Bill Gates: Raising The Minimum Wage Destroys Jobs

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So a rich person that created their own wealth can't talk about being poor or middle class before becoming rich?

Yes...you liberal scum like to ban free speech when the speaker isn't parroting your bullshit.

Bill Gates can say what he likes. He barely remembers what it was like to have nothing.

He has no business talking about minimum wage. He has no idea what its like to live on it in this age. He should shut up.

You're not from this country, you should shut up. Your input is meaningless

 

[Andylusion]

This guy knows a thing or two about creating jobs and building a business into a Fortune 500 corporation...

Bill Gates: Raising The Minimum Wage Destroys Jobs

Mr Gates is correct.

Only the ignorant fascist/socialist , aka, progressive axis fails to understand that point.

Outlawing Jobs: The Minimum Wage

In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result..

In truth, minimum wage laws prevailed throughout the most productive decades in our history.

How do you explain that?

Correlation, does not equal causation. The mere existence of the law, and the fact the economy was productive, does not mean that the minimum wage was beneficial.

It is entirely possible to have a negative policy, whose impact is muted by positive policies.

It would be more interesting for you to explain why everyone grasps that a higher price reduces consumption, except in this extremely specific case of labor, at which point we eject our brains into a toilet, and watch them flushed down the drain.

You instinctively understand that if the price of food goes up, you'll buy less food. You instinctively understand that if the price of heating goes up, you'll heat your home less. You instinctively understand that you increase the price of cigarettes to reduce people who smoke.

You grasp in all of those, the fundamental of economics that increased price, reduces consumption.

But when you refer to the increased price of labor, verses the reduced consumption of labor..... suddenly all that formerly obvious logic and economics, goes into the trash can, and magically the minimum wage can't possibly reduce the purchase of labor!

Really?

 

[Andylusion]

He has no business talking about minimum wage. He has no idea what its like to live on it in this age. He should shut up.

I have two options.

I can consider the words of someone who is in business, who knows how business operates, who understands cause and effect in labor markets.

I can consider the words of someone who has never worked in business, likely never run so much as a lemonade stand, and is self-interested in getting a government mandated raise.

Which one seems more likely to understand what the real effect of the minimum wage is, on the economy?

I'll take a business insider with an informed opinion, over teenage Tina the burger king Whooper-Flopper, any day.

Doesn't mean I don't like Tina. Doesn't mean I think less of Tina. It's simply a fact that Tina will be less informed, and less knowledgeable of the effects of minimum wage, than the business insider whose been running a company for decades.

 

[MikeK]

Raise minimum wage or not MACHINES are going to replace those workers (and most of YOU, too) sooner rather than later.

Every salaried human who is replaced by a robot is one less potential purchaser of the product or service produced or provided by the mechanical worker.

What can come of that?

Man, minimum wage arguments really stir up the stupid. By this logic, we should ban power tools.

No. Power tools are tools -- not robots.

(Is that really a confusing concept for you, or are you just joking?)

 

[dblack]

Every salaried human who is replaced by a robot is one less potential purchaser of the product or service produced or provided by the mechanical worker.

What can come of that?

Man, minimum wage arguments really stir up the stupid. By this logic, we should ban power tools.

No. Power tools are tools -- not robots.

(Is that really a confusing concept for you, or are you just joking?)

It's not a confusing concept. Power tools reduce the human labor required to achieve our ends (ie 'destroy jobs') every bit as much as robots. The nature of intelligence and tool use is that it lets us create more with less work. It strikes me as particularly boneheaded to argue that that's a bad thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Every salaried human who is replaced by a robot is one less potential purchaser of the product or service produced or provided by the mechanical worker.

What can come of that?

Man, minimum wage arguments really stir up the stupid. By this logic, we should ban power tools.

No. Power tools are tools -- not robots.

(Is that really a confusing concept for you, or are you just joking?)

Robots are power tools.

 

[MikeK]

Man, minimum wage arguments really stir up the stupid. By this logic, we should ban power tools.

