Yeah...about that $15 minimum wage .....

[Nadiru]

If they could afford to reduce hours, why wouldn't they do that without a minimum wage hike? You're implying that they employ them for more hours than are actually needed.

That's not inherently the implication of that study. Other valid implications include: Work goes undone, full-time hires are being exchanged for part-time hires, cash flow becomes strained in firms that can neither replace workers with part-timers or reduce their hours.

- - - Updated - - -

I could see it as an unintended consequence. I would imagine that Corporations love immigration, then?

Certainly. I would say that a non-zero number of reasonable people consider the GOP anti-amnesty because illegal immigrants are easier to control as a workforce, and that the GOP kowtows to their corporate masters. The Dems do as well, but the types of immigrants don't tend to intersect.

[Thage]

Yeah, last thing I'm going to take is "The polls say this!" from the party that told me "All our polls have Trump with less than a 1% chance of winning!"

If you're dumb enough to trust obviously biased polls over your own personal observation, especially from people who have predicted EVERYTHING WRONG THIS PAST YEAR USING POLLS TO REACH THEIR CONCLUSION.

I guess I'm going to take financial advice from a loser in his 30s that lives on welfare with his deadbeat parents. At least they might be a bit more valuable than people who have been 100% wrong this past year.

My personal observation is that even my extremely racist right-wing uncle hates Trump because he has no moral fiber. My moderate coworkers hate Trump because he's set to gut their health coverage in favor of giving his merry band of yes-men a multibillion-dollar tax break.

But, I mean, yeah, let's take a fluke year (btw, the polls were still largely correct, having predicted Hillary with the majority vote, which she did win by 3 million votes; what they failed to take into account is that Donny would win a few states typically considered 'safe' by a couple thousand votes) and use that to discard any polls that disagree with our personal bias, 'cause, damn, that's so much better than relying on evidence and margins of error to form an opinion. No wonder you're so busy licking 45's shoes, you're just the kind of yes-man he surrounds himself with.

[Nadiru]

My personal observation is that even my extremely racist right-wing uncle hates Trump because he has no moral fiber. My moderate coworkers hate Trump because he's set to gut their health coverage in favor of giving his merry band of yes-men a multibillion-dollar tax break.

But, I mean, yeah, let's take a fluke year (btw, the polls were still largely correct, having predicted Hillary with the majority vote, which she did win by 3 million votes; what they failed to take into account is that Donny would win a few states typically considered 'safe' by a couple thousand votes) and use that to discard any polls that disagree with our personal bias, 'cause, damn, that's so much better than relying on evidence and margins of error to form an opinion. No wonder you're so busy licking 45's shoes, you're just the kind of yes-man he surrounds himself with.

Good job not citing observations of Trump's voter base in your ethnography of Trump's voter base. Trump voters are characterized as neither generic moderates nor Xtreme racists.

[Baelic]

Good job not citing observations of Trump's voter base in your ethnography of Trump's voter base. Trump voters are characterized as neither generic moderates nor Xtreme racists.

Lol wut? Can I have what you're smoking?

[Nadiru]

Lol wut? Can I have what you're smoking?

They are a loud minority in the Trump camp. Exceptionally loud, but never let that make you ignore that Trump won the election with counties that voted for Obama twice.

[Vash The Stampede]

The Dow is over 22k. Unemployment is at 4.3%

There is zero wrong with the economy right now.

About 50% of Americans are making $16k a year while 40% of new graduates are settling for minimum wage jobs. An unpaid intern is a job but that's not exactly good for the individual. Measuring the economy on jobs is not a good metric, and who cares the Dow is doing well. It's literally a measurement of 30 big companies. Money is being made but not trickling down to the people.

The obvious conclusion is that a lot of Americans want better paying jobs, specifically jobs they can get a living wage. Something the market is unwilling to supply. With the power of democracy the people have voted and the minimum wage will be $15.

[Mormolyce]

That's not inherently the implication of that study. Other valid implications include: Work goes undone, full-time hires are being exchanged for part-time hires, cash flow becomes strained in firms that can neither replace workers with part-timers or reduce their hours.

Again, you are presuming that the business currently has work that they are paying for that they don't need to; that they have full time roles that could be served by part time ones or that again, the business can survive on 6 hours of work as opposed to 8 hours.

