Minimum wage

[Crazyhole]

I think that minimum wage should increase commensurate to dollars printed. It makes no sense that the government can inflate the dollar and not have it have direct effects on both small businesses and employees. At the very least, it should be indexed to COL with a 2% lead.

 

[sk8knight]

Needs to be abolished. I’d rather see a minimum basic income and do away with minimum wage, SNAP, and many of the other social welfare programs that cost so much money and do nothing to help people improve their positions. At least MBI will let the market work.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

It should increase in proportion to per capita GDP. Should be around $10-11 right now if it did. However I think $15 is too high. Especially for many lower cost of living areas.

 

[Happy Hands]

It should be based on the average cost of pizza. Everyone loves pizza and no one should be paid less than one pizza per hour or one and a half six packs of decent beer.

 

[Poolside Knight]

even if 15 passes it won’t reach that amount till 2025 w the current bill out there

 

[chemmie]

There should be a federal minimum, and for public companies it should be tied to profits and cash holdings.

 

[sk8knight]

There should be a federal minimum, and for public companies it should be tied to profits and cash holdings.

So what happens when the company loses its ass Do employee wages go down to accommodate? Or when they have to spend those cash holdings to meet new regulations? Or any of a great number of situations where that indexed wage would fall precipitously.

 

[DaShuckster]

Needs to be abolished. I’d rather see a minimum basic income and do away with minimum wage, SNAP, and many of the other social welfare programs that cost so much money ...

Yeah, screw a living wage and continue to allow the government to subsidize low-wage workers rather than companies like Walmart. 🙄

Believe it or not, I'm with Knighttime on this one: Instead of one minimum wage, it needs to be indexed to a State's cost of living. But I would go so far as to say we should go one step further and tie it to a region within the state. Just as the cost of living is not the same across all fifty state, the same could be said about communities within a State.

 

[chemmie]

What a dumb lazy socialist idea. So individuals/companies that risked financial loss to start a business have to give up more cash and labor costs for bring more productive. Such a dumb liberal idea.

Who could have ever thought that companies who are able to take advantage of our capitalist system should be able to meet minimum requirements for their workers?

 

[chemmie]

So what happens when the company loses its ass Do employee wages go down to accommodate? Or when they have to spend those cash holdings to meet new regulations? Or any of a great number of situations where that indexed wage would fall precipitously.

It could fluctuate for new employees. The point being that employees receive an indexed minimum based on their output. Unlike what happens now with people making millions on the backs of their workers, whom are often exploited for extra profits.

 

[Crazyhole]

Yeah, screw a living wage and continue to allow the government to subsidize low-wage workers rather than companies like Walmart. 🙄

Believe it or not, I'm with Knighttime on this one: Instead of one minimum wage, it needs to be indexed to a State's cost of living. But I would go so far as to say we should go one step further and tie it to a region within the state. Just as the cost of living is not the same across all fifty state, the same could be said about communities within a State.

Wow. Its almost as if you are advocating for the free market to decide the minimum wage.

 

[DaShuckster]

Wow. Its almost as if you are advocating for the free market to decide the minimum wage.

I'm advocating that the minimum wage in all States needs to be raised while acknowledging that wages are markedly different depending upon where you live.

 

[Crazyhole]

I'm advocating that the minimum wage in all States needs to be raised while acknowledging that wages are markedly different depending upon where you live.

What about states that the minimum wage is already high enough to constitute it being a living wage?

 

[sk8knight]

Yeah, screw a living wage and continue to allow the government to subsidize low-wage workers rather than companies like Walmart. 🙄

Believe it or not, I'm with Knighttime on this one: Instead of one minimum wage, it needs to be indexed to a State's cost of living. But I would go so far as to say we should go one step further and tie it to a region within the state. Just as the cost of living is not the same across all fifty state, the same could be said about communities within a State.

A minimum basic income would guarantee that anyone had enough money to live by. After that, you earn what your skills are worth. No need for endless government bureaucracy that will never get it right but will endlessly keep people in financial bondage.