No. Power tools are tools -- not robots.

(Is that really a confusing concept for you, or are you just joking?)

Robots are power tools.

Robots replace human workers. The fact that robots are implemented by humans does not alter that fact.

Power tools do not replace human workers. They might increase the output of a given worker but they do not replace the worker who uses them. Robots do.

 

[MikeK]

Mr Gates is correct.

Only the ignorant fascist/socialist , aka, progressive axis fails to understand that point.

Outlawing Jobs: The Minimum Wage

In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result..

In truth, minimum wage laws prevailed throughout the most productive decades in our history.

How do you explain that?

Correlation, does not equal causation. The mere existence of the law, and the fact the economy was productive, does not mean that the minimum wage was beneficial.

I can't demonstrate how the minimum wage contributed to the prosperity of that era -- and you cannot prove it didn't. So this is a moot point.

It is entirely possible to have a negative policy, whose impact is muted by positive policies.

It's also possible it will snow here in NJ in March.

It would be more interesting for you to explain why everyone grasps that a higher price reduces consumption, except in this extremely specific case of labor, at which point we eject our brains into a toilet, and watch them flushed down the drain.

That is true in the example of non-essential consumption, such as movie tickets and potato chips. But labor is an essential and unless it is priced beyond the means of an employer to afford it, its price will be met.

You instinctively understand that if the price of food goes up, you'll buy less food.

Unless I can afford it.

You instinctively understand that if the price of heating goes up, you'll heat your home less.

Unless I can afford it.

You instinctively understand that you increase the price of cigarettes to reduce people who smoke.

Except for those who (obviously) can afford it.

You grasp in all of those, the fundamental of economics that increased price, reduces consumption.

Labor is not a consumable. It is a business essential.

But when you refer to the increased price of labor, verses the reduced consumption of labor..... suddenly all that formerly obvious logic and economics, goes into the trash can, and magically the minimum wage can't possibly reduce the purchase of labor!

That occurs in your mind. Not in mine. And the success of the era I originally referenced supports my position.

Really?

Really.

 

[dblack]

No. Power tools are tools -- not robots.

(Is that really a confusing concept for you, or are you just joking?)

Robots are power tools.

Robots replace human workers. The fact that robots are implemented by humans does not alter that fact.

Power tools do not replace human workers. They might increase the output of a given worker but they do not replace the worker who uses them. Robots do.

That's a moot distinction. If a power tool enables one worker to do the work that previously required three, two workers have been displaced. The thing is, 'displaced' is a good thing. It means those workers can do something else instead.

You're just not making any sense here Mike. Tools that allow us to get more work done with less labor make our lives better, not worse. Robots are no different. And for clarity's sake, the 'robots' in question aren't autonomous agents. They require a human to use them just like power tools do. But it really doesn't make a difference to the argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. Power tools are tools -- not robots.

(Is that really a confusing concept for you, or are you just joking?)

Robots are power tools.

Robots replace human workers. The fact that robots are implemented by humans does not alter that fact.

Power tools do not replace human workers. They might increase the output of a given worker but they do not replace the worker who uses them. Robots do.

Power tools don't replace human workers? Is that really your position? Should I point out that every increase in productivity comes at the expense of a human being? Giving a maid a vacuum cleaner that allows her to clean more rooms in a day eliminates the job of another maid.

When you get right down to it all tools replace human beings. If you have a stick and a rock that allows you to lift something that you normally need help to lift you replaced that guy that you needed before.

Only idiots think tools don't replace human beings, you now have a chance to stop being an idiot.

 

[Andylusion]

Every salaried human who is replaced by a robot is one less potential purchaser of the product or service produced or provided by the mechanical worker.

What can come of that?

Man, minimum wage arguments really stir up the stupid. By this logic, we should ban power tools.

No. Power tools are tools -- not robots.

(Is that really a confusing concept for you, or are you just joking?)

Dare I suggest that a robot is a tool?

Work with me here.......... please?

The point that Black was making.... is that if you have to carve out all Furniture, with knives and chisels, it would take a thousand people, to run a furniture factory.

