Nice retirement for a sweet, humble, smart Wal Mart couple

[jasonnfree]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

well if people could safely earn 8% they would not invest trillions at one or two and recently in Europe at negative interest.

There is no "safe" investment. All investment has risk.

With risk, comes the rewards. Is there a chance I could lose some money? Sure. In fact I did.

During the 2008 melt down, I lost money on my portfolio. How did I deal with that? I poured as much money as possible, every spare dollar I had, into the stock market, even as it was crashing.

In the first year, I made 28% plus some, on my investment. I almost doubled my money in three years.

Now, allow me to clarify. Because I just said in the prior post, that I made 12% year over year.

That's true. In 2008, I was in a private 401K plan. I did not buy the American Funds mutual fund until 2011. So from 2008, to 2010, I made a massive 28% on my money. From 2011 to today, I've made 12% year over year.

What's my point? If you want the reward of a good return on investments, you have to take the risk.

The reason people buy bonds, and CDs, and money market funds, with absolutely terrible 0.5% interest rates, is because they are trying to avoid all risk.

Avoiding risk, is a great way to go broke. Yeah, $500K invested in sub-1% interest rate bonds, you can't live off that. And many people do that, and that's dumb.

Wisely invest into good mutual funds with long track records, with decent rates of return on your investment, and you'll do fine.

Such a success you are in investing and you still find time to post here amongst us little people. We are honored.

Investing doesn't take a Ph.D. If you can 'work a calculator', you can invest. Call up an investment broker, and have him setup an account. Then automatically draft from your bank account, into your investment with whatever mutual fund you have chosen.

Whether you are honored or not, is fine with me either way. The reason I'm here on this specific thread, is to promote more people being wealthy.

I want everyone to be a millionaire. If even one person reading something I said, starts investing... then that's a win for the entire country.

If everyone were suddenly to become millionaires, prices would adjust upward accordingly.

No one becomes a millionaire 'suddenly', unless they win the lottery, and in those cases, they lose their money just as quickly.

80% of those who win a million dollars or more, end up broke within 10 years. 1/3rd of those, end up filing bankruptcy.

So that is not what I advocate.

But if you save just a mere $100 a month, just $100..... every month... into good quality growth stock mutual funds, from 20 to 65, you will be a millionaire or close to it.

I didn't mean everyone to be a millionaire today. That can't happen, and won't happen. Saving money takes decades of hard work. You start off in life with nothing, and work your way to having something. It's entirely up to you, how you die. Poor impoverished, eating dog food, or rich wealthy and living out the true meaning of the "golden years" of life.

There's little money left over for investing for the average working person who's close to the subsistence level on income the way it is. If there's a downturn in the economy, the guy may lose his job and need that money that he invested, which may have coincidentally happened to lose much of it's value do to the crash. Just saying, since I've seen it happen more than once.

 

[jasonnfree]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

When the Vietnamese all came here after the war, I used to drive by the welfare office daily saw hordes, of Vietnamese lining up for the benefits. (free stuff, to you republicans who never seem to call out corporations for getting free stuff in the form of subsidies). Many Asians got low interest loans to purchase businesses, real estate etc. Many made out well and progressed, thanks to our democrat safety net programs. many stayed on the dole. I had a child care business and some rentals at the time so I knew what was going on in the minority communities

 

[jasonnfree]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

There are facts you seem to be missing or you're choosing to disregard. First of all most families that receive government subsidies are working. They are not spending 168 hours a week sitting in front of a TV drinking beer. The vast majority of the people you're talking about are students working part time, cashiers, stock clerks, part time office help, construction workers working in temp jobs, maids, fast food service counter help, and dozens of other low paid jobs.

You also seem to be assuming that most parents on government subsidies don't care about their kids. Ask any social worker and they will tell you most of these people love their kids and feel guilty that they can't do a better job of providing for them. Are there bad apples? Of course, but they're in the minority.

Although families on welfare and food stamps are portrayed as being totally dependent on the government all their lives, statistics show that is not the case. The average use of food stamps is less than an year and about 14 months for welfare. Once families go off food stamps and welfare 40% never return.

Back in the 90s, we had the 1995 budget battle with the Republicans "Contract with America", if you remember that.

As a result we pushed through, and forced Clinton to sign, the welfare reform bill, that Clinton said openly he "will fix it later".

This welfare reform placed massive limits on food stamps and welfare.

I'll never forget this 10TV reporter from our local CBS station. Now this wasn't a national broadcast. CBS would never have aired this. But our local station here in Columbus, Ohio, had no problem.

The report went out to find some welfare queen who was getting kicked off welfare and food stamps. The reporter is in her little section 8 apartment, with her three kids running around, and the reporter asked:

"How will you make it without government support? How is this going to effect you?"

The lady looked her in the eyes, and said "oh well be better off"

The reporter was stunned, and stuttered "Really?"

The lady replied "Of course, I'll have a lot more money with a full time job".

The reporter then asked quizzically "Then why didn't you do it before?"

"Because I didn't have to".

Fast forward a few years....

I'm in college, and working at Wendy's at nights. This lady comes in and gets a job. She tells us on her first day, she's only there until she can qualify for welfare again, and even rubbed our noses in it, by pointing out the day she qualified again.

Sure enough, on that day, she stopped showing up for work.

All sympathy I had for welfare and food stamps disappeared between those two events.

Here is my argument. I've worked mid-ohio food bank. I've worked the soup kitchen down town.

Both have more than enough food to feed the poor and impoverished for months, if not a year.

People who are really in need to have those needs met by charity. The government should not force a single person, to pay a single penny of their hard earned money, to pay for the food and 'welfare' of people who do nothing, not even travel to the soup kitchen to get it.

There is more than enough charity for those who truly need. Those that don't can get a job, and work... or walk to the soup kitchen.

I don't know where you live but I never saw these situations as regards section 8. The section 8 people I knew by screening them for renting all had jobs and seemed to be decent hard working people. This was Orange County Cal.

 

[Spare_change]

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

There are facts you seem to be missing or you're choosing to disregard. First of all most families that receive government subsidies are working. They are not spending 168 hours a week sitting in front of a TV drinking beer. The vast majority of the people you're talking about are students working part time, cashiers, stock clerks, part time office help, construction workers working in temp jobs, maids, fast food service counter help, and dozens of other low paid jobs.

You also seem to be assuming that most parents on government subsidies don't care about their kids. Ask any social worker and they will tell you most of these people love their kids and feel guilty that they can't do a better job of providing for them. Are there bad apples? Of course, but they're in the minority.

Although families on welfare and food stamps are portrayed as being totally dependent on the government all their lives, statistics show that is not the case. The average use of food stamps is less than an year and about 14 months for welfare. Once families go off food stamps and welfare 40% never return.

Back in the 90s, we had the 1995 budget battle with the Republicans "Contract with America", if you remember that.

As a result we pushed through, and forced Clinton to sign, the welfare reform bill, that Clinton said openly he "will fix it later".

This welfare reform placed massive limits on food stamps and welfare.

I'll never forget this 10TV reporter from our local CBS station. Now this wasn't a national broadcast. CBS would never have aired this. But our local station here in Columbus, Ohio, had no problem.

The report went out to find some welfare queen who was getting kicked off welfare and food stamps. The reporter is in her little section 8 apartment, with her three kids running around, and the reporter asked:

"How will you make it without government support? How is this going to effect you?"

The lady looked her in the eyes, and said "oh well be better off"

The reporter was stunned, and stuttered "Really?"

The lady replied "Of course, I'll have a lot more money with a full time job".

The reporter then asked quizzically "Then why didn't you do it before?"

"Because I didn't have to".

