[bobtn]

Originally Posted by nep321

Second, replacing humans with technology actually creates another job (more or less) with the enterprise that actually manufactures the technology equipment. Duh.

Far fewer jobs are added versus taken away. What in the world do you think ROI means?

We buy robotic packouts all the time, typically for under 120k. If we assume 30% of the 120k is margin, 50% is material, that leaves 20% for labor and overhead, or 24k. Our payback period is about one year-in other words, we have eliminated 120k in labor EVERY year, while the robot's creation added 24k in labor to the economy.just ONCE.

They will last at least a decade, at which point, 1.146 million in labor would have been the net reduction (120 in our labor savings each year * 10 years) +24 added in making it, plus 30k maintaining it (and 30k is liberal-they are trouble free for several years).

[AntonioR]

Originally Posted by nep321

How stupid and one dimensional your analysis is. Yes, computerization and technology means one less low skilled job, but that would have happened anyway, even if there was no minimum wage.

Right Nep, if it was cheaper to hire people to do certain jobs than running machines that can do that very same job, business owners will pick the more expensive machine. Makes perfect sense. No wonder so many businesses are profitable.

It's like when you go to the store and you see two items at different prices levels. Your logic would say that you would buy the more expensive item despite another identical item on display at only a fraction of the price.

Originally Posted by nep321

Second, replacing humans with technology actually creates another job (more or less) with the enterprise that actually manufactures the technology equipment. Duh.

Yes and the machines will have a label that says Made in China.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Far fewer jobs are added versus taken away. What in the world do you think ROI means?

We buy robotic packouts all the time, typically for under 120k. If we assume 30% of the 120k is margin, 50% is material, that leaves 20% for labor and overhead, or 24k. Our payback period is about one year-in other words, we have eliminated 120k in labor EVERY year, while the robot's creation added 24k in labor to the economy.just ONCE.

They will last at least a decade, at which point, 1.146 million in labor would have been the net reduction (120 in our labor savings each year * 10 years) +24 added in making it, plus 30k maintaining it (and 30k is liberal-they are trouble free for several years).

That's inevitable though. Technology is advancing rapidly, regardless of wages and taxes and laws. Stop making inaccurate cause and effect relationships.

Bottom line is this. Conservative economic policies of top-down economics, tax cuts for the rich, etc. DO NOT WORK. There is no evidence that it works. There is tons of evidence that a high minimum wage and higher taxes on the wealthy DOES work. It's not even debatable.

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by nep321

Bottom line is this. Conservative economic policies of top-down economics, tax cuts for the rich, etc. DO NOT WORK. There is no evidence that it works. There is tons of evidence that a high minimum wage and higher taxes on the wealthy DOES work. It's not even debatable.

Nep, there is a very simple answer for this.

When you get hired by a poor person let me know.

I have first hand experience that top down economics works. In 2007 or 2008 when they offered a tax cut to the wealthy, the owner of of our company gave us all a little something extra in our paycheck because the tax break on the corporation was very good and since we were having a very good year and we were making him money he decided it made sense to give back. That money was REAL.

Also, if you are crying now about the COL in Fairfield county, just wait until your Starbucks coffee goes from $4 for a small to $6. Overall Decreasing your buying power.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

When you get hired by a poor person let me know.

This is a silly right-wing meme. Most people don't work directly for a member of the ultra rich. Many were hired by their middle class boss in a company owned by stock holders. Many were hired by their middle class boss to work for the government. Is a general contractor who hires subs, rich? What about the plumber who hires an apprentice? There is a CNA service in our building run by an RN... Is she rich?

Back in the hotel business I was hiring people while making 30K a year myself... I was far from rich... Much closer to poor at the time.

Jobs are created because of demand-- And that begins with the consumer. Putting more money in the consumers pocket which increases demand for goods-- That creates jobs. Not further enriching multi millionaires.

Get real.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

just wait until your Starbucks coffee goes from $4 for a small to $6

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz agrees with the president and has stated the minimum wage should go up to $10.10.

Sorry, price increases, if any, won't be nearly this dramatic.