 

[sk8knight]

I'm advocating that the minimum wage in all States needs to be raised while acknowledging that wages are markedly different depending upon where you live.

All that you’re doing by raising the minimum wage is cutting hours for legal workers, accelerating the shift to automation, and incentivizing a labor black market. What good is a $15 minimum wage if you can’t get hours or a job?

 

[chemmie]

A minimum basic income would guarantee that anyone had enough money to live by. After that, you earn what your skills are worth. No need for endless government bureaucracy that will never get it right but will endlessly keep people in financial bondage.

Stop being such a dumbass, and grow up.

 

[sk8knight]

Stop being such a dumbass, and grow up.

Says the person spouting the socialist wealth envy rhetoric. We’ve been fighting a war on poverty for a hundred years now and people like you are telling us that it’s getting worse, not better. Then you offer more of the same big government ideas that have been failing for a century. I offered something different that actually ensures that people can make ends meet and you come back with “grow up.” Irony at its finest.

 

[DaShuckster]

Says the person spouting the socialist wealth envy rhetoric.

In a thread about setting a new minimum wage.

 

[Crazyhole]

Says the person spouting the socialist wealth envy rhetoric. We’ve been fighting a war on poverty for a hundred years now and people like you are telling us that it’s getting worse, not better. Then you offer more of the same big government ideas that have been failing for a century. I offered something different that actually ensures that people can make ends meet and you come back with “grow up.” Irony at its finest.

It's pretty interesting that when you're open to even the most liberal of ideas, the idea of sacrificing failed policies of the past makes you a moron.

 

[Knight In TN]

Here’s an honest question for those who want minimum wage to be a “livable wage.”

What would you like to see minimum wage and a 40 hour work week be able to afford?

1. Rent? With roommates or without? Or maybe even buying a home?
2. Car? Something reliable, obviously.
3. All utilities? Does that include cell phone plan with a smart phone and data? Home internet? What speeds? Cable or streaming services?
4. Food? Do you expect people to cook all the time, pack their lunch, etc. or should it be enough for them to eat out on a regular basis?
5. Entertainment? You can’t just work and eat and sleep all the time, right? How much do they need for fun?

 

[OLearyLastCall]

Here’s an honest question for those who want minimum wage to be a “livable wage.”

What would you like to see minimum wage and a 40 hour work week be able to afford?

1. Rent? With roommates or without? Or maybe even buying a home?
2. Car? Something reliable, obviously.
3. All utilities? Does that include cell phone plan with a smart phone and data? Home internet? What speeds? Cable or streaming services?
4. Food? Do you expect people to cook all the time, pack their lunch, etc. or should it be enough for them to eat out on a regular basis?
5. Entertainment? You can’t just work and eat and sleep all the time, right? How much do they need for fun?

Yeah, all of the above. No reason that folks should not get to enjoy life due to suppressed wages.

Anymore questions?

 

[Nautiknight]

This is a reply to a thread in the Dungeon about Moe's and Price increases and it relates to minimum wage . some of you guys have a philosophy that feels good on paper but when applied to reality ,it's not as simple as just raising the wage. it impacts small businesses hard and ultimately we all, y'all, will just pay more for everything because that labor costs will be passed to the consumer one way or another.

I am curious what enterprises are the left leaning folks engaged in to support their families and themselves? I ask because y'all lack basic Austrian economics skills. Businesses are there to make a profit selling a product or service . Service and food businesses are in a highly competitive market where costs of food, labor costs and so forth impact the bottom line. Labor is about the only costs food service businesses can directly control. So, if labor goes up unfortunately those costs will be passed along to the consumer.

I own two retail chocolate and coffee stores and make the majority of my product. Labor is my biggest cost. If minimum wage goes to $15 two things ARE going to happen.One,your prices ARE going up and two I will figure out a way to do more with less labor. This means people will lose their jobs and hours for those remaining might be cut.