Fast forward a few years....

I'm in college, and working at Wendy's at nights. This lady comes in and gets a job. She tells us on her first day, she's only there until she can qualify for welfare again, and even rubbed our noses in it, by pointing out the day she qualified again.

Sure enough, on that day, she stopped showing up for work.

All sympathy I had for welfare and food stamps disappeared between those two events.

Here is my argument. I've worked mid-ohio food bank. I've worked the soup kitchen down town.

Both have more than enough food to feed the poor and impoverished for months, if not a year.

People who are really in need to have those needs met by charity. The government should not force a single person, to pay a single penny of their hard earned money, to pay for the food and 'welfare' of people who do nothing, not even travel to the soup kitchen to get it.

There is more than enough charity for those who truly need. Those that don't can get a job, and work... or walk to the soup kitchen.

Bullshit.

Truth really hurts, doesn't it? Welcome to reality.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

There are facts you seem to be missing or you're choosing to disregard. First of all most families that receive government subsidies are working. They are not spending 168 hours a week sitting in front of a TV drinking beer. The vast majority of the people you're talking about are students working part time, cashiers, stock clerks, part time office help, construction workers working in temp jobs, maids, fast food service counter help, and dozens of other low paid jobs.

You also seem to be assuming that most parents on government subsidies don't care about their kids. Ask any social worker and they will tell you most of these people love their kids and feel guilty that they can't do a better job of providing for them. Are there bad apples? Of course, but they're in the minority.

Although families on welfare and food stamps are portrayed as being totally dependent on the government all their lives, statistics show that is not the case. The average use of food stamps is less than an year and about 14 months for welfare. Once families go off food stamps and welfare 40% never return.

Back in the 90s, we had the 1995 budget battle with the Republicans "Contract with America", if you remember that.

As a result we pushed through, and forced Clinton to sign, the welfare reform bill, that Clinton said openly he "will fix it later".

This welfare reform placed massive limits on food stamps and welfare.

I'll never forget this 10TV reporter from our local CBS station. Now this wasn't a national broadcast. CBS would never have aired this. But our local station here in Columbus, Ohio, had no problem.

The report went out to find some welfare queen who was getting kicked off welfare and food stamps. The reporter is in her little section 8 apartment, with her three kids running around, and the reporter asked:

"How will you make it without government support? How is this going to effect you?"

The lady looked her in the eyes, and said "oh well be better off"

The reporter was stunned, and stuttered "Really?"

The lady replied "Of course, I'll have a lot more money with a full time job".

The reporter then asked quizzically "Then why didn't you do it before?"

"Because I didn't have to".

Fast forward a few years....

I'm in college, and working at Wendy's at nights. This lady comes in and gets a job. She tells us on her first day, she's only there until she can qualify for welfare again, and even rubbed our noses in it, by pointing out the day she qualified again.

Sure enough, on that day, she stopped showing up for work.

All sympathy I had for welfare and food stamps disappeared between those two events.

Here is my argument. I've worked mid-ohio food bank. I've worked the soup kitchen down town.

Both have more than enough food to feed the poor and impoverished for months, if not a year.

People who are really in need to have those needs met by charity. The government should not force a single person, to pay a single penny of their hard earned money, to pay for the food and 'welfare' of people who do nothing, not even travel to the soup kitchen to get it.

There is more than enough charity for those who truly need. Those that don't can get a job, and work... or walk to the soup kitchen.

Bullshit.

Truth really hurts, doesn't it? Welcome to reality.

Nah. You'll figure it out eventually. My bullshit detector is finely tuned. You lied in your post. It's a common trait among nutters.

 

[Flopper]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

Better jobs as defined as higher pay, but obviously only for those who can actually do those jobs.

Some can't, and need low skilled jobs. Better to earn a little, instead of earning nothing.

The Computer World article is accurate, but only because we have put in place policies that make it accurate.

Companies would much rather have people over automation. The reason they are going toward automation, is because labor is too expensive, which makes it economically prohibitive. Thus the necessary alternative is automations.

When Obama met Steve Jobs, he asked him if we could bring back iPhone manufacturing to America. Steve's answer was interesting.

He didn't say it was about money, or profits. He said the main reason flexibility.

Automation is inherently inflexible. They were discussing how the screens on the phones was updated, and instantly hundreds of workers started pulling all the phones out of their cases, and removing the old screen, and installing the new screens.

That would have taken a month or more of retooling to change over an automated production line to do this one job, and then retool the line back to do regular builds.

Human capital has many advantages over automation. In my own company, we toyed with the idea of automation, but it simply wasn't worth it.

We have several 'core' products, but then a dozen variations of each. With people we just say "Today we're building product A version 3", and everyone moves to make that happen, and is building the product in mere minutes.

To try and automate that, would result in weeks being lost retooling the line for each variation of each product. If a customer ordered just 5 of one, and another customer ordered a dozen of another... with such short orders, it would take longer to setup the automation, than it would to have a couple of people build the product.

But of course, if the labor rates go up high enough, the more cost effective automation is as a replacement. But there's the alternative to that.... namely outsourcing, which we hate, but if it's "outsource" or "out of business" then we're going to outsource.

The decision to automate is not just based on the cost of labor but also the cost of automation. The technology needed is getting cheaper and in some areas dramatically so.

Low wages are too high a price to pay for higher employment because with low wages comes lower worker productivity and we lose the benefit of a more efficient society. I believe in the 21st century most of the work that does not require complex problem solving will be automated. How society will deal with that, I have no idea but attempting to keep wages low is not going to stop it.

Since 1996, minimum wage has increased from 4.75 to 7.25/hr. In 1996 dollars that's $4.82 or an increase of $.07/hr . Moderate minimum wage increase are not going to have any major effect on employment. The current proposal would effect only 1 in 10 workers.

 

[Andylusion]

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

There is no "safe" investment. All investment has risk.

With risk, comes the rewards. Is there a chance I could lose some money? Sure. In fact I did.

During the 2008 melt down, I lost money on my portfolio. How did I deal with that? I poured as much money as possible, every spare dollar I had, into the stock market, even as it was crashing.

In the first year, I made 28% plus some, on my investment. I almost doubled my money in three years.

Now, allow me to clarify. Because I just said in the prior post, that I made 12% year over year.

That's true. In 2008, I was in a private 401K plan. I did not buy the American Funds mutual fund until 2011. So from 2008, to 2010, I made a massive 28% on my money. From 2011 to today, I've made 12% year over year.

What's my point? If you want the reward of a good return on investments, you have to take the risk.

The reason people buy bonds, and CDs, and money market funds, with absolutely terrible 0.5% interest rates, is because they are trying to avoid all risk.

Avoiding risk, is a great way to go broke. Yeah, $500K invested in sub-1% interest rate bonds, you can't live off that. And many people do that, and that's dumb.

Wisely invest into good mutual funds with long track records, with decent rates of return on your investment, and you'll do fine.

Such a success you are in investing and you still find time to post here amongst us little people. We are honored.

Investing doesn't take a Ph.D. If you can 'work a calculator', you can invest. Call up an investment broker, and have him setup an account. Then automatically draft from your bank account, into your investment with whatever mutual fund you have chosen.

Whether you are honored or not, is fine with me either way. The reason I'm here on this specific thread, is to promote more people being wealthy.

I want everyone to be a millionaire. If even one person reading something I said, starts investing... then that's a win for the entire country.

If everyone were suddenly to become millionaires, prices would adjust upward accordingly.

No one becomes a millionaire 'suddenly', unless they win the lottery, and in those cases, they lose their money just as quickly.

80% of those who win a million dollars or more, end up broke within 10 years. 1/3rd of those, end up filing bankruptcy.

