More lefties learn the glory of the 15 dollar minimum wage....unemployment.....

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

How many restaurants serve nothing but hamburgers?
Fast found restaurants don't just serve hamburgers. A McDonald kitchen prepares fried and broiled chicken sandwiches, fish sandwiches, chicken nuggets, snack wraps, a multitude of special burgers, a variety of egg muffin sandwiches, pancakes, eggs, sausages, biscuits, and constantly changing specials.

Unless your restaurant served just burgers, a burger machine with have a minimal impact on employment because the kitchen staff is still needed to prepare other food.

There is also another problem with automation. It's not flexible. The machine can only perform the tasks that it has been built to perform. So management's menu is limited by the machine; not a good idea since fast food restaurants have built their menu by trying out new menu offerings.
.

Nonsense --- there's not a nickel's difference between cooking chicken or hamburgers. One of the prime concerns when making 'menu changes' is to 1) not use anything new - just find different ways to present the same raw materials, 2) use the same delivery methods in order to avoid increased training costs, and 3) increase profitability for the same materials.

Actually, automation is extremely flexible --- it's just a matter of building it to be flexible.

A burger machine couldn't cook chicken. Some person would have to change the setting at the very least.

Someone orders chicken, the computer tells the machine to cook chicken. If it's a self serve kiosk, there need be no human intervention, except maybe to load more burger patties and chicken chunks into the machine. A bit more investment and robots could move product from freezer to machine on demand. Technology is available to run a Mickey D's with just one employee present to babysit the machines.
But, Liberals will claim that now one man can do what it used to take 10 and call that a 10 fold increase in productivity when in fact, there is no increase in productivity attributable to employees. All productivity gain is a result of technology and equipment bought and paid for by management.

I agree with most of your post but I'll play the devils advocate. When 90% of Mickey D's employees and all the other fast food chains, along with retail stores, and what remains of American manufacturing are replaced by robots, what are these people made redundant by automation going to do?

Automation of course does create jobs, but those jobs require not just more training, but more intelligence, and more dedication than that of most low income workers. Trying to turn hamburger flippers into computer network technicians, design engineers, and accountants is not going to be very successful. I'm afraid that in this brave new world about 40% will end up supporting 60% of the population, not a very good outcome.

Building and implementing new technology may turn out to be simple compared to dealing with resulting social problems.

There will be ditch digging, truck driving, bar tending.... What motivated people will do is what each generation does. They will get more education than their parents. Those that don't avail themselves of the education our taxes provide for them will either become sponges and parasites or maybe find their own marketable skill. There are people making money at all kinds of things a sane person would never consider.
Hell! Go back to 1965. One large company I worked for had punch tape computers with vacuume tubes. No one in their right mind would think that 10 years later average folks wpould be buying personal computers with that capability squared. Of course, developing PC's took above average intelligence and some capital investment, but at the same time, people were making millions selling pet rocks.

Being a parasite is much easier though. It doesn't require education, hard work or an imagination. For that part of the problem, the solution is a hard one to face. How do you motivate people that are more comfortable living off the largess of society than in a 9 to 5 job that nets them the same amount or just slightly more money.
Giving them more free shit is NOT the answer. Giving them less free shit is the only thing government can do.
Government can educate the masses, but can't make anyone want to learn. Government can incarcerate those that violate the law, but can't raise children that won't steal.
No one wants to see kids go hungry because their parents didn't get an education, but leaving them not quite full when they leave the table might just motivate them to do better than their parents.

Short of taking them out of the home most of the time the government cant do jack to help kids.

Most of the time people who have kids and very little income are in that position because they made poor choices. That is just a fact.

That's why my argument for a higher minimum wage doesn't take that into consideration at all.ALL I argue is that a single person working a full time job at minimum wage should earn above the level that allows them to collect welfare.

Two people can earn up to $1600 a month and collect food stamps. At minimum wage a worker is going to earn $1254 a month (assuming full time) And I don't want to hear "get a second job" that isn't the point. The point is one person who is willing to work ANY job full time should be provided the dignity of earning enough to be off of welfare.

And the ones who won't make themselves worth the new minimum? Who cares, let them die in the street. Put their kids up for adoption. Something.

Just get the ones who are working off welfare.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Nonsense --- there's not a nickel's difference between cooking chicken or hamburgers. One of the prime concerns when making 'menu changes' is to 1) not use anything new - just find different ways to present the same raw materials, 2) use the same delivery methods in order to avoid increased training costs, and 3) increase profitability for the same materials.