This is not political . it's the reality of economics . The goose has to survive if you are trying to extract more gold from it. As far as Moe's goes , I can assure you beef prices have risen significantly. I have my own line of jerky made for me. That product went up 30% and thus my jerky prices rose accordingly. I suspect Moe's prices are going up at the moment are due to food costs rising . I predict across the board price increases in food service industry if and when a minimum wage increase happens.

Here is a dark untold secret. I pay an additional 14% in taxes for my payroll. So , the double whammy , especially for small businesses, is not only will I see my labor costs going up directly with a proposed wage increase , my payroll taxes to the IRS will also be going up. The IRS will receive potentially billions more in payroll taxes by more than doubling the wage. Small businesses ARE going to take this on the chin.

My ability and desire to hire high school kids goes away. I may not hire college students either. Forget about hiring retired folks who want part time work too. Now with all that said,I pay most of my crew anywhere between $9 and $11. Those making $9 are high school weekend kids. weird how those young people don't actually need a livable wage because they live at home. yet, they do need a first job to teach them the skills of being a good employee, responsibility and people skills. Make no mistake about it , $15 an hour will kill part time jobs for young people. Companies that can automate like Burger Kings and Chick Fil As will. There are so many unintended consequences especially for small businesses that the damage will happen and it will be too late.

I find many here are just ignorant of business and econmics because I think they have the luxury of being well paid white collar folks . They are just disconnected from the reality of running a business big or small.

 

[goodknightfl]

With minimum wage you should be able to afford a new car every other year, a home where you live and a guest home to visit. A large house boat, 2 politicians in the back pocket, and a 40ft motorhome.

 

[Knight In TN]

Yeah, all of the above. No reason that folks should not get to enjoy life due to suppressed wages.

Anymore questions?

Do you have a basic understanding of how economies work?

I mean... you do understand the amount of skilled and educated labor that goes into supporting a lifestyle like that, right?

People build the house and the car, maintain both of them, run energy companies, maintain power lines, keep networks up and running, operate farms and ranches, and thousands of other things that support all of that.

And the only contribution someone needs to make to take full advantage of all of that labor from other people is to stand at a cash register at WalMart with a bad attitude and slide items across a scanner?

 

[Boosted87]

Here's my two cents - not on min wage specifically but on my read of the bigger landscape.

I think the fundamental competition in a free market is between labor and capital. The rising tide of economic growth should be lifting both where there is no clear winner or loser. Government should be a neutral party erring on the side of whoever has the least power. But humans don't work like that.

The problem is that this competition happens at an abstracted level with government regulators, politicians, special interest groups, etc. It's not self-correcting except over very long time spans.

We saw massive power for labor as we began regulating industries - child labor laws, 40 hour work weeks, minimum wage laws, and then post-depression era social programs. The power of labor peaked and the power of capital grew. Now we've had a 40+ year cycle where politicians responded to financial interests rather than the interests of the working class.

Then, 2016 hits and we see populism left and right. What both MAGA and Bernie/AOC world have in common is a belief that Washington DC works for the benefit of the wealthy and well connected, not them.

It's my opinion that we are on the verge of witnessing a multi-decadal shift. If the populists stay divided on economic issues because of cultural issues, then labor will continue to lose. But if they unite on economic issues, the tide shifts and we enter a multi-decade cycle where begin moving the other way.

Realize this - the core of Trump's base supports UBI like payments, increased minimum wage, etc - same as the left. There's a reason populist-wannabe Josh Hawley stood with Bernie in support of $2k payments. Economic populism is creeping into the right as well. We may not be that far from both parties supporting economic populism while fighting over cultural issues.

$15 dollars was a 60% winner here in Florida in a Trump state. This is bi-partisan winning position and I think the shift is underway.

 

[OLearyLastCall]

Do you have a basic understanding of how economies work?

I mean... you do understand the amount of skilled and educated labor that goes into supporting a lifestyle like that, right?