So that is not what I advocate.

But if you save just a mere $100 a month, just $100..... every month... into good quality growth stock mutual funds, from 20 to 65, you will be a millionaire or close to it.

I didn't mean everyone to be a millionaire today. That can't happen, and won't happen. Saving money takes decades of hard work. You start off in life with nothing, and work your way to having something. It's entirely up to you, how you die. Poor impoverished, eating dog food, or rich wealthy and living out the true meaning of the "golden years" of life.

There's little money left over for investing for the average working person who's close to the subsistence level on income the way it is. If there's a downturn in the economy, the guy may lose his job and need that money that he invested, which may have coincidentally happened to lose much of it's value do to the crash. Just saying, since I've seen it happen more than once.

Well.... I find that hard to take.

I have absolutely no skills. None that I can put my finger on, unless you count "able to do basic math" and such.

I have no degrees. No real education beyond high school. I have no abilities. Can't juggle, or do any trade.

I have been working manual labor jobs for the last 12 years. Actually before that even. I worked McDonald's and warehouses when I was in high school.

Since 1999, I have never at any point, had an earned income over $20K a year. In 2012, I had a taxable income of only $12K for the year.

And yet... I have been able to both pay off all of my out standing debt (I am currently debt free, no car payment, mortgage payment, or credit card payment). And I have been able to save up several thousand in the bank, and have my own personal Roth IRA with thousands saved.

What I have learned in my short life, is that being able to live on what you make, is more about choice, than it is about circumstance.

Are there exceptions? Of course. If your 2-year-old gets cancer, or you get laid off, or whatever, then in that moment, yeah, you are going to live on subsistence.

But outside of those traumatic events, it's more about you making a choice about how you are going to live.

Back in the mid-90s, I was working at Wendy's. There was a guy there from Romania. He fled the civil war, after the militias nearly killed his brother.

So here he is in America, no cash, no education, no certifications, and no skills. He gets a job at Wendy's, and here he was talking about how great America is, and how amazing his life is now.

No TVs. No Cable. No Internet. No cell phones. He's living with his wife, and two kids, in a 1 bedroom apartment. He walks to work, because he has no car. His wife walks to the store, and carries the groceries home. His kids ride second-hand bicycles to school and back.

He loved it. They had 'carpet'. They had a 'dish washer'! He was amazed and pleased with his life... and he had MONEY!.

That's right. Working at Wendy's, and he had money in his pocket. Why?

Because he lived... on less.... than he made.

Eventually he did purchase a car. And he did learn English well. He got another job with Hertz. He moved up the ladder at Hertz. Last time I heard about the man, he was store manager for the largest Hertz in Central Columbus, the one by the air port.

What's my point? If an idiot like me can move up the income ladder with zero skills abilities and education, and an immigrant from Romania who can barely speak English, can save money, and have a life, and advance in his career....

How exactly do you expect me to believe that born and bred Americans with a public education and cultural understanding, and fluent English, not be able to?

Two people working minimum wage, is 1/3rd more money than I have ever earned in my life. And most people live with someone. I'm single. In my own home. I have no one to share bills and expenses with.

Yet I'm able to save money, and pay off debt... but the rest of society can not? Why not? Explain this.

 

[Andylusion]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

Better jobs as defined as higher pay, but obviously only for those who can actually do those jobs.

Some can't, and need low skilled jobs. Better to earn a little, instead of earning nothing.

The Computer World article is accurate, but only because we have put in place policies that make it accurate.

Companies would much rather have people over automation. The reason they are going toward automation, is because labor is too expensive, which makes it economically prohibitive. Thus the necessary alternative is automations.

When Obama met Steve Jobs, he asked him if we could bring back iPhone manufacturing to America. Steve's answer was interesting.

He didn't say it was about money, or profits. He said the main reason flexibility.

Automation is inherently inflexible. They were discussing how the screens on the phones was updated, and instantly hundreds of workers started pulling all the phones out of their cases, and removing the old screen, and installing the new screens.

That would have taken a month or more of retooling to change over an automated production line to do this one job, and then retool the line back to do regular builds.

Human capital has many advantages over automation. In my own company, we toyed with the idea of automation, but it simply wasn't worth it.

We have several 'core' products, but then a dozen variations of each. With people we just say "Today we're building product A version 3", and everyone moves to make that happen, and is building the product in mere minutes.

To try and automate that, would result in weeks being lost retooling the line for each variation of each product. If a customer ordered just 5 of one, and another customer ordered a dozen of another... with such short orders, it would take longer to setup the automation, than it would to have a couple of people build the product.

But of course, if the labor rates go up high enough, the more cost effective automation is as a replacement. But there's the alternative to that.... namely outsourcing, which we hate, but if it's "outsource" or "out of business" then we're going to outsource.

The decision to automate is not just based on the cost of labor but also the cost of automation. The technology needed is getting cheaper and in some areas dramatically so.

Low wages are too high a price to pay for higher employment because with low wages comes lower worker productivity and we lose the benefit of a more efficient society. I believe in the 21st century most of the work that does not require complex problem solving will be automated. How society will deal with that, I have no idea but attempting to keep wages low is not going to stop it.

Since 1996, minimum wage has increased from 4.75 to 7.25/hr. In 1996 dollars that's $4.82 or an increase of $.07/hr . Moderate minimum wage increase are not going to have any major effect on employment. The current proposal would effect only 1 in 10 workers.

I would disagree with that. The minimum wage went up in 2007, exactly when the economy crash started, and the final increase happened in 2009, which was the worst point of the economic crash. 2010 is when economy finally started to stabilize, and 2010 was the first year since 2006, that the minimum wage didn't go up.

Coincidence all, right? I don't think so.

The minimum wage in Greece was indexed to inflation. Thus the minimum wage increased every year up to 2010, where they froze it till 2011.

The Greek economy was in free fall up till.... 2011. Then in 2012 something changed, the economy stabilized, and has slowly started to recover (up till the recent socialist take over, which has killed economic progress).

What happened in 2012 that halted the free-fall of Greece? In 2012 the Greek government actually CUT the minimum wage. Significantly too.

So clearly we don't see your claims coming true. Apparently having lower wages with more people employed is a benefit to society, not a negative.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And.......in time.....a living wage will be paid for fewer and fewer actual hours worked. A 30 hour work week is on the horizon. And with it.....more time for working people to spend with family, pursue other interests
(which will stimulate the economy) and improve their communities.

It's called......wait for it.........progress.

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

Such a success you are in investing and you still find time to post here amongst us little people. We are honored.

Investing doesn't take a Ph.D. If you can 'work a calculator', you can invest. Call up an investment broker, and have him setup an account. Then automatically draft from your bank account, into your investment with whatever mutual fund you have chosen.

Whether you are honored or not, is fine with me either way. The reason I'm here on this specific thread, is to promote more people being wealthy.

I want everyone to be a millionaire. If even one person reading something I said, starts investing... then that's a win for the entire country.

If everyone were suddenly to become millionaires, prices would adjust upward accordingly.

No one becomes a millionaire 'suddenly', unless they win the lottery, and in those cases, they lose their money just as quickly.

80% of those who win a million dollars or more, end up broke within 10 years. 1/3rd of those, end up filing bankruptcy.

So that is not what I advocate.

But if you save just a mere $100 a month, just $100..... every month... into good quality growth stock mutual funds, from 20 to 65, you will be a millionaire or close to it.

I didn't mean everyone to be a millionaire today. That can't happen, and won't happen. Saving money takes decades of hard work. You start off in life with nothing, and work your way to having something. It's entirely up to you, how you die. Poor impoverished, eating dog food, or rich wealthy and living out the true meaning of the "golden years" of life.