The use of the power tools, reduces the number of employees from a thousand, to a few hundred.

Robots do the same thing. A robot does not replace all humans, just like a power tool does not. You still need humans to program the robots. You still need humans to control the robots. You still need humans to repair the robot.

(fyi on control... people get this wacky idea that someone just pushed the 'on' button, and goes to sleep. Not true, you need a guy, or group of guys watching those robots. Even the most fail safe system, will have it's bugs. There has to be people monitoring all the time)

The robot merely reduces the number of employees from a few hundred, to 20 or 30.

Every single tool in existence, serves to reduce the amount of man power needed, to do any particular job. That's the whole point of tools to be begin with. A robot, is just another example.

 

[HenryBHough]

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the world's first fully automated airliner.

There is no human crew. Your safety and all your needs are in the capable......well, pseudo-hands......of our certified secure automatons.

Absolutely nothing can go wrong.....wrong.........wrong............wron.............wrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the world's first fully automated airliner.

There is no human crew. Your safety and all your needs are in the capable......well, pseudo-hands......of our certified secure automatons.

Absolutely nothing can go wrong.....wrong.........wrong............wron.............wrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[Andylusion]

In truth, minimum wage laws prevailed throughout the most productive decades in our history.

How do you explain that?

Correlation, does not equal causation. The mere existence of the law, and the fact the economy was productive, does not mean that the minimum wage was beneficial.

I can't demonstrate how the minimum wage contributed to the prosperity of that era -- and you cannot prove it didn't. So this is a moot point.

And yet you repeated the moot point at the end of the post, suggesting that you still believe the unsupportable moot point is a fact.

Either it is moot and thus stop repeating it, or it is not moot and you lost the argument. Make up your mind. I'm good either way.

That is true in the example of non-essential consumption, such as movie tickets and potato chips. But labor is an essential and unless it is priced beyond the means of an employer to afford it, its price will be met.

Labor is not a consumable. It is a business essential.

Is fuel for my car an essential? Because I know people who purchased cars with better gas mileage, and traveled less, thus reducing consumption back in 2007 when the price was $4.50 a gallon.

Is heating for my home an essential? Because I have both replaced my old thermostat with a digital one that shuts off the heat when I'm at work, and turned down the heat, thus reducing my consumption. My bill is rarely over $60 a month all winter long (although this year has been colder and costlier). (ohio)

You are using a false argument, of something that can be cut out completely, verses something that can be reduced and minimized.

Yes, you can eliminate consumption of movie tickets completely, and no you can't eliminate the need for heat in the winter.

But if you increase prices, you will still have the universal economic effect of reducing consumption, regardless of whether it can be eliminated completely, or only reduced.

You say it's impossible to reduce consumption of labor? Are you kidding?

McDonald's hires 7,000 touch-screen cashiers | Crave - CNET

So let's review.... France.... which right now has an age 25 or younger unemployment rate of 26%..... where low skilled people are desperate for jobs.... McDonald's is instead replacing 7,000 cashiers with Kiosks.

The cost of labor is higher in France, than in the US.

So.... please continue to explain to me how it's impossible to reduce consumption of labor because it's "essential" to business?

Did you forget about the McDonald's 100% automated store they piloted in California? Now they closed it down, because labor was cheap enough, that hiring employees was still profitable. But don't tell me that as the cost of labor goes up from minimum wage and government mandates, that automated stores will not return. That's the whole reason they created the automated pilot store to begin with. Proof of concept, should they need to drastically reduce labor consumption.

I work for a company that builds Kiosk printers. Our latest project is Kiosks for the Indianapolis state fair. They decided to replace all those teenagers selling tickets, with Kiosks. Apparently that 'essential labor' wasn't so essential after all.

That occurs in your mind. Not in mine. And the success of the era I originally referenced supports my position.

Well... you are wrong. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[1776]

Well Obama did blame the loss of banking jobs on ATMs.....damn them ATMs ruining Obama's economy....