Actually, automation is extremely flexible --- it's just a matter of building it to be flexible.

A burger machine couldn't cook chicken. Some person would have to change the setting at the very least.

Someone orders chicken, the computer tells the machine to cook chicken. If it's a self serve kiosk, there need be no human intervention, except maybe to load more burger patties and chicken chunks into the machine. A bit more investment and robots could move product from freezer to machine on demand. Technology is available to run a Mickey D's with just one employee present to babysit the machines.
But, Liberals will claim that now one man can do what it used to take 10 and call that a 10 fold increase in productivity when in fact, there is no increase in productivity attributable to employees. All productivity gain is a result of technology and equipment bought and paid for by management.

I agree with most of your post but I'll play the devils advocate. When 90% of Mickey D's employees and all the other fast food chains, along with retail stores, and what remains of American manufacturing are replaced by robots, what are these people made redundant by automation going to do?

Automation of course does create jobs, but those jobs require not just more training, but more intelligence, and more dedication than that of most low income workers. Trying to turn hamburger flippers into computer network technicians, design engineers, and accountants is not going to be very successful. I'm afraid that in this brave new world about 40% will end up supporting 60% of the population, not a very good outcome.

Building and implementing new technology may turn out to be simple compared to dealing with resulting social problems.

There will be ditch digging, truck driving, bar tending.... What motivated people will do is what each generation does. They will get more education than their parents. Those that don't avail themselves of the education our taxes provide for them will either become sponges and parasites or maybe find their own marketable skill. There are people making money at all kinds of things a sane person would never consider.
Hell! Go back to 1965. One large company I worked for had punch tape computers with vacuume tubes. No one in their right mind would think that 10 years later average folks wpould be buying personal computers with that capability squared. Of course, developing PC's took above average intelligence and some capital investment, but at the same time, people were making millions selling pet rocks.

Being a parasite is much easier though. It doesn't require education, hard work or an imagination. For that part of the problem, the solution is a hard one to face. How do you motivate people that are more comfortable living off the largess of society than in a 9 to 5 job that nets them the same amount or just slightly more money.
Giving them more free shit is NOT the answer. Giving them less free shit is the only thing government can do.
Government can educate the masses, but can't make anyone want to learn. Government can incarcerate those that violate the law, but can't raise children that won't steal.
No one wants to see kids go hungry because their parents didn't get an education, but leaving them not quite full when they leave the table might just motivate them to do better than their parents.

Short of taking them out of the home most of the time the government cant do jack to help kids.

Most of the time people who have kids and very little income are in that position because they made poor choices. That is just a fact.

That's why my argument for a higher minimum wage doesn't take that into consideration at all.ALL I argue is that a single person working a full time job at minimum wage should earn above the level that allows them to collect welfare.

Two people can earn up to $1600 a month and collect food stamps. At minimum wage a worker is going to earn $1254 a month (assuming full time) And I don't want to hear "get a second job" that isn't the point. The point is one person who is willing to work ANY job full time should be provided the dignity of earning enough to be off of welfare.

And the ones who won't make themselves worth the new minimum? Who cares, let them die in the street. Put their kids up for adoption. Something.

Just get the ones who are working off welfare.

I worked for min wage in the mid eighties and wasnt on welfare.
It wasnt fun but it's doable.

 

[Ernie S.]

Nonsense --- there's not a nickel's difference between cooking chicken or hamburgers. One of the prime concerns when making 'menu changes' is to 1) not use anything new - just find different ways to present the same raw materials, 2) use the same delivery methods in order to avoid increased training costs, and 3) increase profitability for the same materials.

Actually, automation is extremely flexible --- it's just a matter of building it to be flexible.

A burger machine couldn't cook chicken. Some person would have to change the setting at the very least.

Someone orders chicken, the computer tells the machine to cook chicken. If it's a self serve kiosk, there need be no human intervention, except maybe to load more burger patties and chicken chunks into the machine. A bit more investment and robots could move product from freezer to machine on demand. Technology is available to run a Mickey D's with just one employee present to babysit the machines.
But, Liberals will claim that now one man can do what it used to take 10 and call that a 10 fold increase in productivity when in fact, there is no increase in productivity attributable to employees. All productivity gain is a result of technology and equipment bought and paid for by management.

I agree with most of your post but I'll play the devils advocate. When 90% of Mickey D's employees and all the other fast food chains, along with retail stores, and what remains of American manufacturing are replaced by robots, what are these people made redundant by automation going to do?