There's little money left over for investing for the average working person who's close to the subsistence level on income the way it is. If there's a downturn in the economy, the guy may lose his job and need that money that he invested, which may have coincidentally happened to lose much of it's value do to the crash. Just saying, since I've seen it happen more than once.

Well.... I find that hard to take.

I have absolutely no skills. None that I can put my finger on, unless you count "able to do basic math" and such.

I have no degrees. No real education beyond high school. I have no abilities. Can't juggle, or do any trade.

I have been working manual labor jobs for the last 12 years. Actually before that even. I worked McDonald's and warehouses when I was in high school.

Since 1999, I have never at any point, had an earned income over $20K a year. In 2012, I had a taxable income of only $12K for the year.

And yet... I have been able to both pay off all of my out standing debt (I am currently debt free, no car payment, mortgage payment, or credit card payment). And I have been able to save up several thousand in the bank, and have my own personal Roth IRA with thousands saved.

What I have learned in my short life, is that being able to live on what you make, is more about choice, than it is about circumstance.

Are there exceptions? Of course. If your 2-year-old gets cancer, or you get laid off, or whatever, then in that moment, yeah, you are going to live on subsistence.

But outside of those traumatic events, it's more about you making a choice about how you are going to live.

Back in the mid-90s, I was working at Wendy's. There was a guy there from Romania. He fled the civil war, after the militias nearly killed his brother.

So here he is in America, no cash, no education, no certifications, and no skills. He gets a job at Wendy's, and here he was talking about how great America is, and how amazing his life is now.

No TVs. No Cable. No Internet. No cell phones. He's living with his wife, and two kids, in a 1 bedroom apartment. He walks to work, because he has no car. His wife walks to the store, and carries the groceries home. His kids ride second-hand bicycles to school and back.

He loved it. They had 'carpet'. They had a 'dish washer'! He was amazed and pleased with his life... and he had MONEY!.

That's right. Working at Wendy's, and he had money in his pocket. Why?

Because he lived... on less.... than he made.

Eventually he did purchase a car. And he did learn English well. He got another job with Hertz. He moved up the ladder at Hertz. Last time I heard about the man, he was store manager for the largest Hertz in Central Columbus, the one by the air port.

What's my point? If an idiot like me can move up the income ladder with zero skills abilities and education, and an immigrant from Romania who can barely speak English, can save money, and have a life, and advance in his career....

How exactly do you expect me to believe that born and bred Americans with a public education and cultural understanding, and fluent English, not be able to?

Two people working minimum wage, is 1/3rd more money than I have ever earned in my life. And most people live with someone. I'm single. In my own home. I have no one to share bills and expenses with.

Yet I'm able to save money, and pay off debt... but the rest of society can not? Why not? Explain this.

Just caught you in another lie. Can you guess which one?

You are a dishonest person. You don't deserve the kindness being shown to you by others here.

 

[Dad2three]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

Better jobs as defined as higher pay, but obviously only for those who can actually do those jobs.

Some can't, and need low skilled jobs. Better to earn a little, instead of earning nothing.

The Computer World article is accurate, but only because we have put in place policies that make it accurate.

Companies would much rather have people over automation. The reason they are going toward automation, is because labor is too expensive, which makes it economically prohibitive. Thus the necessary alternative is automations.

When Obama met Steve Jobs, he asked him if we could bring back iPhone manufacturing to America. Steve's answer was interesting.

He didn't say it was about money, or profits. He said the main reason flexibility.

Automation is inherently inflexible. They were discussing how the screens on the phones was updated, and instantly hundreds of workers started pulling all the phones out of their cases, and removing the old screen, and installing the new screens.

That would have taken a month or more of retooling to change over an automated production line to do this one job, and then retool the line back to do regular builds.

Human capital has many advantages over automation. In my own company, we toyed with the idea of automation, but it simply wasn't worth it.

We have several 'core' products, but then a dozen variations of each. With people we just say "Today we're building product A version 3", and everyone moves to make that happen, and is building the product in mere minutes.

To try and automate that, would result in weeks being lost retooling the line for each variation of each product. If a customer ordered just 5 of one, and another customer ordered a dozen of another... with such short orders, it would take longer to setup the automation, than it would to have a couple of people build the product.

But of course, if the labor rates go up high enough, the more cost effective automation is as a replacement. But there's the alternative to that.... namely outsourcing, which we hate, but if it's "outsource" or "out of business" then we're going to outsource.

The decision to automate is not just based on the cost of labor but also the cost of automation. The technology needed is getting cheaper and in some areas dramatically so.

Low wages are too high a price to pay for higher employment because with low wages comes lower worker productivity and we lose the benefit of a more efficient society. I believe in the 21st century most of the work that does not require complex problem solving will be automated. How society will deal with that, I have no idea but attempting to keep wages low is not going to stop it.

Since 1996, minimum wage has increased from 4.75 to 7.25/hr. In 1996 dollars that's $4.82 or an increase of $.07/hr . Moderate minimum wage increase are not going to have any major effect on employment. The current proposal would effect only 1 in 10 workers.

I would disagree with that. The minimum wage went up in 2007, exactly when the economy crash started, and the final increase happened in 2009, which was the worst point of the economic crash. 2010 is when economy finally started to stabilize, and 2010 was the first year since 2006, that the minimum wage didn't go up.

Coincidence all, right? I don't think so.

The minimum wage in Greece was indexed to inflation. Thus the minimum wage increased every year up to 2010, where they froze it till 2011.

The Greek economy was in free fall up till.... 2011. Then in 2012 something changed, the economy stabilized, and has slowly started to recover (up till the recent socialist take over, which has killed economic progress).

What happened in 2012 that halted the free-fall of Greece? In 2012 the Greek government actually CUT the minimum wage. Significantly too.

So clearly we don't see your claims coming true. Apparently having lower wages with more people employed is a benefit to society, not a negative.

Yeah, the min wage where less than 5% of of people earn that, caused the world wide credit bust (the one Dubya cheered on) in 2007 *shaking head*

 

[Flopper]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

Better jobs as defined as higher pay, but obviously only for those who can actually do those jobs.

Some can't, and need low skilled jobs. Better to earn a little, instead of earning nothing.

The Computer World article is accurate, but only because we have put in place policies that make it accurate.

Companies would much rather have people over automation. The reason they are going toward automation, is because labor is too expensive, which makes it economically prohibitive. Thus the necessary alternative is automations.

When Obama met Steve Jobs, he asked him if we could bring back iPhone manufacturing to America. Steve's answer was interesting.

He didn't say it was about money, or profits. He said the main reason flexibility.

Automation is inherently inflexible. They were discussing how the screens on the phones was updated, and instantly hundreds of workers started pulling all the phones out of their cases, and removing the old screen, and installing the new screens.

That would have taken a month or more of retooling to change over an automated production line to do this one job, and then retool the line back to do regular builds.

Human capital has many advantages over automation. In my own company, we toyed with the idea of automation, but it simply wasn't worth it.

We have several 'core' products, but then a dozen variations of each. With people we just say "Today we're building product A version 3", and everyone moves to make that happen, and is building the product in mere minutes.

To try and automate that, would result in weeks being lost retooling the line for each variation of each product. If a customer ordered just 5 of one, and another customer ordered a dozen of another... with such short orders, it would take longer to setup the automation, than it would to have a couple of people build the product.

But of course, if the labor rates go up high enough, the more cost effective automation is as a replacement. But there's the alternative to that.... namely outsourcing, which we hate, but if it's "outsource" or "out of business" then we're going to outsource.