People build the house and the car, maintain both of them, run energy companies, maintain power lines, keep networks up and running, operate farms and ranches, and thousands of other things that support all of that.

And the only contribution someone needs to make to take full advantage of all of that labor from other people is to stand at a cash register at WalMart with a bad attitude and slide items across a scanner?

Lol...so what is the point of bettering yourself or taking risks starting a business? And who is going to be the suckers that carry the weight of all the unproductive folks with this new model? What is the point of working 70+ hour work week when you can just be at an entry level job with no stress.

Embarrassing we are having this discussion. Work hard and make your own money. Might not happen overnight but the hard/smart workers get rewarded.

Here. Let me put this in language that you Trump extremists understand. Your whining has just raised the minimum wage $1 dollar higher to $16/hour.

Cry about it more, losers.

 

[OLearyLastCall]

Here's my two cents - not on min wage specifically but on my read of the bigger landscape.

I think the fundamental competition in a free market is between labor and capital. The rising tide of economic growth should be lifting both where there is no clear winner or loser. Government should be a neutral party erring on the side of whoever has the least power. But humans don't work like that.

The problem is that this competition happens at an abstracted level with government regulators, politicians, special interest groups, etc. It's not self-correcting except over very long time spans.

We saw massive power for labor as we began regulating industries - child labor laws, 40 hour work weeks, minimum wage laws, and then post-depression era social programs. The power of labor peaked and the power of capital grew. Now we've had a 40+ year cycle where politicians responded to financial interests rather than the interests of the working class.

Then, 2016 hits and we see populism left and right. What both MAGA and Bernie/AOC world have in common is a belief that Washington DC works for the benefit of the wealthy and well connected, not them.

It's my opinion that we are on the verge of witnessing a multi-decadal shift. If the populists stay divided on economic issues because of cultural issues, then labor will continue to lose. But if they unite on economic issues, the tide shifts and we enter a multi-decade cycle where begin moving the other way.

Realize this - the core of Trump's base supports UBI like payments, increased minimum wage, etc - same as the left. There's a reason populist-wannabe Josh Hawley stood with Bernie in support of $2k payments. Economic populism is creeping into the right as well. We may not be that far from both parties supporting economic populism while fighting over cultural issues.

$15 dollars was a 60% winner here in Florida in a Trump state. This is bi-partisan winning position and I think the shift is underway.

Smartest post in this entire thread. One day you freaks will realize this isn't a left vs. right issue. Wealth inequality is killing this country. Either get with the times or get run over.

 

[Knight In TN]

Here. Let me put this in language that you Trump extremists understand. Your whining has just raised the minimum wage $1 dollar higher to $16/hour.

Cry about it more, losers.

This is the kind of thoughtful response we’ve all come to expect from you. Do you have any thoughts on the substance of what I posted, or do you just want to erroneously call me a Trump extremist and a loser?

If you don’t have any interest in an honest discussion about the economic realities of minimum wage, you should probably move on to a thread where your unprovoked name-calling might be more appreciated.

 

[Knight In TN]

Smartest post in this entire thread. One day you freaks will realize this isn't a left vs. right issue. Wealth inequality is killing this country. Either get with the times or get run over.

Wealth and currency are not the same thing.

I’m not against the working poor. I’m against short-sighted “solutions” that won’t do anything except serve to land more of the working poor in the ranks of the totally unemployed while raising the cost of everything they need to survive.

If you think WalMart’s response to the federal government doubling the wage rates of 8 cashiers will be to bite the bullet and keep all 8 at the same number of hours, you don’t understand the world. They’ll replace them with more self checkout stations and let 4 of them go, and the other 4 will have fewer hours.

New wealth is created when new goods and services are created. You can’t create new wealth by mandating that nobody can be paid less than $15/hr. If that were the case, why stop at $15/hr? Why not make it so everyone has to make at least $250k per year? Then everyone can afford a nice house and a boat!

