Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Several states are going to $15, mostly in increments taking a few years, which is perfect as it gives businesses a few years to automate.
So you're saying that a higher minimum wage increases technological innovation and automation, which is the core of GDP growth. Thats actually an argument FOR higher minimum wage, not against it. Just like slavery is also bad for technological innovation and economic development.
So you're saying that a higher minimum wage increases technological innovation and automation, which is the core of GDP growth. Thats actually an argument FOR higher minimum wage, not against it. Just like slavery is also bad for technological innovation and economic development.
I like technology, welcome it, but am amazed at the ignorance about the fact a large % of folks will become permanently unemployable via the Fight for 15.
Far more at 2019 McJobs will be harmed by this bill, then helped, if it passed.
I like technology, welcome it, but am amazed at the ignorance about the fact a large % of folks will become permanently unemployable via the Fight for 15.
Far more at 2019 McJobs will be harmed by this bill, then helped, if it passed.
So you actually defend starvation wages because it will hamper technological development and automation?
Thats the same type of argument that was used by rural slave owners, which saw technology and development as a threat and argued that it would be bad for slave jobs.
Any policy that boosts technological innovation is GOOD. Its called progress. Slavery and starvation wages to prevent progress is not progress. Its the opposite.
So you actually defend starvation wages because it will hamper technological development and automation?
.
While I like progress, I also like to view the law of unintended consequences with open eyes. We will be seeing a giant spike in the underclass concurrent with technological advances. Its a sad fact, but still a fact. That does not mean technological advances should cease.
Peoples skill sets merit what the market deems fit. When we artificially try to change that point where they meet, more people are deemed unfit for work at the minimum wage allowed.
$15.00 minimum will put a lot of low income people out of a job. Businesses won't be hiring as many school kids and inexperienced people. They'll probably go to more automation.
Retirees on fixed incomes and SS that doesn't keep up with the inflation will be hurt the most.
$15.00 minimum will put a lot of low income people out of a job. Businesses won't be hiring as many school kids and inexperienced people. They'll probably go to more automation.
While I like progress, I also like to view the law of unintended consequences with open eyes. We will be seeing a giant spike in the underclass concurrent with technological advances. Its a sad fact, but still a fact. That does not mean technological advances should cease.
Peoples skill sets merit what the market deems fit. When we artificially try to change that point where they meet, more people are deemed unfit for work at the minimum wage allowed.
With or without the consent of liberals, btw.
Trying to hamper technological innovation is not progress IMO. Its the opposite. Technological innovation is not an unintended consequence. Its at the heart of economic development. Slavery and drudgery jobs is truly not progress. The more technology and fewer drudgery jobs there are, the better for society. By your logic, we would be better off with most people in backbreaking jobs working for a pittance.
$15.00 minimum will put a lot of low income people out of a job. Businesses won't be hiring as many school kids and inexperienced people. They'll probably go to more automation.
Retirees on fixed incomes and SS that doesn't keep up with the inflation will be hurt the most.
Funny how countries with far higher labor costs for those type of jobs than America have higher labor force participation rates, no problem with automation, no problem with inflation and retirees doing just fine. So all your "concerns" fly out the window.
Its interesting that Trump supporters brag about the 50 year unemployment low, black unemployment numbers under Trump while places all over America have increased the minimum wage which we were told would lead to disaster and skyrocketing unemployment and dangerous automation.
Its time to change strategy. The scaremongering isnt working.
Trying to hamper technological innovation is not progress IMO. Its the opposite. Technological innovation is not an unintended consequence. Its at the heart of economic development. Slavery and drudgery jobs is truly not progress. The more technology and fewer drudgery jobs there are, the better for society. By your logic, we would be better off with most people in backbreaking jobs working for a pittance.
We would be best off reducing immigration levels to the tiny amount we allowed 1924-1965, which would reduce the US population somewhat in the process, as contrary to your utopian fantasy, tens of millions displaced will not rise in skill sets, but simply be permanently unemployable. Perhaps if we did not import our lettuce pickers or day labor at DIY shops, the less skilled, now displaced, might find alternative jobs.
Are you out of touch so much as to think todays cashier at a big box is 2025's coder of software? 99.9% will not be able to make that transition. And, UBI will, Thankfully not occur.
Controlling the labor supply is the best solution.
Its interesting that Trump supporters brag about the 50 year unemployment low, black unemployment numbers under Trump while places all over America have increased the minimum wage which we were told would lead to disaster and skyrocketing unemployment and dangerous automation.
Its time to change strategy. The scaremongering isnt working.
I work in NYC and have seen the reduction in headcount caused by the $15 mw. NYC is an outlier.
MW has mainly spiked sharply in far less populated environments, but for the vast majority of Americans, MW is $9 or less, which means you have no data to suggest MW tremendous spikes will not reduce employment. You have tiny pockets that have changed the MW by a giant %.
:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