The decision to automate is not just based on the cost of labor but also the cost of automation. The technology needed is getting cheaper and in some areas dramatically so.

Low wages are too high a price to pay for higher employment because with low wages comes lower worker productivity and we lose the benefit of a more efficient society. I believe in the 21st century most of the work that does not require complex problem solving will be automated. How society will deal with that, I have no idea but attempting to keep wages low is not going to stop it.

Since 1996, minimum wage has increased from 4.75 to 7.25/hr. In 1996 dollars that's $4.82 or an increase of $.07/hr . Moderate minimum wage increase are not going to have any major effect on employment. The current proposal would effect only 1 in 10 workers.

I would disagree with that. The minimum wage went up in 2007, exactly when the economy crash started, and the final increase happened in 2009, which was the worst point of the economic crash. 2010 is when economy finally started to stabilize, and 2010 was the first year since 2006, that the minimum wage didn't go up.

Coincidence all, right? I don't think so.

The minimum wage in Greece was indexed to inflation. Thus the minimum wage increased every year up to 2010, where they froze it till 2011.

The Greek economy was in free fall up till.... 2011. Then in 2012 something changed, the economy stabilized, and has slowly started to recover (up till the recent socialist take over, which has killed economic progress).

What happened in 2012 that halted the free-fall of Greece? In 2012 the Greek government actually CUT the minimum wage. Significantly too.

So clearly we don't see your claims coming true. Apparently having lower wages with more people employed is a benefit to society, not a negative.

In 1991, minimum wage was increased from 3.80 to 4.25. The economy reacted with a GDP increase of of 3.6%, 2.7%, and 4.0% increase in GDP in the 3 years that followed. No recession

In 1996, the GDP grew by 3.6%. In 1997, minimum wage was raised from 4.75 to 5.15. The economy reacted with a 4.5% increase in GDP in 1997, 4.5% in 1998, and 4.7% in 1999. -No recession

As a reaction to the bursting housing bubble in 2006 causing plummeting real estate prices and a credit crisis, congress passed in 2007 a multistage minimum wage increase as part of a stimulus package. The cause of the great recession which began in 2007 was certainly not the increase in minimum wages which was passed in reaction to the contracting economy which was underway. The recession could not have been caused by the minimum wage increase. In fact, most economists credit the federal stimulus which included the minimum wage increases for the end of the recession in 2009.

The primary cause of Greek financial crisis was certainly not just wage increases in the private sector buy rather unbridled government spending and low government revenue leading to the debt crisis. A huge underfunded government retirement system, massive government debt, and the inability of Greece to collect taxes plus a world wide-wide economic crisis brought years of mismanagement to a head. Crediting just wage increases for the Greek financial crises is huge distortion of the facts.

Even if you were able to establish a correlation between minimum wage increases and recessions, which you clearly have not done, you have not established a cause and effect relation. I have been looking at the data going back to 1950 and there is just no correlation between minimum wage increases and recessions. When you think about it, this really does make sense because wage increases are basically inflationary and recessions are basically deflationary.

Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Minimum Wage Rates 1955 present
U.S. GDP by Year Compared to Debt and Major Events
Greek government-debt crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Andylusion]

Guess this becomes a moot issue ... the McDonald's CEO announced that, in response to increased minimum wages, they will be automating the ordering process so that customers can pass their orders directly to the kitchen. This will result in elimination of about 20% of the McDonalds workforce over the next ten years.

(Machines don't ask for raises)

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

Better jobs as defined as higher pay, but obviously only for those who can actually do those jobs.

Some can't, and need low skilled jobs. Better to earn a little, instead of earning nothing.

The Computer World article is accurate, but only because we have put in place policies that make it accurate.

Companies would much rather have people over automation. The reason they are going toward automation, is because labor is too expensive, which makes it economically prohibitive. Thus the necessary alternative is automations.

When Obama met Steve Jobs, he asked him if we could bring back iPhone manufacturing to America. Steve's answer was interesting.

He didn't say it was about money, or profits. He said the main reason flexibility.

Automation is inherently inflexible. They were discussing how the screens on the phones was updated, and instantly hundreds of workers started pulling all the phones out of their cases, and removing the old screen, and installing the new screens.

That would have taken a month or more of retooling to change over an automated production line to do this one job, and then retool the line back to do regular builds.

Human capital has many advantages over automation. In my own company, we toyed with the idea of automation, but it simply wasn't worth it.

We have several 'core' products, but then a dozen variations of each. With people we just say "Today we're building product A version 3", and everyone moves to make that happen, and is building the product in mere minutes.

To try and automate that, would result in weeks being lost retooling the line for each variation of each product. If a customer ordered just 5 of one, and another customer ordered a dozen of another... with such short orders, it would take longer to setup the automation, than it would to have a couple of people build the product.

But of course, if the labor rates go up high enough, the more cost effective automation is as a replacement. But there's the alternative to that.... namely outsourcing, which we hate, but if it's "outsource" or "out of business" then we're going to outsource.

The decision to automate is not just based on the cost of labor but also the cost of automation. The technology needed is getting cheaper and in some areas dramatically so.

Low wages are too high a price to pay for higher employment because with low wages comes lower worker productivity and we lose the benefit of a more efficient society. I believe in the 21st century most of the work that does not require complex problem solving will be automated. How society will deal with that, I have no idea but attempting to keep wages low is not going to stop it.

Since 1996, minimum wage has increased from 4.75 to 7.25/hr. In 1996 dollars that's $4.82 or an increase of $.07/hr . Moderate minimum wage increase are not going to have any major effect on employment. The current proposal would effect only 1 in 10 workers.

I would disagree with that. The minimum wage went up in 2007, exactly when the economy crash started, and the final increase happened in 2009, which was the worst point of the economic crash. 2010 is when economy finally started to stabilize, and 2010 was the first year since 2006, that the minimum wage didn't go up.

Coincidence all, right? I don't think so.

The minimum wage in Greece was indexed to inflation. Thus the minimum wage increased every year up to 2010, where they froze it till 2011.

The Greek economy was in free fall up till.... 2011. Then in 2012 something changed, the economy stabilized, and has slowly started to recover (up till the recent socialist take over, which has killed economic progress).

What happened in 2012 that halted the free-fall of Greece? In 2012 the Greek government actually CUT the minimum wage. Significantly too.

So clearly we don't see your claims coming true. Apparently having lower wages with more people employed is a benefit to society, not a negative.

In 1991, minimum wage was increased from 3.80 to 4.25. The economy reacted with a GDP increase of of 3.6%, 2.7%, and 4.0% increase in GDP in the 3 years that followed. No recession

In 1996, the GDP grew by 3.6%. In 1997, minimum wage was raised from 4.75 to 5.15. The economy reacted with a 4.5% increase in GDP in 1997, 4.5% in 1998, and 4.7% in 1999. -No recession

As a reaction to the bursting housing bubble in 2006 causing plummeting real estate prices and a credit crisis, congress passed in 2007 a multistage minimum wage increase as part of a stimulus package. The cause of the great recession which began in 2007 was certainly not the increase in minimum wages which was passed in reaction to the contracting economy which was underway. The recession could not have been caused by the minimum wage increase. In fact, most economists credit the federal stimulus which included the minimum wage increases for the end of the recession in 2009.

The primary cause of Greek financial crisis was certainly not just wage increases in the private sector buy rather unbridled government spending and low government revenue leading to the debt crisis. A huge underfunded government retirement system, massive government debt, and the inability of Greece to collect taxes plus a world wide-wide economic crisis brought years of mismanagement to a head. Crediting just wage increases for the Greek financial crises is huge distortion of the facts.