 

[OLearyLastCall]

This is the kind of thoughtful response we’ve all come to expect from you. Do you have any thoughts on the substance of what I posted, or do you just want to erroneously call me a Trump extremist and a loser?

If you don’t have any interest in an honest discussion about the economic realities of minimum wage, you should probably move on to a thread where your unprovoked name-calling might be more appreciated.

There will never be wealth "equality". That is the point of capitalism. You risk hard earned cash/equity and get rewarded. Those sitting home eating potato chips as a 12 hour a day gamer will struggle. It isn't up to someone else to provide you as source to leech off. Better yourself and make your mark.

Where we are is almost 50% of the population pay zero federal taxes. Talk to me about "fair" share propaganda.

Wealth and currency are not the same thing.

I’m not against the working poor. I’m against short-sighted “solutions” that won’t do anything except serve to land more of the working poor in the ranks of the totally unemployed while raising the cost of everything they need to survive.

If you think WalMart’s response to the federal government doubling the wage rates of 8 cashiers will be to bite the bullet and keep all 8 at the same number of hours, you don’t understand the world. They’ll replace them with more self checkout stations and let 4 of them go, and the other 4 will have fewer hours.

New wealth is created when new goods and services are created. You can’t create new wealth by mandating that nobody can be paid less than $15/hr. If that were the case, why stop at $15/hr? Why not make it so everyone has to make at least $250k per year? Then everyone can afford a nice house and a boat!

I'll try the no-name calling thing. @Knight In TN, you're absolutely correct. A higher minimum wage would drive up unemployment, presumably, due to employers doing the math and cutting workers rather than paying higher wages.

It's why I think minimum wage hikes by themselves do nothing. There needs to be worker protection laws passed and union-strengthening laws passed to ensure the fat cats aren't just putting people on the streets. What do you think of that?

 

[OLearyLastCall]

There will never be wealth "equality". That is the point of capitalism. You risk hard earned cash/equity and get rewarded. Those sitting home eating potato chips as a 12 hour a day gamer will struggle. It isn't up to someone else to provide you as source to leech off. Better yourself and make your mark.

Where we are is almost 50% of the population pay zero federal taxes. Talk to me about "fair" share propaganda.

Spotted the boomer. Look at how pulling ourselves from the bootstraps has helped us throughout recent decades.

 

[Knight In TN]

I'll try the no-name calling thing. @Knight In TN, you're absolutely correct. A higher minimum wage would drive up unemployment, presumably, due to employers doing the math and cutting workers rather than paying higher wages.

It's why I think minimum wage hikes by themselves do nothing. There needs to be worker protection laws passed and union-strengthening laws passed to ensure the fat cats aren't just putting people on the streets. What do you think of that?

Depends on what you mean by worker protection laws.

At the most fundamental level, new businesses create new wealth. Labor is an ingredient in that process, but prioritizing protecting labor at the cost of making it much more difficult to start a business is counterproductive to creating more wealth in a society.

It might seem crazy, but raising the minimum wage and simultaneously enacting all sorts of new laws re: “worker protection” is going to squash small businesses and further widen the gap between the little guy and the Walmarts of the world.

Walmart would be fine. They’re already massively profitable, so anything that helps make it more difficult for an up-start store to get off the ground (like doubling the min wage and making it harder to comply with labor laws) is going to disproportionately hurt their competition and solidify their dominance of the market.

Ultimately you and I are probably in agreement that we’d like to see more people be able to own their own businesses and be profitable. Increasing labor costs and unnecessary regulations that favor the person who spends 25 hours a week working there over the person risking their life savings and spending 90 hours a week trying desperately to make the business a success is not the way to do that.

 

[Boosted87]

There will never be wealth "equality". That is the point of capitalism. You risk hard earned cash/equity and get rewarded. Those sitting home eating potato chips as a 12 hour a day gamer will struggle. It isn't up to someone else to provide you as source to leech off. Better yourself and make your mark.