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

This is a silly right-wing meme. Most people don't work directly for a member of the ultra rich. Many were hired by their middle class boss in a company owned by stock holders. Many were hired by their middle class boss to work for the government. Is a general contractor who hires subs, rich? What about the plumber who hires an apprentice? There is a CNA service in our building run by an RN... Is she rich?

Back in the hotel business I was hiring people while making 30K a year myself... I was far from rich... Much closer to poor at the time.

Jobs are created because of demand-- And that begins with the consumer. Putting more money in the consumers pocket which increases demand for goods-- That creates jobs. Not further enriching multi millionaires.

Get real.

Getting real specific. I didn't mean "direct" hire. I was referring to who signs your PAYCHECK. Of course, the person hiring (management) another person is going to make less (Senior VP). It's how business works. Basic business model. The CEO of a company doesn't come to interviews, he has entrusted the person he has hired to do this job.

When you were in the hotel business, look at your pay stub. Were you signing your pay stubs? Maybe, but if you worked for a corporation most likely NOT.

Yes, I understand the last part, but NOT one person has explained to me HOW increasing the minimum wage will ADD to the economy when all other products/services will have to raise in price. Its like giving me an extra $10 a week in pay and then charging me $10 to park? WHO WINS?

I'm not right wing either. I care about numbers. Dems, reps who cares.

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz agrees with the president and has stated the minimum wage should go up to $10.10.

Sorry, price increases, if any, won't be nearly this dramatic.

I never go to Starbucks it's too damn expensive anyway.

You have to admit that there will be price increases (at least some) which will offset some of the increase in minimum wage be it inflation due to cost of labor or monetary changes.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

I never go to Starbucks it's too damn expensive anyway.

You have to admit that there will be price increases (at least some) which will offset some of the increase in minimum wage be it inflation due to cost of labor or monetary changes.

You keep ignoring the fact that higher minimum wages means increased consumer spending. Who will be the beneficiary of increased consumer spending? Instead, you are quick to resort to the one dimensional conclusion that all it will do is increase prices.

Furthermore, a minimum wage increase means lower taxes for the business. So, even though the business will have to pay out $1.40 more in wages per person per hour, the net impact will be more like a 90 cent increase in cash outflows in three years from now, net of taxes paid. Throw in the increased consumer spending and inflation, that 90 cent figure is driven down even further.... Likely below zero.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

This is a silly right-wing meme. Most people don't work directly for a member of the ultra rich. Many were hired by their middle class boss in a company owned by stock holders. Many were hired by their middle class boss to work for the government. Is a general contractor who hires subs, rich? What about the plumber who hires an apprentice? There is a CNA service in our building run by an RN... Is she rich?

Back in the hotel business I was hiring people while making 30K a year myself... I was far from rich... Much closer to poor at the time.

Jobs are created because of demand-- And that begins with the consumer. Putting more money in the consumers pocket which increases demand for goods-- That creates jobs. Not further enriching multi millionaires.

Get real.

Actually, I think it's a bit of a misnomer to say that consumers create demand. It's more of a cycle. Wealth has to be generated by production first, and as that wealth is distributed to the employees who helped create it, they then have money to spend and the money cycles through the economy, creating a virtuous cycle.

We have been consuming more than we are producing for a long time, and that leakage depresses demand for labor. We have reacted to that by "putting money in the hands of the consumer" through borrowing, which is unsustainable. Borrowing and money supply expansion have put more money in the hands of the rich, inflated the cost of living, and ultimately further encouraged the offshoring of jobs, which then worsens the root problem that we say we're trying to solve.

What you're really talking about is distribution of wealth created. We live in an age right now when the value of capital has been greatly enhanced by technology while the value of lower and medium skilled labor has been reduced.

We clearly have a serious problem but we're not going to solve it by trying to turn the clock back to the 1950s. We need to come up with a strategy that will increase our overall national income and ensure that everybody gets the share of it commensurate with their contribution. We're not even close to acknowledging the problem, much less doing anything about it. And it matters not whether you are conservative or liberal. Neither group has a real grasp, IMO.