Even if you were able to establish a correlation between minimum wage increases and recessions, which you clearly have not done, you have not established a cause and effect relation. I have been looking at the data going back to 1950 and there is just no correlation between minimum wage increases and recessions. When you think about it, this really does make sense because wage increases are basically inflationary and recessions are basically deflationary.

Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Minimum Wage Rates 1955 present
U.S. GDP by Year Compared to Debt and Major Events
Greek government-debt crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

But what you said isn't entirely true.

In 1990, the minimum wage which had been $3.35 since 1981... was upped to $3.80, Apr 1st 1990.

There WAS a recession.

By the way, there was a recession in 1979,1980,1981, and the minimum wage was raised each year.

The minimum wage was raised incrementally throughout the 1970s, and the 1970s sucked.

Only the 1996 raise wasn't followed by a recession. That's true.

But you can't make the case that it boosted the economy, because the GDP numbers show fairly steady trends.

And that's my case. Even if I grant you that the minimum wage didn't directly cause the respective recessions they are associated with, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the minimum wage improved the economy. None.

Minimum wage supporters keep claiming that there will be this massive economic growth, and yet it simply doesn't show up.

Also, I never once 'credited the minimum wage with' anything.

I merely pointed out the correlations. And there are many.

The vast majority of the time, any economic crash is due to multiple reasons, not one single reason.

Even the US real estate bubble for example. Obviously sub-prime loans allowed people who couldn't afford a home to borrow money they couldn't pay back. Now explain how that causes businesses to lay off millions of low-wage workers?

Many people were asking how a loss of money in derivatives, caused a small business in Kansas to close, and lay off dozens of workers? It doesn't make sense.

If my mortgage company were to close, or my bank were to file bankruptcy.... how would this effect me? It would not.

So why did we lose all these low-wage jobs? I would suggest the minimum wage was the cause.

Clearly it didn't help, even if it was not the cause.

 

[Andylusion]

The Asians have it right. You pursue family and other interests at the same time that you are hugely dedicated to your job. This is why it's common to see an Asian that has a degree in engineer, and can play the trumpet or some other instrument.

But Asian do not try and avoid work, to pursue non-work interests, which is exactly why Asian on average have a higher wage, and standard of living, than the so-called white-privileged Americans.

Again, a living wage would result in fewer people earning a wage. So now they have 168 hours to spend with family and 'other interests' a week. OF course they'll be spending it starving or looking for work, unless of course the left allows them to live off the hard work of others.

And contrary to claim, people spending time at home not working, is not a benefit to the economy. And children learning from their parents how to sit at home doing nothing, is not a benefit to family.

Spending more time drinking beer, and yelling at a football game on TV, is not going to result in a massive increase in GDP, or the wealth of the country as a whole.

Investing doesn't take a Ph.D. If you can 'work a calculator', you can invest. Call up an investment broker, and have him setup an account. Then automatically draft from your bank account, into your investment with whatever mutual fund you have chosen.

Whether you are honored or not, is fine with me either way. The reason I'm here on this specific thread, is to promote more people being wealthy.

I want everyone to be a millionaire. If even one person reading something I said, starts investing... then that's a win for the entire country.

If everyone were suddenly to become millionaires, prices would adjust upward accordingly.

No one becomes a millionaire 'suddenly', unless they win the lottery, and in those cases, they lose their money just as quickly.

80% of those who win a million dollars or more, end up broke within 10 years. 1/3rd of those, end up filing bankruptcy.

So that is not what I advocate.

But if you save just a mere $100 a month, just $100..... every month... into good quality growth stock mutual funds, from 20 to 65, you will be a millionaire or close to it.

I didn't mean everyone to be a millionaire today. That can't happen, and won't happen. Saving money takes decades of hard work. You start off in life with nothing, and work your way to having something. It's entirely up to you, how you die. Poor impoverished, eating dog food, or rich wealthy and living out the true meaning of the "golden years" of life.

There's little money left over for investing for the average working person who's close to the subsistence level on income the way it is. If there's a downturn in the economy, the guy may lose his job and need that money that he invested, which may have coincidentally happened to lose much of it's value do to the crash. Just saying, since I've seen it happen more than once.

Well.... I find that hard to take.

I have absolutely no skills. None that I can put my finger on, unless you count "able to do basic math" and such.

I have no degrees. No real education beyond high school. I have no abilities. Can't juggle, or do any trade.

I have been working manual labor jobs for the last 12 years. Actually before that even. I worked McDonald's and warehouses when I was in high school.

Since 1999, I have never at any point, had an earned income over $20K a year. In 2012, I had a taxable income of only $12K for the year.

And yet... I have been able to both pay off all of my out standing debt (I am currently debt free, no car payment, mortgage payment, or credit card payment). And I have been able to save up several thousand in the bank, and have my own personal Roth IRA with thousands saved.

What I have learned in my short life, is that being able to live on what you make, is more about choice, than it is about circumstance.

Are there exceptions? Of course. If your 2-year-old gets cancer, or you get laid off, or whatever, then in that moment, yeah, you are going to live on subsistence.

But outside of those traumatic events, it's more about you making a choice about how you are going to live.

Back in the mid-90s, I was working at Wendy's. There was a guy there from Romania. He fled the civil war, after the militias nearly killed his brother.

So here he is in America, no cash, no education, no certifications, and no skills. He gets a job at Wendy's, and here he was talking about how great America is, and how amazing his life is now.

No TVs. No Cable. No Internet. No cell phones. He's living with his wife, and two kids, in a 1 bedroom apartment. He walks to work, because he has no car. His wife walks to the store, and carries the groceries home. His kids ride second-hand bicycles to school and back.

He loved it. They had 'carpet'. They had a 'dish washer'! He was amazed and pleased with his life... and he had MONEY!.

That's right. Working at Wendy's, and he had money in his pocket. Why?

Because he lived... on less.... than he made.

Eventually he did purchase a car. And he did learn English well. He got another job with Hertz. He moved up the ladder at Hertz. Last time I heard about the man, he was store manager for the largest Hertz in Central Columbus, the one by the air port.

What's my point? If an idiot like me can move up the income ladder with zero skills abilities and education, and an immigrant from Romania who can barely speak English, can save money, and have a life, and advance in his career....

How exactly do you expect me to believe that born and bred Americans with a public education and cultural understanding, and fluent English, not be able to?

Two people working minimum wage, is 1/3rd more money than I have ever earned in my life. And most people live with someone. I'm single. In my own home. I have no one to share bills and expenses with.

Yet I'm able to save money, and pay off debt... but the rest of society can not? Why not? Explain this.

Just caught you in another lie. Can you guess which one?

You are a dishonest person. You don't deserve the kindness being shown to you by others here.

Ok what do you claim is a lie?

 

[Flopper]

Automation will happen with or without increased minimum wage because the cost of the technology is falling rapidity. ATM's have replaced tellers and self checkout in grocery stores have replaced cashiers. This trend will accelerate in the 21st century. Keeping wages low to protect jobs from automation is a fools errand.

However, as automation eliminates jobs it also creates jobs, usually better jobs. So it's not all bad.

An article in Computer World predicted One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025.

Better jobs as defined as higher pay, but obviously only for those who can actually do those jobs.

Some can't, and need low skilled jobs. Better to earn a little, instead of earning nothing.

The Computer World article is accurate, but only because we have put in place policies that make it accurate.

Companies would much rather have people over automation. The reason they are going toward automation, is because labor is too expensive, which makes it economically prohibitive. Thus the necessary alternative is automations.

When Obama met Steve Jobs, he asked him if we could bring back iPhone manufacturing to America. Steve's answer was interesting.

He didn't say it was about money, or profits. He said the main reason flexibility.