Automation of course does create jobs, but those jobs require not just more training, but more intelligence, and more dedication than that of most low income workers. Trying to turn hamburger flippers into computer network technicians, design engineers, and accountants is not going to be very successful. I'm afraid that in this brave new world about 40% will end up supporting 60% of the population, not a very good outcome.

Building and implementing new technology may turn out to be simple compared to dealing with resulting social problems.

There will be ditch digging, truck driving, bar tending.... What motivated people will do is what each generation does. They will get more education than their parents. Those that don't avail themselves of the education our taxes provide for them will either become sponges and parasites or maybe find their own marketable skill. There are people making money at all kinds of things a sane person would never consider.
Hell! Go back to 1965. One large company I worked for had punch tape computers with vacuume tubes. No one in their right mind would think that 10 years later average folks wpould be buying personal computers with that capability squared. Of course, developing PC's took above average intelligence and some capital investment, but at the same time, people were making millions selling pet rocks.

Being a parasite is much easier though. It doesn't require education, hard work or an imagination. For that part of the problem, the solution is a hard one to face. How do you motivate people that are more comfortable living off the largess of society than in a 9 to 5 job that nets them the same amount or just slightly more money.
Giving them more free shit is NOT the answer. Giving them less free shit is the only thing government can do.
Government can educate the masses, but can't make anyone want to learn. Government can incarcerate those that violate the law, but can't raise children that won't steal.
No one wants to see kids go hungry because their parents didn't get an education, but leaving them not quite full when they leave the table might just motivate them to do better than their parents.

Short of taking them out of the home most of the time the government cant do jack to help kids.

Most of the time people who have kids and very little income are in that position because they made poor choices. That is just a fact.

That's why my argument for a higher minimum wage doesn't take that into consideration at all.ALL I argue is that a single person working a full time job at minimum wage should earn above the level that allows them to collect welfare.

Two people can earn up to $1600 a month and collect food stamps. At minimum wage a worker is going to earn $1254 a month (assuming full time) And I don't want to hear "get a second job" that isn't the point. The point is one person who is willing to work ANY job full time should be provided the dignity of earning enough to be off of welfare.

And the ones who won't make themselves worth the new minimum? Who cares, let them die in the street. Put their kids up for adoption. Something.

Just get the ones who are working off welfare.

I understand what you are saying but being poor does not make your labor more valuable.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

A burger machine couldn't cook chicken. Some person would have to change the setting at the very least.

Someone orders chicken, the computer tells the machine to cook chicken. If it's a self serve kiosk, there need be no human intervention, except maybe to load more burger patties and chicken chunks into the machine. A bit more investment and robots could move product from freezer to machine on demand. Technology is available to run a Mickey D's with just one employee present to babysit the machines.
But, Liberals will claim that now one man can do what it used to take 10 and call that a 10 fold increase in productivity when in fact, there is no increase in productivity attributable to employees. All productivity gain is a result of technology and equipment bought and paid for by management.

I agree with most of your post but I'll play the devils advocate. When 90% of Mickey D's employees and all the other fast food chains, along with retail stores, and what remains of American manufacturing are replaced by robots, what are these people made redundant by automation going to do?

Automation of course does create jobs, but those jobs require not just more training, but more intelligence, and more dedication than that of most low income workers. Trying to turn hamburger flippers into computer network technicians, design engineers, and accountants is not going to be very successful. I'm afraid that in this brave new world about 40% will end up supporting 60% of the population, not a very good outcome.

Building and implementing new technology may turn out to be simple compared to dealing with resulting social problems.

There will be ditch digging, truck driving, bar tending.... What motivated people will do is what each generation does. They will get more education than their parents. Those that don't avail themselves of the education our taxes provide for them will either become sponges and parasites or maybe find their own marketable skill. There are people making money at all kinds of things a sane person would never consider.
Hell! Go back to 1965. One large company I worked for had punch tape computers with vacuume tubes. No one in their right mind would think that 10 years later average folks wpould be buying personal computers with that capability squared. Of course, developing PC's took above average intelligence and some capital investment, but at the same time, people were making millions selling pet rocks.

Being a parasite is much easier though. It doesn't require education, hard work or an imagination. For that part of the problem, the solution is a hard one to face. How do you motivate people that are more comfortable living off the largess of society than in a 9 to 5 job that nets them the same amount or just slightly more money.
Giving them more free shit is NOT the answer. Giving them less free shit is the only thing government can do.
Government can educate the masses, but can't make anyone want to learn. Government can incarcerate those that violate the law, but can't raise children that won't steal.
No one wants to see kids go hungry because their parents didn't get an education, but leaving them not quite full when they leave the table might just motivate them to do better than their parents.

