Business & Finance Rising Labor Costs & Automation Affordability

[DarthOne]

Raising the minimum wage raises or stagnates unemployment, and makes it harder for low-skilled people, especially young people, to enter the workforce.

Here's one of the world's greatest economists talking about the subject:

Doesn't some of that also come down to how accessible we've made colleges to everyone and how most half-decent jobs now demand you have to have a degree in something in order to hire you?

 

[LordsFire]

Doesn't some of that also come down to how accessible we've made colleges to everyone and how most half-decent jobs now demand you have to have a degree in something in order to hire you?

Over-saturation of academic credentialing certainly plays a part. Especially how it's connected to massive debt.

More than that, though, the cultural obsession with academic credentialing has both driven the excess of college students, graduates, and requirements for degrees.

 

[Typhonis]

meanwhile tradeschools are underused or outright neglected.

 

[Abhishekm]

Fine; but by that same logic, we don't owe them their continued existance either.

You never did though? Like whatever else the enforcement is kinda one way? A company offers a product at a price and offers employment at a rate.

In the first case it is on the part of the buyer to choose if they want it at that price or not. On the second case it is on the part of the employee to choose if they want to give their time for that level of compensation.

Regulations enforce prices and they mandate rates and hiring practices. Both restrictions on the part of the company not on the individual.

Argue what you want on enforcement. But its not exactly a secret which party has more freedoms of control in that exchange.

 

[History Learner]

Raising the minimum wage raises or stagnates unemployment, and makes it harder for low-skilled people, especially young people, to enter the workforce.

Here's one of the world's greatest economists talking about the subject:

Except all the studies say otherwise, we have never found increase unemployed, barriers to entry or the like. Instead, we improved the lives of everyone by doing such. Here's a video that goes over the evidence of this:



And if you want the same from a conservative slant like Sowell:

 

[History Learner]

You never did though? Like whatever else the enforcement is kinda one way? A company offers a product at a price and offers employment at a rate.

In the first case it is on the part of the buyer to choose if they want it at that price or not. On the second case it is on the part of the employee to choose if they want to give their time from that level of compensation.

Regulations enforce prices and they mandate rates and hiring practices. Both restrictions on the part of the company not on the individual.

Argue what you want on enforcement. But its not exactly a secret which party has more freedoms of control in that exchange.

Indeed, it's totally in favor of the companies which is why we must use the Government to regulate wages. Alternatively, of course, I'm in favor of nationalizing most corporations and industries, so there is that response too.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Indeed, it's totally in favor of the companies which is why we must use the Government to regulate wages. Alternatively, of course, I'm in favor of nationalizing most corporations and industries, so there is that response too.

Ahhh, so you are either a fascist or a communist, depending on how you want to go about it. Got it. You are most certainly a progressive.

No, government should not be regulating wages, nor should it be regulating prices. If companies fail to pay their workers a reasonable wage for the labor required, they won't find workers, and if they can't find workers, they can't do business. And if companies fail to pay their workers a reasonable wage, they won't have *customers* buying their products, which in turn means that they won't have income and will likewise go out of business.

Progressives like you are the greatest cancer on the body politic in history. There has never been a progressive who isn't, at their heart, an authoritarian wanna be, a racist who feels that people that are different than them are incapable of making rational decisions in their own interest, and with a superiority complex that asserts that they and they alone know the Truth (tm) such that anybody who disagrees with them need to be silenced by any means necessary.

And the hilarious thing is, those of us who aren't progressives simply need to let the progressive talk, because they always reveal themselves.

Woodrow Wilson implemented the minimum wage on expressly racist and social Darwinist grounds, and was a major figure in the KKK (and a progressive, like you! Aren't you so proud of the man who, when he had his stroke, was planning on cancelling elections and having his Republican opponents put in camps and killed off?)

 

[Abhishekm]

Indeed, it's totally in favor of the companies which is why we must use the Government to regulate wages. Alternatively, of course, I'm in favor of nationalizing most corporations and industries, so there is that response too.

Eh? You really not get it or just shitposting?

 

[History Learner]

Eh? You really not get it or just shitposting?

No I understand the argument, it's just fundamentally wrong, which is the point. You're against Unions and the like, so what recourse do workers have other than to have the Government regulate wages?

