Florida Business decides to pay "living wage" ahead of any Min Wage updates

[Daelak]

Yes and No, what happens when those burger flippers "CANT" contribute to anything because they once were only qualified to flip burgers? They may want to contribute as much as the next guy, but what happens when we turn over all of our minimum wage jobs to automation? Do we just say fuck those people and let them rot?

We need to do something about that. Because that day is coming.

It sure is, and with that, a momentous change towards a global resource based economy, not valued with price (supply demand) but the carrying capacity and recycling time of the Earth.

[Beazy]

That's half the point, they can't/won't in the nearer decades, the estimates are more like 10%. In the distant decades it's inevitable, at which point we go back to the post on one of these threads (too many threads now with the same theme running wild), which is "what's the point of a product if there is nobody around who can buy it?"

That the whole point of getting rid of the humans. . . so they can still produce a product AND turn a profit.

[Xeones]

Besides, guaranteed income is not a solution. At that point no one has any incentive to work. Why work if you can get an income to live off of?

What the hell do you mean by guaranteed? How is getting a livable wage going to make people stop working to make a livable wage? What in the world are you even talking about?

The goal of increasing minimum wage is to start cutting down the welfare state because right now corporations use welfare in place of fair compensation.

[Masark]

Besides, guaranteed income is not a solution. At that point no one has any incentive to work. Why work if you can get an income to live off of?

Because you're not satisfied with a basic existence? You want a nicer car/computer/clothes/dwelling/etc.?

- - - Updated - - -

What the hell do you mean by guaranteed? How is getting a livable wage going to make people stop working to make a livable wage? What in the world are you even talking about

They were replying to Daelak who said "They won't be out of work, by the time these innovations occur we would(should) already have a guaranteed minimum income for persons who cannot find work."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

[Daelak]

What the hell do you mean by guaranteed? How is getting a livable wage going to make people stop working to make a livable wage? What in the world are you even talking about?

The goal of increasing minimum wage is to start cutting down the welfare state because right now corporations use welfare in place of fair compensation.

He was talking about my point that guaranteed income will be mandatory due to the increase in computer aided/performed work that will put millions out of work.

[Xeones]

He was talking about my point that guaranteed income will be mandatory due to the increase in computer aided/performed work that will put millions out of work.

I should pay more attention to quotes. Nothing changes fast so either we will have a way to deal with such changes or there will be war.

[Daelak]

I should pay more attention to quotes. Nothing changes fast so either we will have a way to deal with such changes or there will be war.

I am leaning towards the latter. Increased unemployment will lead to widespread political instability in Asia and Latin America. Hopefully the US and our counterparts across the pond will have sensible living reforms by that time, including a global income tax, and increasing taxation on the wealthiest individuals to 75-80% to ensure stability.

[Polarthief]

Thanks Florida! Which I can say non-sarcastically for the first time.

Yeah, I probably live about 20m from that ice cream place (never been), and I say the exact same thing. (Fuck my state, seriously >.>)

[Cthulhu 2020]

People seem to conveniently forget that as currency experiences inflation, a minimum wage hike is necessary for it to maintain previous value.

[Sunseeker]

People seem to conveniently forget that as currency experiences inflation, a minimum wage hike is necessary for it to maintain previous value.

Minimum wage should at minimum increase every year by whatever the inflation of the previous year was. It would be 100% up to date, but at least it wouldn't fall horribly, horribly behind like it is now.

[Endus]

I didn't say that either. In the long term wages do stabilize but in the short term it is very much the case.

No.

It is not.

If it were, the economy would have been in a state of complete chaos for the last 80 years.



The US federal minimum wage has been increased about twice a decade, since its inception. Most of the multi-step increases in that graph were a single proposal that was spread over several years.

You're claiming something that is objectively false. We don't even need to guess, because we have almost a century of case evidence to work from.

[Masark]

Why are there two inflation adjusted lines from ~62 to ~77?

[Endus]

Why are there two inflation adjusted lines from ~62 to ~77?

Because there's two minimum wage lines.

I'd have to double check to be sure, but there was probably a conditional minimum in that period, so it's showing both.

[Mackeyser]

My question is this: If all places are forced to pay what you call a "living wage" what about the people that already make that for more intensive work? Are they also due a raise consummate to what the people below them got? This would move on and on up the ladder. The ripple effect would simply just cause inflation as costs of products go up in relation to the wage increases, nothing changes. This is kinda how economics works.

Edit:
I'm not against minimum wage increases, but wage increases across the board would need to follow.

I haven't responded to these types of questions in a long time, but it seems like an honest attempt to get an answer, so I'll try.