Short of taking them out of the home most of the time the government cant do jack to help kids.

Most of the time people who have kids and very little income are in that position because they made poor choices. That is just a fact.

That's why my argument for a higher minimum wage doesn't take that into consideration at all.ALL I argue is that a single person working a full time job at minimum wage should earn above the level that allows them to collect welfare.

Two people can earn up to $1600 a month and collect food stamps. At minimum wage a worker is going to earn $1254 a month (assuming full time) And I don't want to hear "get a second job" that isn't the point. The point is one person who is willing to work ANY job full time should be provided the dignity of earning enough to be off of welfare.

And the ones who won't make themselves worth the new minimum? Who cares, let them die in the street. Put their kids up for adoption. Something.

Just get the ones who are working off welfare.

I understand what you are saying but being poor does not make your labor more valuable.

No it certainly doesn't Ernie, but the facts are the facts. the minimum wage has decreased considerably over the last twenty years in terms of real dollars.

It simply can't be argued. In 1968 the minimum wage was $10.44 an hour in 2015 dollars.

 

[Ernie S.]

Someone orders chicken, the computer tells the machine to cook chicken. If it's a self serve kiosk, there need be no human intervention, except maybe to load more burger patties and chicken chunks into the machine. A bit more investment and robots could move product from freezer to machine on demand. Technology is available to run a Mickey D's with just one employee present to babysit the machines.
But, Liberals will claim that now one man can do what it used to take 10 and call that a 10 fold increase in productivity when in fact, there is no increase in productivity attributable to employees. All productivity gain is a result of technology and equipment bought and paid for by management.

I agree with most of your post but I'll play the devils advocate. When 90% of Mickey D's employees and all the other fast food chains, along with retail stores, and what remains of American manufacturing are replaced by robots, what are these people made redundant by automation going to do?

Automation of course does create jobs, but those jobs require not just more training, but more intelligence, and more dedication than that of most low income workers. Trying to turn hamburger flippers into computer network technicians, design engineers, and accountants is not going to be very successful. I'm afraid that in this brave new world about 40% will end up supporting 60% of the population, not a very good outcome.

Building and implementing new technology may turn out to be simple compared to dealing with resulting social problems.

There will be ditch digging, truck driving, bar tending.... What motivated people will do is what each generation does. They will get more education than their parents. Those that don't avail themselves of the education our taxes provide for them will either become sponges and parasites or maybe find their own marketable skill. There are people making money at all kinds of things a sane person would never consider.
Hell! Go back to 1965. One large company I worked for had punch tape computers with vacuume tubes. No one in their right mind would think that 10 years later average folks wpould be buying personal computers with that capability squared. Of course, developing PC's took above average intelligence and some capital investment, but at the same time, people were making millions selling pet rocks.

Being a parasite is much easier though. It doesn't require education, hard work or an imagination. For that part of the problem, the solution is a hard one to face. How do you motivate people that are more comfortable living off the largess of society than in a 9 to 5 job that nets them the same amount or just slightly more money.
Giving them more free shit is NOT the answer. Giving them less free shit is the only thing government can do.
Government can educate the masses, but can't make anyone want to learn. Government can incarcerate those that violate the law, but can't raise children that won't steal.
No one wants to see kids go hungry because their parents didn't get an education, but leaving them not quite full when they leave the table might just motivate them to do better than their parents.

Short of taking them out of the home most of the time the government cant do jack to help kids.

Most of the time people who have kids and very little income are in that position because they made poor choices. That is just a fact.

That's why my argument for a higher minimum wage doesn't take that into consideration at all.ALL I argue is that a single person working a full time job at minimum wage should earn above the level that allows them to collect welfare.

Two people can earn up to $1600 a month and collect food stamps. At minimum wage a worker is going to earn $1254 a month (assuming full time) And I don't want to hear "get a second job" that isn't the point. The point is one person who is willing to work ANY job full time should be provided the dignity of earning enough to be off of welfare.

And the ones who won't make themselves worth the new minimum? Who cares, let them die in the street. Put their kids up for adoption. Something.

Just get the ones who are working off welfare.

I understand what you are saying but being poor does not make your labor more valuable.

No it certainly doesn't Ernie, but the facts are the facts. the minimum wage has decreased considerably over the last twenty years in terms of real dollars.

It simply can't be argued. In 1968 the minimum wage was $10.44 an hour in 2015 dollars.

