Advocates make case for $15 minimum wage in Minneapolis (Truman: employment, school)

[Mason3000]

Originally Posted by spectre000

Those millions who are struggling don't need $25 an hour. But $15 would be an enormous boost. You may feel smug and comfortable that your job is secure today, but it may not be safe tomorrow. For you or your children. Technology is going to continue to advance either way.

We're all just a few generations away from being obsolete.

The point is that at $15 an hour many of those millions won't have a job at all. So, make it $15, or $20 oe $25 because at any of these prices it will put low skilled workers out of a job and cause others never to be hired in the first place.

It's important to understand what the minimum wage actually is. A tool designed to exclude low skill workers from the workforce. This statement is factually and historically accurate.

It was first enacted in British Columbia to stop the Chinese from competing with White workers in the lumber industry. Imagine these White workers earning $2.00 a week. Here come the Chinese willing to work for $0.50 a week. Obviously capitalists are going to hire the least expensive labor, so wages come down. What did the White workers do? They demanded a minimum wage equal to their salary. Did that mean all those Chinese got raises up to $2 a week like the White workers? No, they were priced out of the work force and the Whites saved their jobs and wages.

The Chinese were also undercutting wages in Australia on the railroads. What did their union do? They demanded a minimum wage equal to the wages earned by the White union workers. Did those Chinese workers start earning that same wage? No, they were fired and more Whites were hired instead.

In the USA we saw savvy contractors hire poor Blacks from the Soith, bring them up North and underbid White union contractors. The White unions demanded a minimum wage that was equal to their wages. That was the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931.

In Apartheid South Africa it was poor Blacks taking factory jobs from White union workers. The unions demanded a minimum wage equal to the wages of those White workers. That's how they ensured the Blacks stayed unemployed.

Fast forward to 2016 and this history is largely untaught and forgotten. I don't think your reasons for pushing the MW is racist or malicious, but the problem the result is the same in excluding low skilled workers (disproportionately minorites) from the work force. The MW is a tool, like a hammer. It doesn't matter if its a mean spirited, racist hammer or a kind, benevolent hammer, they both pound nails the same.

[Mason3000]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Yes. It still doesn't make sense. Walmart requires a physical presence in its markets.

Her suggestion was Wal-Mart either should pay the wages she decided were fair or close up and move to Mexico. I notice you didn't jump in to mock her suggestion, rather you jumped on me for responding to it. Highly selective of you. At any rate, my point stands. In her hypothetical where Wal-Mart should have to close up their store and move to Mexico, those workers would now be unemployed rather than employed. It was very shortsighted.

[spectre000]

Originally Posted by Mason3000

The point is that at $15 an hour many of those millions won't have a job at all. So, make it $15, or $20 oe $25 because at any of these prices it will put low skilled workers out of a job and cause others never to be hired in the first place.

Low skilled workers are already being left out of the job market. Even higher skilled workers will eventually find themselves in similar fates as technology advances.

Statements like why don't we make the rate $25 an hour are ridiculous. Most people and families don't need $50,000 a year to live in America. But it's pretty hard to do so on $15,000. Why make it arbitrarily higher than it needs to be?

If a person can't find a job at the new $15 rate because they don't have the skills, maybe that's the clue for them to get the education and skills to do so.

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by spectre000

I don't see Minneapolis being at a disadvantage to other surrounding areas because of a higher minimum wage, simply because the state could just follow suit and raise it state wide. Just as it did with the smoking ban.

Robots and other machines will be doing more and more human jobs as time passes. Pretty inevitable. Driverless cars will be taking taxi and truck driver jobs. Roombas could take cleaning jobs. Hospitals facing high malpractice costs, have surgery done by a robot instead.