Where we are is almost 50% of the population pay zero federal taxes. Talk to me about "fair" share propaganda.

Wealth inequality isn't about everyone having the same amount - it's about growth rates being equal-ish over long time horizons. If wealth/income is rising at the same rate across the economic spectrum, you have no issues. But if the growth is unequal, it's not sustainable.

That means if a job paying $200k now makes $400k, then the job making $20k should be making $40k. That's equal growth rates. But if $200k guy job is growing at 5% and $20k is growing at 1%, how long is that sustainable? After 15 years, one has doubled to $400,000 and the other is now at a whopping $23k.

This is basically what's happening across the income spectrum. At the bottom end, there's very little real growth beyond inflation. At the top end, there's significant growth above inflation. The disparity gets worse over time unless the trend reverses. Thus a larger % of the wealth exists in fewer and fewer hands as you cycle forward. The mathematical conclusion is an oligarchy but logic says the trend reverses...

 

[joshwl2003]

A core issue nobody is looking at with the min wage hike of almost 100%. Every worker who makes between min wag and 15 dollars per hour will likely move to minimum wage. So their "Skilled" job now gets them the same wage as the dish washer at McDonald's. It also hurts other industries too. Lets say you pay a typical entry level person, with a college degree, between 40-45K a year, once they back out student loan payments from their salary they could basically become a min wage worker. They only way I see to deal with these problems is inflation. Question has to be how far into the work force does it penetrate?

 

[Boosted87]

Wealth and currency are not the same thing.

I’m not against the working poor. I’m against short-sighted “solutions” that won’t do anything except serve to land more of the working poor in the ranks of the totally unemployed while raising the cost of everything they need to survive.

If you think WalMart’s response to the federal government doubling the wage rates of 8 cashiers will be to bite the bullet and keep all 8 at the same number of hours, you don’t understand the world. They’ll replace them with more self checkout stations and let 4 of them go, and the other 4 will have fewer hours.

New wealth is created when new goods and services are created. You can’t create new wealth by mandating that nobody can be paid less than $15/hr. If that were the case, why stop at $15/hr? Why not make it so everyone has to make at least $250k per year? Then everyone can afford a nice house and a boat!

So why not cut wages by 75% so that Wal Mart can employ 4x as many people?

Creative destruction is part of the process. If Wal Mart has half the cashiers and more automated kiosks so be it. It's a waste of labor to keep people doing something a machine can do anyway. Increasing minimum wage just gives Wal Mart the political cover to do the automation they probably want to do anyway.

Capitalism is supposed to be about the efficient distribution of labor. Suppressing wages so people can compete with machines is not very capitalistic.

 

[Knight In TN]

Wealth inequality isn't about everyone having the same amount - it's about growth rates being equal-ish over long time horizons. If wealth/income is rising at the same rate across the economic spectrum, you have no issues. But if the growth is unequal, it's not sustainable.

That means if a job paying $200k now makes $400k, then the job making $20k should be making $40k. That's equal growth rates. But if $200k guy job is growing at 5% and $20k is growing at 1%, how long is that sustainable? After 15 years, one has doubled to $400,000 and the other is now at a whopping $23k.

This is basically what's happening across the income spectrum. At the bottom end, there's very little real growth beyond inflation. At the top end, there's significant growth above inflation. The disparity gets worse over time unless the trend reverses. Thus a larger % of the wealth exists in fewer and fewer hands as you cycle forward. The mathematical conclusion is an oligarchy but logic says the trend reverses...

That sounds great, but it’s more complicated than that. There’s productivity to consider as well.

I find it hard to believe that a $200k job is now paying $400k on the basis of nothing. Productivity would have to justify a doubling of wages. No business owner is giving an extra couple hundred K per year just because. They’re either worth the extra $200k because they’re producing a lot more, or they’re far too difficult to replace for replacing them to be cost effective.