Automation is inherently inflexible. They were discussing how the screens on the phones was updated, and instantly hundreds of workers started pulling all the phones out of their cases, and removing the old screen, and installing the new screens.

That would have taken a month or more of retooling to change over an automated production line to do this one job, and then retool the line back to do regular builds.

Human capital has many advantages over automation. In my own company, we toyed with the idea of automation, but it simply wasn't worth it.

We have several 'core' products, but then a dozen variations of each. With people we just say "Today we're building product A version 3", and everyone moves to make that happen, and is building the product in mere minutes.

To try and automate that, would result in weeks being lost retooling the line for each variation of each product. If a customer ordered just 5 of one, and another customer ordered a dozen of another... with such short orders, it would take longer to setup the automation, than it would to have a couple of people build the product.

But of course, if the labor rates go up high enough, the more cost effective automation is as a replacement. But there's the alternative to that.... namely outsourcing, which we hate, but if it's "outsource" or "out of business" then we're going to outsource.

The decision to automate is not just based on the cost of labor but also the cost of automation. The technology needed is getting cheaper and in some areas dramatically so.

Low wages are too high a price to pay for higher employment because with low wages comes lower worker productivity and we lose the benefit of a more efficient society. I believe in the 21st century most of the work that does not require complex problem solving will be automated. How society will deal with that, I have no idea but attempting to keep wages low is not going to stop it.

Since 1996, minimum wage has increased from 4.75 to 7.25/hr. In 1996 dollars that's $4.82 or an increase of $.07/hr . Moderate minimum wage increase are not going to have any major effect on employment. The current proposal would effect only 1 in 10 workers.

I would disagree with that. The minimum wage went up in 2007, exactly when the economy crash started, and the final increase happened in 2009, which was the worst point of the economic crash. 2010 is when economy finally started to stabilize, and 2010 was the first year since 2006, that the minimum wage didn't go up.

Coincidence all, right? I don't think so.

The minimum wage in Greece was indexed to inflation. Thus the minimum wage increased every year up to 2010, where they froze it till 2011.

The Greek economy was in free fall up till.... 2011. Then in 2012 something changed, the economy stabilized, and has slowly started to recover (up till the recent socialist take over, which has killed economic progress).

What happened in 2012 that halted the free-fall of Greece? In 2012 the Greek government actually CUT the minimum wage. Significantly too.

So clearly we don't see your claims coming true. Apparently having lower wages with more people employed is a benefit to society, not a negative.

In 1991, minimum wage was increased from 3.80 to 4.25. The economy reacted with a GDP increase of of 3.6%, 2.7%, and 4.0% increase in GDP in the 3 years that followed. No recession

In 1996, the GDP grew by 3.6%. In 1997, minimum wage was raised from 4.75 to 5.15. The economy reacted with a 4.5% increase in GDP in 1997, 4.5% in 1998, and 4.7% in 1999. -No recession

As a reaction to the bursting housing bubble in 2006 causing plummeting real estate prices and a credit crisis, congress passed in 2007 a multistage minimum wage increase as part of a stimulus package. The cause of the great recession which began in 2007 was certainly not the increase in minimum wages which was passed in reaction to the contracting economy which was underway. The recession could not have been caused by the minimum wage increase. In fact, most economists credit the federal stimulus which included the minimum wage increases for the end of the recession in 2009.

The primary cause of Greek financial crisis was certainly not just wage increases in the private sector buy rather unbridled government spending and low government revenue leading to the debt crisis. A huge underfunded government retirement system, massive government debt, and the inability of Greece to collect taxes plus a world wide-wide economic crisis brought years of mismanagement to a head. Crediting just wage increases for the Greek financial crises is huge distortion of the facts.

Even if you were able to establish a correlation between minimum wage increases and recessions, which you clearly have not done, you have not established a cause and effect relation. I have been looking at the data going back to 1950 and there is just no correlation between minimum wage increases and recessions. When you think about it, this really does make sense because wage increases are basically inflationary and recessions are basically deflationary.

Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Minimum Wage Rates 1955 present
U.S. GDP by Year Compared to Debt and Major Events
Greek government-debt crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

But what you said isn't entirely true.

In 1990, the minimum wage which had been $3.35 since 1981... was upped to $3.80, Apr 1st 1990.

There WAS a recession.

By the way, there was a recession in 1979,1980,1981, and the minimum wage was raised each year.

The minimum wage was raised incrementally throughout the 1970s, and the 1970s sucked.

Only the 1996 raise wasn't followed by a recession. That's true.

But you can't make the case that it boosted the economy, because the GDP numbers show fairly steady trends.

And that's my case. Even if I grant you that the minimum wage didn't directly cause the respective recessions they are associated with, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the minimum wage improved the economy. None.

Minimum wage supporters keep claiming that there will be this massive economic growth, and yet it simply doesn't show up.

Also, I never once 'credited the minimum wage with' anything.

I merely pointed out the correlations. And there are many.

The vast majority of the time, any economic crash is due to multiple reasons, not one single reason.

Even the US real estate bubble for example. Obviously sub-prime loans allowed people who couldn't afford a home to borrow money they couldn't pay back. Now explain how that causes businesses to lay off millions of low-wage workers?

Many people were asking how a loss of money in derivatives, caused a small business in Kansas to close, and lay off dozens of workers? It doesn't make sense.

If my mortgage company were to close, or my bank were to file bankruptcy.... how would this effect me? It would not.

So why did we lose all these low-wage jobs? I would suggest the minimum wage was the cause.

Clearly it didn't help, even if it was not the cause.

In response to a fall in GDP in the 4th quarter of 1989 and a fall in retail sales, Congress fearing a recession enacted an increase in minimum wage to 3.80 effective April 1st of 1990 and a second increase on April 1st of 1991. The recession began on July 1, 1990 after 2 consecutive quarters of falling GDP. The recession ended in March 1991, a month before the 1991 increase became effective. The next recession did not occur till 2000.

Minimum wage increases are usually enacted because Congress believes the country is in an economic downturn. That was certainly the case in all minimum wage increases since 1990. Congress guessed right in 90/91 and 2007/2008. They were wrong in the 96/97. The stepped increases effective in 1978-81 was in response to fear of recession because of increasing unemployment. The recession didn't arrive till 1980 and again in 81 accompanied by high inflation probably made worse by the wage increases.

Minimum wages increase are almost always accompanied by other economic stimulus such as increases in government spending, and federal reserve action. It is virtually impossible to tell exactly what the effect of any one stimulus . About the only thing we can say for sure is the management of the economy through both monetary and fiscal actions shortens recessions and the severity.

The most negative thing about increases in minimum wage is that it's inflationary. It has never been shown that minimum wage increases creates unemployment or makes recessions worse. It does make sense that some employers will react to minimum wage increase by laying off employees. However, the impact on unemployment is either so small it can't be measured or other factors mask it.

 

[Andylusion]

Better jobs as defined as higher pay, but obviously only for those who can actually do those jobs.

Some can't, and need low skilled jobs. Better to earn a little, instead of earning nothing.

The Computer World article is accurate, but only because we have put in place policies that make it accurate.

Companies would much rather have people over automation. The reason they are going toward automation, is because labor is too expensive, which makes it economically prohibitive. Thus the necessary alternative is automations.

When Obama met Steve Jobs, he asked him if we could bring back iPhone manufacturing to America. Steve's answer was interesting.

He didn't say it was about money, or profits. He said the main reason flexibility.

Automation is inherently inflexible. They were discussing how the screens on the phones was updated, and instantly hundreds of workers started pulling all the phones out of their cases, and removing the old screen, and installing the new screens.