While there is a functional (like math function) between raising the minimum wage and inflation, it is NOT linear. There are MANY factors in play in the economy which diminish and even mitigate the effects of inflation. Those would be:

1) economies of scale. Large organizations still seek efficiencies using economies of scale in order to keep costs down and maximize profits.
2) Fed intervention. The Federal Reserve's main mission the last few decades has been to manage inflation. Right or wrong, they've gone to extraordinary lengths including reducing the discount rate to ZERO, meaning that they lend to banks at zero percent. That' pretty extraordinary.
3) Competition. Just because someone got a raise doesn't mean they don't remember what they paid yesterday and firms know it. While firms may have to pass on costs to consumers, the less expensive a good is, the more price sensitive consumers are to increases. Firms will look to other means to reducing costs other than raising prices, if possible.
4) Efficiency. Firms that wish to continue to maintain their profit levels will seek additional efficiencies. Most of the efficiency yields over the past 20 years have gone to stockholders and Corporate officers, so with minimum wage increases and the subsequent wage bump that tends to hit the lower end of the employment pool, some part of the yield will go back to labor. To maintain profit, additional efficiencies will be sought out by those firms who do not wish to raise prices.
5) Innovation. Necessity is the mother of invention. You could add innovation to that list. Many firms may have been content with one business model. However, with a higher minimum wage (including proposed inclusion of tipped staff in some states), firms are looking at new approaches to maintain or grow their businesses with the increases overhead without increasing prices.

There are more, but you get the idea.

The default notion that a) if you raise the minimum wage that ALL wages go up is false. A lawyer making $450k a year won't see a wage increase because a busboy now makes $10.10 an hour. There are limits. The raise in the minimum wage only affects the labor pool to a certain extent. I don't have any hard numbers from studies in front of me, but my napkin math would put negligible effects past $30/hr, meaning that if you make $15/hr, the raise to $10.10 would affect you slightly and by the time you got to $30/hr, there's very little to no chance it would affect you at all and almost no chance beyond that.

Secondly, the notion b) that raising the minimum wage will cause systemic inflation is false expressly because not everyone GETS a raise. The people who actually get a raise are those on the bottom to lower-middle of the spectrum. Some goods and services might see some inflation due to demand and limited supply. However, in that consumer segment, general price sensitivity tends to keep price controls in check and the competition in that segment is fierce. Moreover, because there is NO RAISE for those above the limit discussed above, not even a bump or room to bargain based on labor price pressures, there is no reason nor data to suggest that there would be inflation above those already created by market forces for those in the middle income and higher segments.

Thirdly, with more people making a wage that allows for at least the paying of consumption taxes (gas and sales are the two most easily understood) and making enough income such that they can provide for themselves without the need of government assistance for basic needs such as housing, food or basic medical needs, the government can streamline those programs in such a fashion that the administration can be much more efficient, effective and structured to better address the individual needs of constituents. From a Republican or Libertarian viewpoint, it means a LOT fewer people using entitlement programs and less government in a person's life. From a progressive, liberal or Democratic viewpoint, it means a more effective and more attentive means of addressing real need in a more timely fashion. From an economic perspective it means that business is being more accountable for the full cost of it's labor and government is not underwriting its business with cheap labor anymore.

That may seem like a lot, but it's really just scratching the surface and is probably the shortest answer I can give. Hope it helps anyone reading.

[Xeones]

Mackeyser I'm going to bookmark that and quote your excellent bit there in the future when these threads inevitably pop up again.

[Elegiac]

As a direct result of this decision, the federal government can essentially create laws and regulations concerning essentially any business activity in the country.

Which is a bad thing, why?

The State's were already prohibited from conducting unfair business practices by way of Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's [sic] inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

I don't see anything there about unfair business practices.

This Ice Cream parlor is a pretty good example of how this decision has allowed the current overreach of federal powers. The business has no interstate sales . Yes, it almost assuredly does use materials produced outside of the state but also most likely does no business with those manufacturers directly. It probably does business with a distributor withing the state. The Distributor is the one conducting actual interstate commerce in a dictionary sense, not the ice cream parlor.

Irrelevant. The US v. Darby concerns itself with labor practices between states, specifically that allowing one state to set a lower minimum wage to attract business constitutes an unfair practice and that Congress has the Constitutional authority to regulate it.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, then if this is hyperbole (or egregiously wrongheaded) please supply an example of a law or regulation that was struck down by SCOTUS (since this decision was handed down in 1941) on the grounds that it went outside the scope of interstate commerce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_Tribe_v._Florida

[RaoBurning]

Besides, guaranteed income is not a solution. At that point no one has any incentive to work. Why work if you can get an income to live off of?

Self satisfaction, betterment of family/community/world, I dunno. Some people will still want fancy boats, and some people will still need to make those fancy boats. I don't think basic/guaranteed income will have the drastic lethargic effect some people seem to fear, except by means of self fulfilling prophesy which hardly counts.

I believe it was Dan Pink's TED talk that discussed the improved creative output when basic needs were met and people are allowed a greater degree of control over their time. His discussion is more narrow, but I think the positive outcomes would be similar.

Of course it is a solution. For if we have computers doing these duties, it is only a matter of time before they start doing the majority of work, our current paradigm of working and income will have to shift towards free shelter, food, education, arts, etc. for the vast majority of humanity.

I for one welcome our new Starfleet directives and lifestyle.

[obdigore]

I for one welcome our new Starfleet directives and lifestyle.

Although it is further away, the Culture lifestyle (Iain M Banks) is much closer to a 'paradise' than something like Starfleet.

[Deleted]

That said, this place raised their minimum wage and didn't somehow peter out like the doomsayers say they should have. So I guess raising the federal minimum wage, won't adversely affect other businesses either.