And I have to ask why said businesses are not taking action on that waste today? If you can cut back why wouldn't you? If you can get your requirements filled in 6 hours and are currently paying for 8 then that's a 25% savings on human resource cost that's just sitting there waiting for you to take it... but your theory is that businesses don't?

Doesn't pass the sniff test for a second.

- - - Updated - - -

You're acting like all businesses (including small businesses) should be able to suddenly adapt to a huge spike in the minimum wage with little to no time to actually adjust for it. Large businesses and corporations could adapt to this easier sure, but smaller businesses? It's gonna be a lot harder for them to cope with it.

I'm explicitly NOT assuming all businesses will adapt to the change. Read it again.

[Nadiru]

Again, you are presuming that the business currently has work that they are paying for that they don't need to; that they have full time roles that could be served by part time ones or that again, the business can survive on 6 hours of work as opposed to 8 hours.

And I have to ask why said businesses are not taking action on that waste today? If you can cut back why wouldn't you? If you can get your requirements filled in 6 hours and are currently paying for 8 then that's a 25% savings on human resource cost that's just sitting there waiting for you to take it... but your theory is that businesses don't?

Doesn't pass the sniff test for a second.

Have you worked in a place, like, ever? There's always secondary, tertiary, and potentially even quaternary tasks to be accomplished in the workplace. With reduced hours, firms are forced to cede some of those tasks, gaining revenue but losing utility and potentially productivity depending on the task which is being eschewed. As to why some firms do not always immediately cut back to primary functions, I would say that is largely a function of the firm's internal culture as well as their managerial outlook. Good job trying to remove all agency in a system populated by humans, though. Do you believe in homo economicus as well?

[Citizen T]

So millions of people whom work 40-50 hour a week, are not meant to make a living wage, even though they are producing 200% more per hour then they were back then? You want to maintain a ratio that is 70+ years old?




40 hour week at minimum wage in 1938 was $520 vs $1731 national average or about 30% of the national average.
40 hour week at minimum wage in 2016 was $15080 vs $53657 national average or about 28% of the national average.

in 1938 the average house price was House: $3,500 a new car was 800.00. So a ratio of 6.73 and 1.53
in 2017 $200,400 and $33,560. so a ratio of 13.3 and 2.22

So i guess we need to regulate these back down to 1938 ratio's since you want to do the same for min wage.

the average rent 1938 27 dollars a month (43 earned per month at min wage) Ratio .62
the average rent 2017 1150 (1256 earned per month) Ratio .92

Guess we need to regulate those rent prices back down to 1938 ratio.


Do you want to keep going? there is very little that has stayed at the same "ratio" they were in the 1930's. Thus the power of compounding inflation and wages not keeping up with growth.


i could tell you about education, like Harvard costing only 420 dollars a year back then vs 43-63k now. But But these min wage workers can just go back to school right. Nope even simple cost of community colleges have gone up and are a ratio way higher then 1938.

Or how about doing things the simple way and stop regulating wages instead of trying to regulate even more things.

[kamuimac]

Apparently someone doesn't know what the "American Dream" is.

And the person you quoted didn't confuse things. That was literally what you could do back then with that sort of income, and the average joe on minimum wage can't do that now, as they have been priced out of nearly every market.

american dream is nothing but american lie - truth is it was always the same and basing on peoples stupidity - people fail to realise that from the coneption of this concept for every 1 person who achieved it there was always 20 or 30 who didnt - in 19th century this 20-30 were afroamericans , in early 20th century this 20-30 it was irish,italians and few other nations - in 60ths this 20-30 it was easter europeans and in 90ths it was mexicans

in order for few to achieve this dream many worked their butts of in scandalous conditions and scandalous wages - thats what build "american dream" - blood and tears of imigrants - but in 2nd and 3rd generation those immigrants didnt want to work so hard - so goverment need to bring more and more people who would build this "dream" of those few .

if someone atm is failing - its not surprinsing at all - you are simply not this lucky 1 person you are one of those 20-30 who never had a chance.

[Mormolyce]

Have you worked in a place, like, ever? There's always secondary, tertiary, and potentially even quaternary tasks to be accomplished in the workplace. With reduced hours, firms are forced to cede some of those tasks, gaining revenue but losing utility and potentially productivity depending on the task which is being eschewed. As to why some firms do not always immediately cut back to primary functions, I would say that is largely a function of the firm's internal culture as well as their managerial outlook. Good job trying to remove all agency in a system populated by humans, though. Do you believe in homo economicus as well?

Yes I have haha.