 

[History Learner]

Ahhh, so you are either a fascist or a communist, depending on how you want to go about it. Got it. You are most certainly a progressive.

No, government should not be regulating wages, nor should it be regulating prices. If companies fail to pay their workers a reasonable wage for the labor required, they won't find workers, and if they can't find workers, they can't do business. And if companies fail to pay their workers a reasonable wage, they won't have *customers* buying their products, which in turn means that they won't have income and will likewise go out of business.

Progressives like you are the greatest cancer on the body politic in history. There has never been a progressive who isn't, at their heart, an authoritarian wanna be, a racist who feels that people that are different than them are incapable of making rational decisions in their own interest, and with a superiority complex that asserts that they and they alone know the Truth (tm) such that anybody who disagrees with them need to be silenced by any means necessary.

And the hilarious thing is, those of us who aren't progressives simply need to let the progressive talk, because they always reveal themselves.

Woodrow Wilson implemented the minimum wage on expressly racist and social Darwinist grounds, and was a major figure in the KKK (and a progressive, like you! Aren't you so proud of the man who, when he had his stroke, was planning on cancelling elections and having his Republican opponents put in camps and killed off?)

If you believe Communists, Fascists and Progressives are all the same thing, you don't understand even the basics of any of those ideologies. The utter stupidity of people like you is exactly why we are in the situation we are in, and your refusal to see things as they actually are precisely why things are bad. You can't even argue on the grounds of policy, you immediately turn into personal attacks and bring up race just like the "Progressives" you claim to hate lol. You do things like this and then wonder why Critical Race Theory is in place in schools and why you can't even protect your children.

 

[Bassoe]

I get where you're headed here, however, I still believe in the business' right to refuse service to anyone. If you FORCE someone to labor for you, that's slavery. You're headed that way if you take this too far. I also have no other problem with people using something for which the seller did not intend. However, if Doofus loosed an eye, toe or whatever in an unintended activity, then he has no standing to sue. In regards to ideological grounds...why? If I am a company with a specific ethos, why the heck should they be FORCED to hire someone that doesn't agree with that ethos.

Because it prevents the whole "they're a private company so they can attack their customers" thing. Gay wedding cake is an acceptable sacrifice.

 

[Abhishekm]

No I understand the argument, it's just fundamentally wrong, which is the point. You're against Unions and the like, so what recourse do workers have other than to have the Government regulate wages?

So you really don't get it huh? Or you just don't want to. Not sure how to argue from premises that opposed to each other honestly. So probably just gonna ignore this now. No offense.

 

[Abhishekm]

Because it prevents the whole "they're a private company so they can attack their customers" thing. Gay wedding cake is an acceptable sacrifice.

Eh fair. Utilities and what not. But not seeing much of a argument on that front for the 15 dollar minimum wage stuff.

Sure there are the general monopoly and oligopoly arguments about competition elimination and forced scarcity and what not. But general trends seem to be showing that higher barriers to entry like minimum wage are detrimental both for the low skill employee AND small time competitors.

Sure the last year is showing a trend favoring some employee groups for their jobs but the overall trend still seems to be a job shortage with employee shortages mixed in.

So can't really see the case for pricing small time hirers even more out of the market AND regulating teens and new hired out at the sake time. Just seems like increasing people on the dole while making the dole worth less to me.

 

[LordSunhawk]

If you believe Communists, Fascists and Progressives are all the same thing, you don't understand even the basics of any of those ideologies. The utter stupidity of people like you is exactly why we are in the situation we are in, and your refusal to see things as they actually are precisely why things are bad. You can't even argue on the grounds of policy, you immediately turn into personal attacks and bring up race just like the "Progressives" you claim to hate lol. You do things like this and then wonder why Critical Race Theory is in place in schools and why you can't even protect your children.

Typically Progressive stupidity at its finest.

Yes, Progressive, Socialist/Communist and Fascist are all born of the same toxic stew of elitism, racism, classism, and authoritarianism. Simply waving your arms really hard doesn't change that. You are utterly incapable of rational thought as a typical prog NPC. Your arguments are always incompetent, substituting condescension for argument.

In short, you have no clue.