The $20k worker would need to similarly justify doubling their wages. Are they that much more productive, or otherwise indispensable to the company? Replacing a $20k per year worker is generally going to be far easier. Not because the demand for that salary is higher, but because the supply of qualified candidates is so much higher. The cost of finding a replacement is lower by many times.

Another point being missed is that these are not static examples we’re talking about. A $20k worker is not stuck making $20k. There are many people who move from $20k to $60k and $150k as they gain experience and become more productive and irreplaceable in the work force. But if you just look back at the original $20k job and see that those wages are still in the same ballpark they were, you might conclude that it’s a bad job where people are “stuck” making a lower wage. Never mind that that job prepares them to make a job change to take on more responsibility and higher earnings at another company or within their current one.

 

[Boosted87]

That sounds great, but it’s more complicated than that. There’s productivity to consider as well.

I find it hard to believe that a $200k job is now paying $400k on the basis of nothing. Productivity would have to justify a doubling of wages. No business owner is giving an extra couple hundred K per year just because. They’re either worth the extra $200k because they’re producing a lot more, or they’re far too difficult to replace for replacing them to be cost effective.

The $20k worker would need to similarly justify doubling their wages. Are they that much more productive, or otherwise indispensable to the company? Replacing a $20k per year worker is generally going to be far easier. Not because the demand for that salary is higher, but because the supply of qualified candidates is so much higher. The cost of finding a replacement is lower by many times.

Another point being missed is that these are not static examples we’re talking about. A $20k worker is not stuck making $20k. There are many people who move from $20k to $60k and $150k as they gain experience and become more productive and irreplaceable in the work force. But if you just look back at the original $20k job and see that those wages are still in the same ballpark they were, you might conclude that it’s a bad job where people are “stuck” making a lower wage. Never mind that that job prepares them to make a job change to take on more responsibility and higher earnings at another company or within their current one.

The productivity chart was posted in this thread. In about the mid 70's, wage growth decoupled from productivity growth. I agree that's the problem. But you have to think of this on a macro scale.

A cashier managing 4 self-checkout kiosks is capable of moving more product than a traditional cashier. A burger-flipper managing a burger-flipper 2000 is capable of producing more burgers per minute than before. But that's not an increase in skill. Those positions can be filled by the same people as always.

Now, the maid at the local hotel probably doesn't benefit from that type of technology efficiency. Her productivity is flat. But economically, you can't decouple those jobs from each other. You're not going to live in a world where maids experience zero income growth while cashiers and burger flippers double and triple because of productivity.

You have to view it a macro level. If productivity is up economy wide, then wages economy wide need to track.

 

[Knight In TN]

The productivity chart was posted in this thread. In about the mid 70's, wage growth decoupled from productivity growth. I agree that's the problem. But you have to think of this on a macro scale.

A cashier managing 4 self-checkout kiosks is capable of moving more product than a traditional cashier. A burger-flipper managing a burger-flipper 2000 is capable of producing more burgers per minute than before. But that's not an increase in skill. Those positions can be filled by the same people as always.

Now, the maid at the local hotel probably doesn't benefit from that type of technology efficiency. Her productivity is flat. But economically, you can't decouple those jobs from each other. You're not going to live in a world where maids experience zero income growth while cashiers and burger flippers double and triple because of productivity.

You have to view it a macro level. If productivity is up economy wide, then wages economy wide need to track.

We’ve seen incredible improvements in lifestyle become much more affordable over time as well though, and while productivity is decoupling from incomes, it’s certainly not decoupled from living standards.

81% of Americans now own smartphones and that number is rising, especially as coverage reaches more rural areas. That’s an incredibly powerful machine that brings an amount of information and entertainment that would have been unthinkable in the 1970s.

We’ve gone from mostly small black and white screens and boxes that dominated living rooms to huge flat screens that can be hung on a wall.