The way it is now, Minneapolis would be at a great disadvantage to surrounding areas. Many restaurant owners cannot feasibly pay $15 per hour unless they somehow incorporate tips into workers pay. In that case, whats the advantage other than forcing a lot of restaurants out of business and putting a lot of minimum wage earners out of work. I simply don't see the rest of the state raising minimum wage to $15 per hour. In most of rural Minnesota, $15 per hour is actually quite a high rate of pay compared to the cost of living. There simply is not the political will to do it and it would push jobs out of state. Why the heck would a manufacturing firm want to move to a place where the wages must be at least twice what it is in the rest of the country and much higher than it would be if they moved all of the jobs to Mexico or China. Manufacturing is already leaving Minneapolis. When the restaurants, walgreens and Targets close, what else is there for minimum wage earners?? I just see this as a big negative for Minneapolis at a time when it had so much going for it. We are not San Francisco!!! Chicago is adopting $13 minimum wage- a little more reasonable. Is it that much more expensive to live in Minneapolis than Chicago? I think not.

[Mason3000]

Originally Posted by spectre000

Low skilled workers are already being left out of the job market. Even higher skilled workers will eventually find themselves in similar fates as technology advances.

Statements like why don't we make the rate $25 an hour are ridiculous. Most people and families don't need $50,000 a year to live in America. But it's pretty hard to do so on $15,000. Why make it arbitrarily higher than it needs to be?

If a person can't find a job at the new $15 rate because they don't have the skills, maybe that's the clue for them to get the education and skills to do so.

- Yes they are!!! That's exactly what the minimum wage and mandatory health insurance do to employment for low skilled laborers. Now you want to up the ante on that. It doesn't make sense intellectually.

- Your whole statement is arbitrary. Proposing $25 is no more or less arbitrary than the arbitrary number of $15. It's just your opinion, that it's ridiculous. Families don't need to earn $50k to live in our country? Another arbitrary statement. What part of the country does this family live in? How many kids does this family have? Is this person single? Why aren't both parents working? There are a million variables you fail to account for, as you try to simplify something that is inherently complex.

- So then why not make it $20 or $25 per hour? If they don't have the skills to get hired, just get some more education and skills. Sounds easy the way you say it.

[Glenfield]

$25 is no more arbitrary than $15 but the big disconnect is this: should wages be based on what a worker "needs" or on the worker's economic value to the employer?

The first reflects a collectivist viewpoint, with the worker sharing in some fair share of the wealth created by his labor with what's "fair" being determined by a central authority, while the second reflects a more capitalist view with the worker selling his labor to the employer who will pay the most for it.

Workers whose labor is valuable to potential employers will lean toward the second view while those whose labor is relatively valueless will favor the first.

But a real thanks should go to Mason for explaining how the minimum wage will not achieve the outcome sought by the collectivists. For that you need a minimum and maximum wage, and of course prices set by the government. And the outcome of that is what we see in Venezuela.

[Minnesota Spring]

Also, what about the Cub Foods on West Broadway that is struggling to remain open the way it is. Does anyone honestly think that they will keep their doors open if minimum wage is doubled? What is that going to do for the City of Minneapolis and the working class when there is nowhere to get groceries on the North side?

[spectre000]

Originally Posted by Mason3000

Now you want to up the ante on that.

Yes.

As I've said many times now, automation and technology are advancing constantly.

Our society is in for some huge changes ahead, whether the minimum wage stays where it is or not. You're just trying to hold back the tide. Good luck with that.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by spectre000

Yes.

As I've said many times now, automation and technology are advancing constantly.

Our society is in for some huge changes ahead, whether the minimum wage stays where it is or not. You're just trying to hold back the tide. Good luck with that.

So your argument boils down to the entry level workers are screwed anyway so who cares if more of them lose their jobs so long as I get a raise. Seems pretty cold.

[spectre000]

It's a cold reality. Low skilled jobs are going away. Face facts. Society changes. How many blacksmiths are there today? How many shoemakers? How many farmers?

But those who would be doing those jobs are skilled elsewhere now. Fast food counter workers are going to have to find jobs elsewhere. Just as truck/taxi/bus drivers are going to have to find new trades when driverless vehicles proliferate. Even the brain surgeon may someday be replaced.

The status quo isn't working at the moment. The minimum wage hasn't kept pace with inflation. We're going to need new jobs, new trades in the future. That's pretty clear.

But I don't trust businesses to pay fair wages if there's no minimum. So I would rather see the government as a safety net. Even if there are costs and negatives to it.