And 47 years later we have 4 times as many poor people.
Almost keeping up with inflation is obviously not the answer.
Parents instilling a strong work ethic and a hunger for education will do more to get people out of poverty than anything government can do. All government can do is make being poor less comfortable.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I agree with most of your post but I'll play the devils advocate. When 90% of Mickey D's employees and all the other fast food chains, along with retail stores, and what remains of American manufacturing are replaced by robots, what are these people made redundant by automation going to do?

Automation of course does create jobs, but those jobs require not just more training, but more intelligence, and more dedication than that of most low income workers. Trying to turn hamburger flippers into computer network technicians, design engineers, and accountants is not going to be very successful. I'm afraid that in this brave new world about 40% will end up supporting 60% of the population, not a very good outcome.

Building and implementing new technology may turn out to be simple compared to dealing with resulting social problems.

There will be ditch digging, truck driving, bar tending.... What motivated people will do is what each generation does. They will get more education than their parents. Those that don't avail themselves of the education our taxes provide for them will either become sponges and parasites or maybe find their own marketable skill. There are people making money at all kinds of things a sane person would never consider.
Hell! Go back to 1965. One large company I worked for had punch tape computers with vacuume tubes. No one in their right mind would think that 10 years later average folks wpould be buying personal computers with that capability squared. Of course, developing PC's took above average intelligence and some capital investment, but at the same time, people were making millions selling pet rocks.

Being a parasite is much easier though. It doesn't require education, hard work or an imagination. For that part of the problem, the solution is a hard one to face. How do you motivate people that are more comfortable living off the largess of society than in a 9 to 5 job that nets them the same amount or just slightly more money.
Giving them more free shit is NOT the answer. Giving them less free shit is the only thing government can do.
Government can educate the masses, but can't make anyone want to learn. Government can incarcerate those that violate the law, but can't raise children that won't steal.
No one wants to see kids go hungry because their parents didn't get an education, but leaving them not quite full when they leave the table might just motivate them to do better than their parents.

Short of taking them out of the home most of the time the government cant do jack to help kids.

Most of the time people who have kids and very little income are in that position because they made poor choices. That is just a fact.

That's why my argument for a higher minimum wage doesn't take that into consideration at all.ALL I argue is that a single person working a full time job at minimum wage should earn above the level that allows them to collect welfare.

Two people can earn up to $1600 a month and collect food stamps. At minimum wage a worker is going to earn $1254 a month (assuming full time) And I don't want to hear "get a second job" that isn't the point. The point is one person who is willing to work ANY job full time should be provided the dignity of earning enough to be off of welfare.

And the ones who won't make themselves worth the new minimum? Who cares, let them die in the street. Put their kids up for adoption. Something.

Just get the ones who are working off welfare.

I understand what you are saying but being poor does not make your labor more valuable.

No it certainly doesn't Ernie, but the facts are the facts. the minimum wage has decreased considerably over the last twenty years in terms of real dollars.

It simply can't be argued. In 1968 the minimum wage was $10.44 an hour in 2015 dollars.

And 47 years later we have 4 times as many poor people.
Almost keeping up with inflation is obviously not the answer.
Parents instilling a strong work ethic and a hunger for education will do more to get people out of poverty than anything government can do. All government can do is make being poor less comfortable.

Ernie, that doesn't have anything to do with the minimum wage. IF you disagree we need a law at all, fine, but if you agree a minimum wage law is necessary you must also agree that a wage that is ridiculously low is no better than no minimum.

 

[Ernie S.]

I disagree. I would keep Minimum Wage low enough so that people would strive to get above the minimum requirements.
In my youth, I took a couple min wage jobs. I didn't stay there long. I made myself worth more because I didn't have the crutch of food stamps making me complacent.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I disagree. I would keep Minimum Wage low enough so that people would strive to get above the minimum requirements.
In my youth, I took a couple min wage jobs. I didn't stay there long. I made myself worth more because I didn't have the crutch of food stamps making me complacent.

What year were you earning min wage Ernie?

Further, you know we aren't doing away with food stamps. That's just not going to happen.

 

[dblack]

I disagree. I would keep Minimum Wage low enough so that people would strive to get above the minimum requirements.
In my youth, I took a couple min wage jobs. I didn't stay there long. I made myself worth more because I didn't have the crutch of food stamps making me complacent.

I would get government out of the business of deciding wages.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I disagree. I would keep Minimum Wage low enough so that people would strive to get above the minimum requirements.
In my youth, I took a couple min wage jobs. I didn't stay there long. I made myself worth more because I didn't have the crutch of food stamps making me complacent.

I would get government out of the business of deciding wages.