You wish to control that which you could never build yourself.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Because it prevents the whole "they're a private company so they can attack their customers" thing. Gay wedding cake is an acceptable sacrifice.

I'm not in favor of ANY company denying a contracted service simply b/c they want to censor free speech. I'll also agree that, in the case of utilities, that's a life sustaining activity that should ONLY be cutoff in breach of contract...such as non-payment. AND most utility services I know of have a specific way to carry on services despite hardship/non-payment.

The cake is an entirely different story, and we can go down that road if you like. I don't want to derail this thread though.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Except all the studies say otherwise, we have never found increase unemployed, barriers to entry or the like. Instead, we improved the lives of everyone by doing such

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHHAAA!!!!!

 

[Abhishekm]

You know, unskilled labour is actually kinda easier to manage in small to mid level compared to the larger companies. Mom and Pop stores or small franchises can generally have more of the personal touche when it comes to hiring the local Teens and part timers. They have that personal interaction advantage when it comes to hiring and management.

You know that meme about the McDonald's employee or about Walmart counters? There kinda is some sense behind that. The larger the organization the more the divide between people actually Invested in the company as opposed to those with a Job. And there is nothing with just being there for the job per se. Its expected and understandeable.

But that does mean that smaller companies where the owners and the employees have a more closer level of interaction with each other might generally have more of an advantage in performance.

You get a job at a McDonald's near your college its whatever, a job is a job. But your best friends uncle offers you part time work at his restaurant while you are saving for college. Well you know the guy and you care a bit more. And they kinda know you too so they picked you because they know you will try.

So for something like Wallmart where hiring is based on demand projections and interview questions are based on questionnaires and eck lists. Lower skill and minimum experience jobs are kinda a statistical loss. So a costlier automated solution makes more sense. Minimize the impact of slobs so to speak.

Now that still requires getting the lower number of workers to actually put in effort to get the most from your automated parts. Conveyors are only as fast s the people pressing the buttons and pulling the levers on time afterall.

So how do you pick for people who will be more likely to try without a personal connection? Pick for demand, as in pick based on their need. Pick the rungs that need money but have limited higher skills. Now you start he get the idea behind the living wage. A hire based on effort as opposed to potential or skill. Hiring based on a needs based motivation instead of goal or drive based.

But two issues. You aren't the only racket in town and that kind of need is rare in a functional place where the not every business IS a racket.

So how to correct for that? How to correct for competition not looks to optimize profits to eek every dollar but just looking to earn a living and maybe a bit of profit along the way.

One that has a personal connection advantage with its work force that lets it pick lower skill workers with better judgement without resorting to paying moderately higher to attract the desperate?

One that doesn't need to automate because it can actually trust people it can afford to hire for the same cost or the cost it can afford?

Based on my ramblings so far you should be getting an idea if you being honest about it.

Needs based hiring where you hire based on the employees need for that check. Sounds like a nice promotion slogan for a livable wage or equitable hiring. But it kinda gets darker sounding when I put it after a spurg post like that doesnt it?

 

[The Whispering Monk]

One that doesn't need to automate because it can actually trust people it can afford to higher hire for the same cost or the cost it can afford?

Fixed that for you.

Don't know why that bothered me, but it did.

 

[Terthna]

If companies fail to pay their workers a reasonable wage for the labor required, they won't find workers, and if they can't find workers, they can't do business. And if companies fail to pay their workers a reasonable wage, they won't have *customers* buying their products, which in turn means that they won't have income and will likewise go out of business.

That's not necessarily true; a company can use a varity of tactics to force people to work for them at less than reasonable wages. One need only look back to the days of the robber barons to find countless examples of this, or heck; just look at what companies have been doing with illegal migrants for the past few decades. Some aren't even paid at all; their bosses simply call the authorities on them when their paychecks are due, and ship in another batch of suckers.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

That's not necessarily true; a company can use a varity of tactics to force people to work for them at less than reasonable wages. One need only look back to the days of the robber barons to find countless examples of this, or heck; just look at what companies have been doing with illegal migrants for the past few decades. Some aren't even paid at all; their bosses simply call the authorities on them when their paychecks are due, and ship in another batch of suckers.

There are certainly cases where an employer did bad things. In your example, that's illegal activity. So MUCH of what's going on would be helped if we just executed the laws that are on the books.