only option to retain local employment is to pay what those outsourced workers are making, or less, in a market where more than that means living hand to mouth, then it's a distinction without a difference to me.
  - 14y ago
markshead 14y ago
> Companies shouldn't be able to set wages at an arbitrary low. Why not? You seem to think that there is only one big company setting wages for everyone. If company X needs good workers and is only willing to pay $5 per hour, but company Y is willing to pay $12 per hour, company X is not going to get the good workers. If they want better workers they will have to raise their wages. > without any regard to the standard of living for the employees making those wages. The clients who pay me do so without any regard to my standard of living. They pay me with regard to the value I provide. If you are suggesting that low skill employees need to be paid based on something other than the value they provide then you are suggesting that they be given charity rather than wages.
- EricDeb 14y ago
  Absolutely they should be given charity, and wages not solely determined by value provided. The American economy (and world economy to some degree) is evolving in a way that eventually only high-skilled workers will be needed, as most unskilled work will be fully automated. This continues to raise the bar on citizens for even entry-level positions. 10 years ago a college degree in business or communications was enough to land a salaried-job. Now, to obtain a well-paying job straight out of college either a STEM degree or graduate work is usually required. It is extreme to suggest that citizens either acquire a high-level of education (which many simply cannot complete) or perform work for $2 an hour.
  - chii 14y ago
    > It is extreme to suggest that citizens either acquire a high-level of education (which many simply cannot complete) why is that a wrong ideal to move towards to? I agree that current education is poor, but thats an implementation problem. The idea that every citizen should be highly educated is a good one, and that in the future, in order to provide value (which is rewarded in the form of money), you can't just labour.