Yes, because that worked out so well in the past.

 

[Brain357]

Sure and several studies say no. A city just increased to $15 and there is no chaos. Give it up already.

Name one that shows there is no effect on employment rate. Name one that contests the rise in teenage and particular teenage black unemployment and their coinciding with e rise in minimum wage. Name on study that contends the labor doesn't have a downward sloping demand curve that creates a surplus of labor that otherwise isn't employed.

In the meantime. Also provide proof that the revised Neumark-Wascher study is incorrect in its findings and why.

I've posted several. Here is something.

Addicting Info Does Increasing The Minimum Wage Increase Unemployment 60 Years Of Data Says No

That so called study which is really a big post addresses none of my concerns, nor does it debunk the Neumark-Wascher study. First off discussing the effects of minimum wage without comparing state by state where wages differ is meaningless. Secondly citing the unemployment stats where 98% of Individuals don't receive minimum wage also aren't valuable. You need to measure unemployment rates by effected groups. Primarily those 25 and younger. Particularly of minority groups. Your blog post also doesnt address lower rates of employment rate as opposed to tge unemployment rate. These are two different things. My Neumark-Wascher study addresses this your blog post doesnt. So I am still waiting. Rather than providing a shit tier blog post from a far left site, provide evidence as to why my studies and data are wrong

Min wage has increased many times without increased unemployment.

You are aware, of course, (HUGE assumption!!) that the increase in Seattle's minimum wage is now officially 40 days old, and that no unemployment data has been gathered as yet. For you to trumpet the lack of impact is intellectually dishonest.

Funny the OP claimed everything was already a disaster.

 

[Ernie S.]

I disagree. I would keep Minimum Wage low enough so that people would strive to get above the minimum requirements.
In my youth, I took a couple min wage jobs. I didn't stay there long. I made myself worth more because I didn't have the crutch of food stamps making me complacent.

What year were you earning min wage Ernie?

Further, you know we aren't doing away with food stamps. That's just not going to happen.

I earned $1.10 and while I was there, got a min wage boost to $1.25

Never said do away with them. Just make people motivated.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I disagree. I would keep Minimum Wage low enough so that people would strive to get above the minimum requirements.
In my youth, I took a couple min wage jobs. I didn't stay there long. I made myself worth more because I didn't have the crutch of food stamps making me complacent.

What year were you earning min wage Ernie?

Further, you know we aren't doing away with food stamps. That's just not going to happen.

I earned $1.10 and while I was there, got a min wage boost to $1.25

Never said do away with them. Just make people motivated.

So, 1963?
That's when the min wage went to $1.25 an hour.

Let's look at an inflation calculator.

CPI Inflation Calculator

In constant dollars you were making $9.59 an hour Ernie. Think about that for a second. Why are min wage earners worth less than they were in your time as a min wage earner?

 

[dblack]

We need government to set minimum prices too. Store owners shouldn't be at the mercy of cheapskate customers always looking for the best deal.

 

[Ernie S.]

I disagree. I would keep Minimum Wage low enough so that people would strive to get above the minimum requirements.
In my youth, I took a couple min wage jobs. I didn't stay there long. I made myself worth more because I didn't have the crutch of food stamps making me complacent.

What year were you earning min wage Ernie?

Further, you know we aren't doing away with food stamps. That's just not going to happen.

I earned $1.10 and while I was there, got a min wage boost to $1.25

Never said do away with them. Just make people motivated.

So, 1963?
That's when the min wage went to $1.25 an hour.

Let's look at an inflation calculator.

CPI Inflation Calculator

In constant dollars you were making $9.59 an hour Ernie. Think about that for a second. Why are min wage earners worth less than they were in your time as a min wage earner?

Why are they worth the same or more. They still have no marketable skill set. They have no great ideas and there's dozens if not hundreds of people willing to step into the job if you quit. Labor, like bananas costs what it does because of supply and demand. If there are warehouses full of bananas at the docks, you can't get 2 bucks a pound. If there are only 4 truck loads in Miami, you can get $5.

Right now, there are warehouses full of cheap labor. If someone is willing to flip burgers for $6.15, why should I pay him $11.00.
If my business will allow $35/hour for labor, am I better off with 5 people or 3?
Your financial situation is irrelevant to mine. There is no benefit to my business to pay a higher price for a comodity of the same quality.
Now, if I hire someone at minimum wage and they don't work out, I need to select another candidate and bear the expense of hiring and training him.
If a candidate does work out, I'll increase his pay in order to retain him and avoid hiring and training someone else.

