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

[Brain357]

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?

The reality of our country. If people aren't making enough money the government helps them, that is simply the reality. If you want smaller government then employers need to pay enough that employees aren't on welfare. If you want people making very little then that leads to bigger government.

 

[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?

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.

You still haven't answered my initial question, however let's move on..

You claim that minimum wage is what an employee is worth, which is complete and utter bull Ernie, the minimum wage has NOTHING to do with what labor is worth, and never did. It is entirely formulated on the cost of living. That was its entire intent. It has never in the entire time we've had a min wage law been based on the supply and demand of labor.

In fact the law is designed precisely to take supply and demand OUT of the picture. Back before we had welfare, citizens were expected to work and businesses were expected to pay them enough to survive. Turns out businesses weren't doing their part, so the government stepped in and told them they had to. Then someone got the bright idea that if taxpayers would just help feed and house the poor , the minimum wage could be allowed to lag behind inflation.

Do you argue that the $1.25 an hour you earned in 1963 was NOT worth more than the $7.25 an hour minimum wage earners earn today?

Let go of the left/right paradigm and you will conclude that you are entirely wrong on this issue. Businesses should NOT be allowed to pay below the poverty level for full time help and rely on taxpayers to feed their employees.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

It's $22,000,000,000,000.00 with more poverty than when LBJ started giving away our money willy nilly. Obviously, the war on poverty has been a failure.
During the great depression, there was no food stamps. There were no EIB cards, earned income tax credits or free phones. Many who couldn't find work sold produce on the street or joined the CCC where they did receive government money in return for actual work.
The folks who grew up durring that time became the huge middle class of the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Kids who grew up post "The Great Society" have become the thugs, prisoners and parasites of today.

 

[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.

You still haven't answered my initial question, however let's move on..

You claim that minimum wage is what an employee is worth, which is complete and utter bull Ernie, the minimum wage has NOTHING to do with what labor is worth, and never did. It is entirely formulated on the cost of living. That was its entire intent. It has never in the entire time we've had a min wage law been based on the supply and demand of labor.

In fact the law is designed precisely to take supply and demand OUT of the picture. Back before we had welfare, citizens were expected to work and businesses were expected to pay them enough to survive. Turns out businesses weren't doing their part, so the government stepped in and told them they had to. Then someone got the bright idea that if taxpayers would just help feed and house the poor , the minimum wage could be allowed to lag behind inflation.

Do you argue that the $1.25 an hour you earned in 1963 was NOT worth more than the $7.25 an hour minimum wage earners earn today?

Let go of the left/right paradigm and you will conclude that you are entirely wrong on this issue. Businesses should NOT be allowed to pay below the poverty level for full time help and rely on taxpayers to feed their employees.

The $1.25 I earned in '63 was all I was worth. Whether or not I could live on it or how much it translates into today's money is irrelevant. Labor is a comodity. Don't you shop around to get the best price for what you buy?
Will you pay more than a TV is worth based on the profitability of a store?

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

The reality of our country. If people aren't making enough money the government helps them, that is simply the reality. If you want smaller government then employers need to pay enough that employees aren't on welfare. If you want people making very little then that leads to bigger government.

Sadly, that is the current reality. The failure of the war on poverty indicates that the system is deeply flawed.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

You still haven't answered my initial question, however let's move on..

You claim that minimum wage is what an employee is worth, which is complete and utter bull Ernie, the minimum wage has NOTHING to do with what labor is worth, and never did. It is entirely formulated on the cost of living. That was its entire intent. It has never in the entire time we've had a min wage law been based on the supply and demand of labor.

In fact the law is designed precisely to take supply and demand OUT of the picture. Back before we had welfare, citizens were expected to work and businesses were expected to pay them enough to survive. Turns out businesses weren't doing their part, so the government stepped in and told them they had to. Then someone got the bright idea that if taxpayers would just help feed and house the poor , the minimum wage could be allowed to lag behind inflation.

Do you argue that the $1.25 an hour you earned in 1963 was NOT worth more than the $7.25 an hour minimum wage earners earn today?

Let go of the left/right paradigm and you will conclude that you are entirely wrong on this issue. Businesses should NOT be allowed to pay below the poverty level for full time help and rely on taxpayers to feed their employees.

The $1.25 I earned in '63 was all I was worth. Whether or not I could live on it or how much it translates into today's money is irrelevant. Labor is a comodity. Don't you shop around to get the best price for what you buy?
Will you pay more than a TV is worth based on the profitability of a store?