That tradeoff between fully staffing your workplace and saving money applies to every workplace regardless of minimum wage.

Like you just said, it's down to "the firm's internal culture as well as their managerial outlook" and other factors.

[kamuimac]

Yes I have haha.

That tradeoff between fully staffing your workplace and saving money applies to every workplace regardless of minimum wage.

Like you just said, it's down to "the firm's internal culture as well as their managerial outlook" and other factors.

i could be a cunt but i really dont want to - but its pretty obvious neither of you had to manage people for longer amount of time - its not about 'internal culture - its about no buisness having always and forever stabile numbers of deals/orders/work etc - the reason why most companies keep some people who could be reduced but arent is because when there is a heavy workload there is usually no time to hire , train and have effecitve employee that is needed only for duration of couple of weeks - its easier to just so relegate tasts that you have those spare couple of emploees who arent really desperately needed but are needed sometimes.

when stuff like this 15 $ happen they are geting fired and managers can only pray so there would be not too many "hot periods" that they could push on overhours of emploed people .

thing is normal emploees dont see it because its managers job to always give them something to do so they never see this side of buisness untill they are promoted.

[Vash The Stampede]

Or how about doing things the simple way and stop regulating wages instead of trying to regulate even more things.

Before there was minimum wage we had the great recession. Regulations are only bad for companies looking to profit off the people's labor.

[truckboattruck]

People that make more money are mistake free?

i dont want them to make anything, i want them replaced
send in the robots

[Themius]

Or how about doing things the simple way and stop regulating wages instead of trying to regulate even more things.

So companies can pay people even less? That seems like a stupid idea.

[melodramocracy]

i dont want them to make anything, i want them replaced
send in the robots

I like this idea too. The fewer gainfully employed people we have, the better.

*grin*

- - - Updated - - -

Or how about doing things the simple way and stop regulating wages instead of trying to regulate even more things.

Given that COL in most places is actually driven by increases in income for higher income workers, which simply magnifies the stagnancy on the low side of the scale, I'd actually say that salary limits would actually be more effective than raising minimum wage.

- - - Updated - - -

The Dow is over 22k. Unemployment is at 4.3%

There is zero wrong with the economy right now.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...sumer-spending

http://clark.com/shopping-retail/maj...-closing-2017/

https://www.thelayoff.com/general-electric

Totes zero wrong.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You can call me ignorant on this but ima tend to disagree. The more regulation there is, the less jobs there are.

Also, i cant find it right now, but earlier today i saw an interesting graphic. It listed the minimum wage of a country, and the employment rate. Countries with no minimum wage had the highest employment rates. As minimum wage went up, employment went down. Im sure there are other factors but what do you have to say about that?

Funny how financial crises tend to result from deregulation of markets, and increases in standards of living come about when countries implement minimum wage and/or strong unions.

- - - Updated - - -

The Dow is over 22k. Unemployment is at 4.3%

There is zero wrong with the economy right now.

There's nothing wrong with the economy as a WHOLE, no.

There's something very wrong with our hourly compensation and a vanishing middle class.

[Nadiru]

There's nothing wrong with the economy as a WHOLE, no.

There's something very wrong with our hourly compensation and a vanishing middle class.

You can't have it both ways; if the economy is not serving the people who work in it, then there is something very wrong with the economy as a whole.

[truckboattruck]

I like this idea too. The fewer gainfully employed people we have, the better.

*grin*

they will be if the market isnt forced to artificially raise wages
those jobs are low skill and low pay, for children starting out in the world. they quickly move up the chain or move on anyway

[Theinquisition]

I am convinced a lot of folks in this thread never owned a business, managed a business, or had a job in general.

If you are not growing your business YoY in general, the first thing to get slashed in capex is human capital. Whether that is through reorganization, termination, or having less employees gain overtime/no overtime.

A large business in general is on here to appease it's shareholders. Not its workers. Until some of you grasp this concept, you will have a better understanding of why things happen the way they do in the business world.

FYI, just because a business slashes human capital, does not mean it has a shitty business model. They are simply trying to reduce spending so overall profits are flat or grow YoY. I know that is a hard concept for liberals to understand and all (reduce spending.)

Replace share holders with stakeholders and you're dead on.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't have it both ways; if the economy is not serving the people who work in it, then there is something very wrong with the economy as a whole.

The economy isn't a living entity, it is litteraly a measure of monetary exchanges.

Economies aren't good or bad, people are.