But, dammit, I'm not giving away my money because someone in Washington thinks I owe my employees more than they are worth.

 

[Brain357]

I disagree. I would keep Minimum Wage low enough so that people would strive to get above the minimum requirements.
In my youth, I took a couple min wage jobs. I didn't stay there long. I made myself worth more because I didn't have the crutch of food stamps making me complacent.

What year were you earning min wage Ernie?

Further, you know we aren't doing away with food stamps. That's just not going to happen.

I earned $1.10 and while I was there, got a min wage boost to $1.25

Never said do away with them. Just make people motivated.

So, 1963?
That's when the min wage went to $1.25 an hour.

Let's look at an inflation calculator.

CPI Inflation Calculator

In constant dollars you were making $9.59 an hour Ernie. Think about that for a second. Why are min wage earners worth less than they were in your time as a min wage earner?

Why are they worth the same or more. They still have no marketable skill set. They have no great ideas and there's dozens if not hundreds of people willing to step into the job if you quit. Labor, like bananas costs what it does because of supply and demand. If there are warehouses full of bananas at the docks, you can't get 2 bucks a pound. If there are only 4 truck loads in Miami, you can get $5.

Right now, there are warehouses full of cheap labor. If someone is willing to flip burgers for $6.15, why should I pay him $11.00.
If my business will allow $35/hour for labor, am I better off with 5 people or 3?
Your financial situation is irrelevant to mine. There is no benefit to my business to pay a higher price for a comodity of the same quality.
Now, if I hire someone at minimum wage and they don't work out, I need to select another candidate and bear the expense of hiring and training him.
If a candidate does work out, I'll increase his pay in order to retain him and avoid hiring and training someone else.

But, dammit, I'm not giving away my money because someone in Washington thinks I owe my employees more than they are worth.

So you like big governent? Cause if the employer doesn't pay enough it's the governent that takes care of them. I prefer small government.

 

[dblack]

I disagree. I would keep Minimum Wage low enough so that people would strive to get above the minimum requirements.
In my youth, I took a couple min wage jobs. I didn't stay there long. I made myself worth more because I didn't have the crutch of food stamps making me complacent.

What year were you earning min wage Ernie?

Further, you know we aren't doing away with food stamps. That's just not going to happen.

I earned $1.10 and while I was there, got a min wage boost to $1.25

Never said do away with them. Just make people motivated.

So, 1963?
That's when the min wage went to $1.25 an hour.

Let's look at an inflation calculator.

CPI Inflation Calculator

In constant dollars you were making $9.59 an hour Ernie. Think about that for a second. Why are min wage earners worth less than they were in your time as a min wage earner?

Why are they worth the same or more. They still have no marketable skill set. They have no great ideas and there's dozens if not hundreds of people willing to step into the job if you quit. Labor, like bananas costs what it does because of supply and demand. If there are warehouses full of bananas at the docks, you can't get 2 bucks a pound. If there are only 4 truck loads in Miami, you can get $5.

Right now, there are warehouses full of cheap labor. If someone is willing to flip burgers for $6.15, why should I pay him $11.00.
If my business will allow $35/hour for labor, am I better off with 5 people or 3?
Your financial situation is irrelevant to mine. There is no benefit to my business to pay a higher price for a comodity of the same quality.
Now, if I hire someone at minimum wage and they don't work out, I need to select another candidate and bear the expense of hiring and training him.
If a candidate does work out, I'll increase his pay in order to retain him and avoid hiring and training someone else.

But, dammit, I'm not giving away my money because someone in Washington thinks I owe my employees more than they are worth.

So you like big governent? Cause if the employer doesn't pay enough it's the governent that takes care of them. I prefer small government.

The cool thing is, we the people control government. We can fix that!

 

[Wyatt earp]

What year were you earning min wage Ernie?

Further, you know we aren't doing away with food stamps. That's just not going to happen.

I earned $1.10 and while I was there, got a min wage boost to $1.25

Never said do away with them. Just make people motivated.

So, 1963?
That's when the min wage went to $1.25 an hour.

Let's look at an inflation calculator.

CPI Inflation Calculator

In constant dollars you were making $9.59 an hour Ernie. Think about that for a second. Why are min wage earners worth less than they were in your time as a min wage earner?

Why are they worth the same or more. They still have no marketable skill set. They have no great ideas and there's dozens if not hundreds of people willing to step into the job if you quit. Labor, like bananas costs what it does because of supply and demand. If there are warehouses full of bananas at the docks, you can't get 2 bucks a pound. If there are only 4 truck loads in Miami, you can get $5.