That would have taken a month or more of retooling to change over an automated production line to do this one job, and then retool the line back to do regular builds.

Human capital has many advantages over automation. In my own company, we toyed with the idea of automation, but it simply wasn't worth it.

We have several 'core' products, but then a dozen variations of each. With people we just say "Today we're building product A version 3", and everyone moves to make that happen, and is building the product in mere minutes.

To try and automate that, would result in weeks being lost retooling the line for each variation of each product. If a customer ordered just 5 of one, and another customer ordered a dozen of another... with such short orders, it would take longer to setup the automation, than it would to have a couple of people build the product.

But of course, if the labor rates go up high enough, the more cost effective automation is as a replacement. But there's the alternative to that.... namely outsourcing, which we hate, but if it's "outsource" or "out of business" then we're going to outsource.

The decision to automate is not just based on the cost of labor but also the cost of automation. The technology needed is getting cheaper and in some areas dramatically so.

Low wages are too high a price to pay for higher employment because with low wages comes lower worker productivity and we lose the benefit of a more efficient society. I believe in the 21st century most of the work that does not require complex problem solving will be automated. How society will deal with that, I have no idea but attempting to keep wages low is not going to stop it.

Since 1996, minimum wage has increased from 4.75 to 7.25/hr. In 1996 dollars that's $4.82 or an increase of $.07/hr . Moderate minimum wage increase are not going to have any major effect on employment. The current proposal would effect only 1 in 10 workers.

I would disagree with that. The minimum wage went up in 2007, exactly when the economy crash started, and the final increase happened in 2009, which was the worst point of the economic crash. 2010 is when economy finally started to stabilize, and 2010 was the first year since 2006, that the minimum wage didn't go up.

Coincidence all, right? I don't think so.

The minimum wage in Greece was indexed to inflation. Thus the minimum wage increased every year up to 2010, where they froze it till 2011.

The Greek economy was in free fall up till.... 2011. Then in 2012 something changed, the economy stabilized, and has slowly started to recover (up till the recent socialist take over, which has killed economic progress).

What happened in 2012 that halted the free-fall of Greece? In 2012 the Greek government actually CUT the minimum wage. Significantly too.

So clearly we don't see your claims coming true. Apparently having lower wages with more people employed is a benefit to society, not a negative.

In 1991, minimum wage was increased from 3.80 to 4.25. The economy reacted with a GDP increase of of 3.6%, 2.7%, and 4.0% increase in GDP in the 3 years that followed. No recession

In 1996, the GDP grew by 3.6%. In 1997, minimum wage was raised from 4.75 to 5.15. The economy reacted with a 4.5% increase in GDP in 1997, 4.5% in 1998, and 4.7% in 1999. -No recession

As a reaction to the bursting housing bubble in 2006 causing plummeting real estate prices and a credit crisis, congress passed in 2007 a multistage minimum wage increase as part of a stimulus package. The cause of the great recession which began in 2007 was certainly not the increase in minimum wages which was passed in reaction to the contracting economy which was underway. The recession could not have been caused by the minimum wage increase. In fact, most economists credit the federal stimulus which included the minimum wage increases for the end of the recession in 2009.

The primary cause of Greek financial crisis was certainly not just wage increases in the private sector buy rather unbridled government spending and low government revenue leading to the debt crisis. A huge underfunded government retirement system, massive government debt, and the inability of Greece to collect taxes plus a world wide-wide economic crisis brought years of mismanagement to a head. Crediting just wage increases for the Greek financial crises is huge distortion of the facts.

Even if you were able to establish a correlation between minimum wage increases and recessions, which you clearly have not done, you have not established a cause and effect relation. I have been looking at the data going back to 1950 and there is just no correlation between minimum wage increases and recessions. When you think about it, this really does make sense because wage increases are basically inflationary and recessions are basically deflationary.

Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Minimum Wage Rates 1955 present
U.S. GDP by Year Compared to Debt and Major Events
Greek government-debt crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

But what you said isn't entirely true.

In 1990, the minimum wage which had been $3.35 since 1981... was upped to $3.80, Apr 1st 1990.

There WAS a recession.

By the way, there was a recession in 1979,1980,1981, and the minimum wage was raised each year.

The minimum wage was raised incrementally throughout the 1970s, and the 1970s sucked.

Only the 1996 raise wasn't followed by a recession. That's true.

But you can't make the case that it boosted the economy, because the GDP numbers show fairly steady trends.

And that's my case. Even if I grant you that the minimum wage didn't directly cause the respective recessions they are associated with, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the minimum wage improved the economy. None.

Minimum wage supporters keep claiming that there will be this massive economic growth, and yet it simply doesn't show up.

Also, I never once 'credited the minimum wage with' anything.

I merely pointed out the correlations. And there are many.

The vast majority of the time, any economic crash is due to multiple reasons, not one single reason.

Even the US real estate bubble for example. Obviously sub-prime loans allowed people who couldn't afford a home to borrow money they couldn't pay back. Now explain how that causes businesses to lay off millions of low-wage workers?

Many people were asking how a loss of money in derivatives, caused a small business in Kansas to close, and lay off dozens of workers? It doesn't make sense.

If my mortgage company were to close, or my bank were to file bankruptcy.... how would this effect me? It would not.

So why did we lose all these low-wage jobs? I would suggest the minimum wage was the cause.

Clearly it didn't help, even if it was not the cause.

In response to a fall in GDP in the 4th quarter of 1989 and a fall in retail sales, Congress fearing a recession enacted an increase in minimum wage to 3.80 effective April 1st of 1990 and a second increase on April 1st of 1991. The recession began on July 1, 1990 after 2 consecutive quarters of falling GDP. The recession ended in March 1991, a month before the 1991 increase became effective. The next recession did not occur till 2000.

Minimum wage increases are usually enacted because Congress believes the country is in an economic downturn. That was certainly the case in all minimum wage increases since 1990. Congress guessed right in 90/91 and 2007/2008. They were wrong in the 96/97. The stepped increases effective in 1978-81 was in response to fear of recession because of increasing unemployment. The recession didn't arrive till 1980 and again in 81 accompanied by high inflation probably made worse by the wage increases.

Minimum wages increase are almost always accompanied by other economic stimulus such as increases in government spending, and federal reserve action. It is virtually impossible to tell exactly what the effect of any one stimulus . About the only thing we can say for sure is the management of the economy through both monetary and fiscal actions shortens recessions and the severity.

The most negative thing about increases in minimum wage is that it's inflationary. It has never been shown that minimum wage increases creates unemployment or makes recessions worse. It does make sense that some employers will react to minimum wage increase by laying off employees. However, the impact on unemployment is either so small it can't be measured or other factors mask it.

So....... April 1st 1990 they enacted a minimum wage increase, and July 1990 they were in recession.

Good grief.... that's clear cut evidence in my book.

I don't really care what their reasons were. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.... doesn't mean it burns less.

There is little evidence that management through monetary and fiscal actions shortens anything.

That last line I would agree with. If the economy is already in an upswing, and the rise in the minimum wage is minimal, it is very possible the negative effects swallowed by the positive economic growth.

But, there still is a negative effect.

Again, I know I've said this before... but if you really honestly believe that there is no real negative effect, then why not boost the minimum wage to $20/hr, or $30/hr? Why not just make the minimum wage $100K a year?

Well of course at that level, everyone knows instinctively that this would be havoc. We're talking nation wide economic collapse.

Now if you are willing to admit there is a negative impact... then the question is, do we want no negative impact, or a tiny negative impact, a moderate negative impact, or a massive negative impact? Because there is no benefit. None.

My vote is no negative impact. Meaning, no minimum wage.