It isn't irrelevant Ernie, it's entirely relevant. The minimum wage law was meant to be a constant to ensure that the minimum wage earner ALWAYS earned a base amount. That base amount has DECLINED over the years, even though factors outside of cost of living were never meant to apply.

It's clear to me that you have simply dug in your heels on this issue and taken a partisan stance and have no desire to have an actual discussion. I mean truly someone who doesn't even admit the purpose of the minimum wage law isn't worth responding to further. Have a nice day.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

You still haven't answered my initial question, however let's move on..

You claim that minimum wage is what an employee is worth, which is complete and utter bull Ernie, the minimum wage has NOTHING to do with what labor is worth, and never did. It is entirely formulated on the cost of living. That was its entire intent. It has never in the entire time we've had a min wage law been based on the supply and demand of labor.

In fact the law is designed precisely to take supply and demand OUT of the picture. Back before we had welfare, citizens were expected to work and businesses were expected to pay them enough to survive. Turns out businesses weren't doing their part, so the government stepped in and told them they had to. Then someone got the bright idea that if taxpayers would just help feed and house the poor , the minimum wage could be allowed to lag behind inflation.

Do you argue that the $1.25 an hour you earned in 1963 was NOT worth more than the $7.25 an hour minimum wage earners earn today?

Let go of the left/right paradigm and you will conclude that you are entirely wrong on this issue. Businesses should NOT be allowed to pay below the poverty level for full time help and rely on taxpayers to feed their employees.

The $1.25 I earned in '63 was all I was worth. Whether or not I could live on it or how much it translates into today's money is irrelevant. Labor is a comodity. Don't you shop around to get the best price for what you buy?
Will you pay more than a TV is worth based on the profitability of a store?

It isn't irrelevant Ernie, it's entirely relevant. The minimum wage law was meant to be a constant to ensure that the minimum wage earner ALWAYS earned a base amount. That base amount has DECLINED over the years, even though factors outside of cost of living were never meant to apply.

It's clear to me that you have simply dug in your heels on this issue and taken a partisan stance and have no desire to have an actual discussion. I mean truly someone who doesn't even admit the purpose of the minimum wage law isn't worth responding to further. Have a nice day.

As have you. Ditto Ditto Ditto.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

yeah "ditto ditto ditto"

Ernie, you seem like a good enough guy, but I'm sick of Americans who opine on issues they don't even have a basic knowledge of. If you don't understand that the minimum wage law was entirely meant to take supply and demand out of the equation when determining a minimum wage then you are either stupid or you just don't want to admit the truth.

For the record, I don't believe you are stupid.

Now have a good day, but don't even try to act like our knowledge, or admission of facts, is equal on this subject.

 

[Manonthestreet]

The fact they want a double on this confirms things are flying apart and this wont fix it but accelerate it. As soon as they get this they will be begging for more...why ...merry go-round just sped up, Next stop zimbabwe.

 

[Ernie S.]

yeah "ditto ditto ditto"

Ernie, you seem like a good enough guy, but I'm sick of Americans who opine on issues they don't even have a basic knowledge of. If you don't understand that the minimum wage law was entirely meant to take supply and demand out of the equation when determining a minimum wage then you are either stupid or you just don't want to admit the truth.

For the record, I don't believe you are stupid.

Now have a good day, but don't even try to act like our knowledge, or admission of facts, is equal on this subject.

I understand it's purpose and your premise. I simply disagree with its implementation and efficacy.
Claiming you know more than me on the subject is like a Liberal telling me he knows more about politics. We both know our positions and both know the other is wrong.
The difference here is that there is a long history of minimum wage and no indication that it has done anything to decrease poverty or government dependence.

 

[Spare_change]

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?

The reality of our country. If people aren't making enough money the government helps them, that is simply the reality. If you want smaller government then employers need to pay enough that employees aren't on welfare. If you want people making very little then that leads to bigger government.

What an amazing example of circular logic.

 

[Brain357]

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?

The reality of our country. If people aren't making enough money the government helps them, that is simply the reality. If you want smaller government then employers need to pay enough that employees aren't on welfare. If you want people making very little then that leads to bigger government.

What an amazing example of circular logic.

It's the truth. Low wages just increase government dependence.

 

[Flopper]

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.

And who would have thought 50 years later that over 96% of the consumer electronics sold in the US would be manufactured abroad.

The problem is not motivation. It's the lack of capabilities of low income employees who are the ones who's jobs will be a causality of automation. Most of the jobs created by automation will require better educated employee, not low income employees, because they are not going to have the education to do those jobs.
.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

And who would have thought 50 years later that over 96% of the consumer electronics sold in the US would be manufactured abroad.