The problem of cashiers being able to watch 6 self checkout lanes and not get 6x the pay is a tough one to fix and I’m not sure what the answer is. Nobody seems to know. But the answer isn’t to pay them 6x what they made before, because that’s just turning 6 low wage workers into 1 needlessly well-paid worker and 5 unemployed ones.

We’re in a period of history filled with economic growing pains. Technology is making amazing things possible, as it removes the need for people doing a lot of menial, mindless tasks. But those people also need something to do, and that’s a problem right now. As the demand for unskilled labor is deteriorating, the supply is staying where it was and that’s never going to be a recipe for increasing wages.

 

[Crazyhole]

There should be a worldwide minimum wage of 15$ USD.

 

[Nautiknight]

I find some of y'all still talking in the ether, in the theoretical and not in the real world. Main Street , anytown USA , is where millions of hardworking folks invest in their businesses. They are not Walmart . They are hard working folks with a dream and vision and the guts to go out there and try to run two nickels together to hopefully make 4 at the end of the day. They employ people and some of those jobs are part time low skilled jobs be they entry level or say for a retired person needing a few extra bucks.

I tell my crew if I could pay them $20 an hour I would. They mean a lot to me. However, my sales can't justify that expense in labor cost . My business is highly seasonal and in the off-season I take a lot less out of my business and some of my employees checks are bigger than my own . It is a misnomer to think as small businesses as greedy tightwads. Many are not. I had to look at 17 people, most between 16 and 23 back in March and tell them they had no job after the Government Covid shit down. I didn't get my measly PPP money deposited until July and if not but for my two gracious landlords , I may not have survived.

More people are employed by small businesses than large in this nation. We are the backbone of entrepreneurial spirit here and an arbitrary wage increase set forth by government doesn't respect capital, productivity,or sales. It also doesn't respect that it's cheaper to live in South Dakota than New York City.

What I have learned is small business doesn't matter to the Democrats or Republicans. They care more about my employees than they do about the guy risking it all to be able to generate the job to begin with and I see that attitude here.

I once made good money as environmental planner in an landscape architecture ,planning and design firm. I have a special needs severely disabled son and I decided to go out and do something on my own , completely unrelated to my two college degrees. it's my choice . I chose to risk an investment property to buy a business and I chose to move and deep dive in the travel and tourism industry. it's all my choice .

With that said I am sick of the politicians and people here who are on their high horse advocating for this increase when I know it's going to crush people who own a business especially those in food service industry. Your favorite pizza place owned locally? maybe they go under ? What about a favorite book store ? What about your non starbucks coffee joint? Owners are people too and unlike the high school or college kid they employ , they have it all on the line. Speaking of those minimum wage jobs the overwhelming majority are young people between 16 and 24 years old. I don't many 16 year olds living with mom and dad in suburbia needing a liveable wage . This is such a fallacy that we need this liveable wage. I provide a job and if you need a liveable wage ,don't work for me and perhaps develop education and trade skills which will garner you a liveable wage job. We will kill off the high school jobs and summer jobs to some degree with this proposed increase. Those entry level jobs are important..All of you can remember your first job I bet and your first job got you your second and you built skills,got an education and now you are making money. It all started with that job in high school.

If we pass this minimum wage increase , I will need to pay my baristas to keep them not $15 an hour but more like $18 or $19 and that $4.50 16 ounce latte is going to go up to $7 or $8 drink. My $30 a pound single bean Venezuelan cacoa hand made chocolates will increase to $35 to $40 a pound . It's all going to go up I can guarantee you. Then my payroll taxes are going to explode. You know 14% is more money on $18 an hour versus $12 an hour. Guess who is going to pay that increase? you are. You the consumer will pay for all of it. If you choose not to pay these increaes then guys like me who sign the front of your paycheck will close up show and the 17 people I employ will have no job at all. That's the Main Street point of view here and no chart ,no business degree or economic theory can escape the hard facts of natural law. I need more revenue than expenses to stay a float. The sad thing is politicians simply are ignorant of this fact or just don't care about the goose who actually provides and creates jobs.