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.
The sad part is the taxpayers are paying this moron $184,000 to throw Prince concerts, support a $15.25 minimum wage and other worthy causes...
Doubt he will be paying for Prince concerts... ever. You might want to check that.
Far as this entire "minimum wage" issue. I don't see it being an issue. If you pay people extra in an area, everything else will go up as well. Then they will be right back where they started.
If there were two businesses in an area that paid higher min wage, then those employees would benefit. If small companies, no impact to the general area.
But an entire area paying the same, costs goes up. People who rent houses have to pay more at every store and so they raise the rent. Person paying the rent is right back where they started.
Look at San Fran... Call it greed, but people will raise prices if they "smell" money. American way (and I love it).
Not if the "income problem" is a lifetime of bad decisions, starting with useless degrees, and continuing with failure to find decent paying jobs, not being smart with the income they are making, and finishing with not adequately saving for retirement.
That is not always the case though. What is exactly a useless degree no one can be sure what jobs are open a few years later when a student decides their major. How do you know they are not being smart with their money? Seems you are throwing out a lot of assumptions with no facts.
Far as this entire "minimum wage" issue. I don't see it being an issue. If you pay people extra in an area, everything else will go up as well. Then they will be right back where they started. If there were two businesses in an area that paid higher min wage, then those employees would benefit. If small companies, no impact to the general area. But an entire area paying the same, costs goes up. People who rent houses have to pay more at every store and so they raise the rent. Person paying the rent is right back where they started. Look at San Fran... Call it greed, but people will raise prices if they "smell" money. American way (and I love it).
It's funny how no minimum wage increase has ever caused what you are claiming... not even when Truman increased the minimum wage 87% overnight in 1950.
It's funny how no minimum wage increase has ever caused what you are claiming... not even when Truman increased the minimum wage 87% overnight in 1950.
I just researched that argument with google... most sites state it is not feasible to compare then and now. Surprised you did not research this. I found it fairly quickly.
I own a small business and ran it years as my only income. When my labor prices increased I passed that right to the consumer. It was fairly simple. Okay, my business is not walmart, but it shows that business owners have to pass that increase someplace. Either they take less or pass it to the consumer. Maybe many will take less and I'm the oddball out.
High rent increase in San Fran. What caused that?
And to be clear: I'm not for or against the wage increase. I don't see it impacting me much at all. My thought is the prices are the prices and the local economy will adjust.
Why wouldn't they be doing all that anyway, minumum wage increase or not?
Most likely because they are good with math. They probably calculate profit and profit margins and returns on capital (a) at the current minimum wage, and (b) at the higher minimum wage, both (1) with automation, and (2) without automation.
Most likely the cost of automation is high enough that it only makes economic sense at the higher minimum wage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
Automation is going to happen anyway and it's good for society overall. Human labor is too valuable to waste on such meniality. Society will find more productive tasks for that displaced labor.
There are always winners and losers when there is a government mandated change. Vendors of automation are likely winners.
As a society, we become worse off -- we would have too much investment in automation compared to the efficient allocation of capital that occurs in a market-based economy. That starves another field of investment capital.
I just researched that argument with google... most sites state it is not feasible to compare then and now. Surprised you did not research this. I found it fairly quickly.
and you just 'forgot' to post a link to the source where you found it...that's interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMat
I own a small business and ran it years as my only income. When my labor prices increased I passed that right to the consumer. It was fairly simple. Okay, my business is not walmart, but it shows that business owners have to pass that increase someplace. Either they take less or pass it to the consumer. Maybe many will take less and I'm the oddball out.
You must have been selling a very 'unique' product that consumers would continue to buy your product when you passed labor increases directly on to the consumer, but when and where did this happen because the federal minimum wage has been the same since 2009? (seems a little suspect to me)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMat
High rent increase in San Fran. What caused that?
well it sure as hell wasn't caused by minimum wage earners. It's complex but the short story is that demand for rentals by high paid tech workers has caused it. It's been the same in other areas with a large number of tech companies, i.e. Seattle, Austin. Low and minimum wage workers lost the battle for SF housing years ago.
and you just 'forgot' to post a link to the source where you found it...that's interesting.
You must have been selling a very 'unique' product that consumers would continue to buy your product when you passed labor increases directly on to the consumer, but when and where did this happen because the federal minimum wage has been the same since 2009? (seems a little suspect to me)
well it sure as hell wasn't caused by minimum wage earners. It's complex but the short story is that demand for rentals by high paid tech workers has caused it. It's been the same in other areas with a large number of tech companies, i.e. Seattle, Austin. Low and minimum wage workers lost the battle for SF housing years ago.
I did not post the link since you did not post the link to your argument. That works both ways. Mine was a simple google search, honestly.
I was/am selling software. I did not have much of a choice but to increase the prices since I could not afford to take the hit myself. My labor costs increase substantially when I could not find developers to work for "x" amount. I had to pay "xx". Nothing suspect about it... if anything, the fact I'm not running the business full-time anymore should be telling. It is a great second income though.
SF argument is about wages in general. The high cost of housing is caused by the high wages in that area. Obviously the local economy adjusted. Which is my argument. I don't see where you refute that...
Your link even states: Low- and middle-income residents of San Francisco, Oakland, Seattle and other metro areas, are getting pushed out of their homes as an influx of deep pocketed tech workers drive up rents.
The market adjusted. As it should and will when there are wage adjustments, bottom or top. That is what it is... no argument against that one.
When my labor prices increased I passed that right to the consumer.
Yes, and if businesses raise prices to compensate for the wage increase, aggregate employment and sales will not be effected. The only important thing that happens is the working poor will experience a substantial increase in real income and everyone else will experience a small drop.
Most likely because they are good with math. They probably calculate profit and profit margins and returns on capital (a) at the current minimum wage, and (b) at the higher minimum wage, both (1) with automation, and (2) without automation. Most likely the cost of automation is high enough that it only makes economic sense at the higher minimum wage. There are always winners and losers when there is a government mandated change. Vendors of automation are likely winners.
As a society, we become worse off -- we would have too much investment in automation compared to the efficient allocation of capital that occurs in a market-based economy. That starves another field of investment capital.
Are you really claiming that if we never raise the minimum wage we can somehow prevent automation because if so you should really rethink that. The irony is that 'automation' will probably have a larger impact on middle class jobs than on people working for minimum wage. If you are going to invest in technology why worry about getting rid of the 'low hanging fruit' whether they make $10 or $15 an hour when you can just as easily replace people making $30 + an hour. Smarter robots put 50% of jobs at risk - Nov. 13, 2015 If you consider the nature of low paying jobs you will find that most of them require a high degree of personal interaction and that is the toughest aspect of a job to replace with robotics, it's far easier to get rid of production and office workers than counter help at a fast food store.
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.