The problem is not motivation. It's the lack of capabilities of low income employees who are the ones who's jobs will be a causality of automation. Most of the jobs created by automation will require better educated employee, not low income employees, because they are not going to have the education to do those jobs.
.

True, but it is a fact that those better educated jobs will become the new minimum wage jobs, or do you think companies are going to say "oh well all our employees are educated now, so we will pay better?"

If every adult in America had a PhD , we'd still have people earning minimum wage.

 

[Flopper]

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?

The reality of our country. If people aren't making enough money the government helps them, that is simply the reality. If you want smaller government then employers need to pay enough that employees aren't on welfare. If you want people making very little then that leads to bigger government.

What an amazing example of circular logic.

It's the truth. Low wages just increase government dependence.

Your statement is correct but there's more to it. If you raise the minimum wage, to 10.00/hr, according to the CBO, there will be job loss of 500,000 jobs, however 900,000 people will still be pushed above the poverty level and will see either the loss of all or a partial loss of government support.

 

[Flopper]

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.

And who would have thought 50 years later that over 96% of the consumer electronics sold in the US would be manufactured abroad.

The problem is not motivation. It's the lack of capabilities of low income employees who are the ones who's jobs will be a causality of automation. Most of the jobs created by automation will require better educated employee, not low income employees, because they are not going to have the education to do those jobs.
.

True, but it is a fact that those better educated jobs will become the new minimum wage jobs, or do you think companies are going to say "oh well all our employees are educated now, so we will pay better?"

If every adult in America had a PhD , we'd still have people earning minimum wage.

Well, someone has to be at the bottom of the pay scale. Employers will pay only what they have to pay to get the job done.

 

[dblack]

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.

And who would have thought 50 years later that over 96% of the consumer electronics sold in the US would be manufactured abroad.

The problem is not motivation. It's the lack of capabilities of low income employees who are the ones who's jobs will be a causality of automation. Most of the jobs created by automation will require better educated employee, not low income employees, because they are not going to have the education to do those jobs.
.

True, but it is a fact that those better educated jobs will become the new minimum wage jobs, or do you think companies are going to say "oh well all our employees are educated now, so we will pay better?"

If every adult in America had a PhD , we'd still have people earning minimum wage.

Well, someone has to be at the bottom of the pay scale. Employers will pay only what they have to pay to get the job done.

And only if the job is worth it.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

And who would have thought 50 years later that over 96% of the consumer electronics sold in the US would be manufactured abroad.

The problem is not motivation. It's the lack of capabilities of low income employees who are the ones who's jobs will be a causality of automation. Most of the jobs created by automation will require better educated employee, not low income employees, because they are not going to have the education to do those jobs.
.

True, but it is a fact that those better educated jobs will become the new minimum wage jobs, or do you think companies are going to say "oh well all our employees are educated now, so we will pay better?"

If every adult in America had a PhD , we'd still have people earning minimum wage.

Well, someone has to be at the bottom of the pay scale. Employers will pay only what they have to pay to get the job done.

Exactly right, they would pay less than the minimum wage if they could. And many people would take it, because then they could just get more welfare.

Low wage earners and big business have duped you into defending a system that benefits them , at the detriment of the US taxpayer.

 

[Brain357]

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?

The reality of our country. If people aren't making enough money the government helps them, that is simply the reality. If you want smaller government then employers need to pay enough that employees aren't on welfare. If you want people making very little then that leads to bigger government.

What an amazing example of circular logic.

It's the truth. Low wages just increase government dependence.

Your statement is correct but there's more to it. If you raise the minimum wage, to 10.00/hr, according to the CBO, there will be job loss of 500,000 jobs, however 900,000 people will still be pushed above the poverty level and will see either the loss of all or a partial loss of government support.

That 500,000 is highly disputed. Most do believe there would be any significant job loss if any.

 

[dblack]

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.

And who would have thought 50 years later that over 96% of the consumer electronics sold in the US would be manufactured abroad.

The problem is not motivation. It's the lack of capabilities of low income employees who are the ones who's jobs will be a causality of automation. Most of the jobs created by automation will require better educated employee, not low income employees, because they are not going to have the education to do those jobs.
.

True, but it is a fact that those better educated jobs will become the new minimum wage jobs, or do you think companies are going to say "oh well all our employees are educated now, so we will pay better?"

If every adult in America had a PhD , we'd still have people earning minimum wage.

Well, someone has to be at the bottom of the pay scale. Employers will pay only what they have to pay to get the job done.

And only if the job is worth it.

Also - do you get what this means? Minimum wage laws don't make jobs worth more. They make them cost more. And people tend to not buy things that cost more than they're worth.