4 ms·

Make low-skill labor more expensive and you'll make it more attractive to find ways to eliminate low-skill jobs, such as the hamburger machine: http://www.gizma

by jstalin 11y ago

Make low-skill labor more expensive and you'll make it more attractive to find ways to eliminate low-skill jobs, such as the hamburger machine: http://www.gizmag.com/hamburger-machine/25159/ http://www.gizmag.com/hamburger-machine/25159/ McDonald's is already testing ordering machines. I'm sure most of us have been to a grocery store with self checkouts. The minimum wage doesn't necessarily cause unemployment, but it does increase unemployment amongst those with the least skills.

cgearhart 11y ago
Your examples are instances of technology affecting employment, not effects of the minimum wage. And continuing to depress the cost of wages will not stop development of labor automation.
- natecavanaugh 11y ago
  It doesn't stop the development of labor automation, but instead increases it, much against the interest of those that fought against the maintenance of current wages. It's like when oil producers increase prices, as a side effect, they also increase the likelihood of a competing technology replacing them. It makes sense in the short term, but speeds up the long term effect. Of course, this is neither here nor there to the "aught/naught" debate.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush; I think most people in low-wage jobs would rather get paid a decent amount today and have some meaningful financial options than be offered an alternative of longer tenure on slim wages, which is only attractive if you don't think there's any prospect of getting any other kind of job.
RIMR 11y ago
Replacing human workers with machines that don't require a wage is going to happen even if the minimum wage were $1/hr. Automation is going to become a very real problem. Increasing the minimum wage is a good idea, but eventually we're going to have to address the problem of mass unemployment when there little to no lower-tier jobs available. We're talking about basic income (negative tax) for the unemployed, and subsidizing education to get more people into white-collar positions.
- tracker1 11y ago
  Or... eliminate the loopholes, generate a flat tax, put limits on un/under-utilized assets and reserves corporations can hold as well as reducing foreign shelters... from there, limit distribution of taxes as a percent, with 25% to the federal gov't, 25% to states/territories based on population, 10% to states/territories based on land mass and the remaining 40% as a check to every citizen that filed for taxes the prior year. By creating a flat tax, and flat payout, you can eliminate huge swaths of welfare and entitlements in favor of a consistent system with much less bureaucracy. In order for this to work, you have to eliminate corporate taxes in favor of ensuring that companies pay out to owners/shareholders who in turn pay taxes on that income. With a flat payout, you can also reduce retirement programs as they stand.

by jstalin 11y ago

cgearhart 11y ago

Your examples are instances of technology affecting employment, not effects of the minimum wage. And continuing to depress the cost of wages will not stop development of labor automation.

natecavanaugh 11y ago
It doesn't stop the development of labor automation, but instead increases it, much against the interest of those that fought against the maintenance of current wages. It's like when oil producers increase prices, as a side effect, they also increase the likelihood of a competing technology replacing them. It makes sense in the short term, but speeds up the long term effect. Of course, this is neither here nor there to the "aught/naught" debate.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush; I think most people in low-wage jobs would rather get paid a decent amount today and have some meaningful financial options than be offered an alternative of longer tenure on slim wages, which is only attractive if you don't think there's any prospect of getting any other kind of job.

RIMR 11y ago

Replacing human workers with machines that don't require a wage is going to happen even if the minimum wage were $1/hr. Automation is going to become a very real problem. Increasing the minimum wage is a good idea, but eventually we're going to have to address the problem of mass unemployment when there little to no lower-tier jobs available. We're talking about basic income (negative tax) for the unemployed, and subsidizing education to get more people into white-collar positions.

tracker1 11y ago
Or... eliminate the loopholes, generate a flat tax, put limits on un/under-utilized assets and reserves corporations can hold as well as reducing foreign shelters... from there, limit distribution of taxes as a percent, with 25% to the federal gov't, 25% to states/territories based on population, 10% to states/territories based on land mass and the remaining 40% as a check to every citizen that filed for taxes the prior year. By creating a flat tax, and flat payout, you can eliminate huge swaths of welfare and entitlements in favor of a consistent system with much less bureaucracy. In order for this to work, you have to eliminate corporate taxes in favor of ensuring that companies pay out to owners/shareholders who in turn pay taxes on that income. With a flat payout, you can also reduce retirement programs as they stand.