Right now, there are warehouses full of cheap labor. If someone is willing to flip burgers for $6.15, why should I pay him $11.00.
If my business will allow $35/hour for labor, am I better off with 5 people or 3?
Your financial situation is irrelevant to mine. There is no benefit to my business to pay a higher price for a comodity of the same quality.
Now, if I hire someone at minimum wage and they don't work out, I need to select another candidate and bear the expense of hiring and training him.
If a candidate does work out, I'll increase his pay in order to retain him and avoid hiring and training someone else.

But, dammit, I'm not giving away my money because someone in Washington thinks I owe my employees more than they are worth.

So you like big governent? Cause if the employer doesn't pay enough it's the governent that takes care of them. I prefer small government.

The cool thing is, we the people control government. We can fix that!

Lmao you /goverment have been trying to fix that since LBJ....billions and billions of dollars, 40 years latter and guess what?

They are still FUCKING POOR

 

[dblack]

I earned $1.10 and while I was there, got a min wage boost to $1.25

Never said do away with them. Just make people motivated.

So, 1963?
That's when the min wage went to $1.25 an hour.

Let's look at an inflation calculator.

CPI Inflation Calculator

In constant dollars you were making $9.59 an hour Ernie. Think about that for a second. Why are min wage earners worth less than they were in your time as a min wage earner?

Why are they worth the same or more. They still have no marketable skill set. They have no great ideas and there's dozens if not hundreds of people willing to step into the job if you quit. Labor, like bananas costs what it does because of supply and demand. If there are warehouses full of bananas at the docks, you can't get 2 bucks a pound. If there are only 4 truck loads in Miami, you can get $5.

Right now, there are warehouses full of cheap labor. If someone is willing to flip burgers for $6.15, why should I pay him $11.00.
If my business will allow $35/hour for labor, am I better off with 5 people or 3?
Your financial situation is irrelevant to mine. There is no benefit to my business to pay a higher price for a comodity of the same quality.
Now, if I hire someone at minimum wage and they don't work out, I need to select another candidate and bear the expense of hiring and training him.
If a candidate does work out, I'll increase his pay in order to retain him and avoid hiring and training someone else.

But, dammit, I'm not giving away my money because someone in Washington thinks I owe my employees more than they are worth.

So you like big governent? Cause if the employer doesn't pay enough it's the governent that takes care of them. I prefer small government.

The cool thing is, we the people control government. We can fix that!

Lmao you /goverment have been trying to fix that since LBJ....billions and billions of dollars, 40 years latter and guess what?

They are still FUCKING POOR

Exactly. Caretaker government is pointless.

 

[Ernie S.]

I disagree. I would keep Minimum Wage low enough so that people would strive to get above the minimum requirements.
In my youth, I took a couple min wage jobs. I didn't stay there long. I made myself worth more because I didn't have the crutch of food stamps making me complacent.

What year were you earning min wage Ernie?

Further, you know we aren't doing away with food stamps. That's just not going to happen.

I earned $1.10 and while I was there, got a min wage boost to $1.25

Never said do away with them. Just make people motivated.

So, 1963?
That's when the min wage went to $1.25 an hour.

Let's look at an inflation calculator.

CPI Inflation Calculator

In constant dollars you were making $9.59 an hour Ernie. Think about that for a second. Why are min wage earners worth less than they were in your time as a min wage earner?

Why are they worth the same or more. They still have no marketable skill set. They have no great ideas and there's dozens if not hundreds of people willing to step into the job if you quit. Labor, like bananas costs what it does because of supply and demand. If there are warehouses full of bananas at the docks, you can't get 2 bucks a pound. If there are only 4 truck loads in Miami, you can get $5.

Right now, there are warehouses full of cheap labor. If someone is willing to flip burgers for $6.15, why should I pay him $11.00.
If my business will allow $35/hour for labor, am I better off with 5 people or 3?
Your financial situation is irrelevant to mine. There is no benefit to my business to pay a higher price for a comodity of the same quality.
Now, if I hire someone at minimum wage and they don't work out, I need to select another candidate and bear the expense of hiring and training him.
If a candidate does work out, I'll increase his pay in order to retain him and avoid hiring and training someone else.

But, dammit, I'm not giving away my money because someone in Washington thinks I owe my employees more than they are worth.

So you like big governent? Cause if the employer doesn't pay enough it's the governent that takes care of them. I prefer small government.

Damned if I know how you arrived there.
I've repeatedly said that being poor should be uncomfortable and that hunger is a great motivator. What part of that implies larger government?