I like Sanders, but my parents brought up a good question.

[Endus]

Your ignorance is shocking and to your other point, me calling you a socialist doesn't speak any louder then you applying a description to me.

I didn't apply any "description" to you. I pointed out that the claim that automation will result in less jobs is an argument that has been made for centuries, and at no point has it turned out to be true.

They are both descriptions, so therefore carry the same weight. In a perfect world, socialism would work. Sadly, it doesn't, at least not at the expense of others.

The entire developed world operates on some form of mixed economy. That "mix" is of capitalist and socialist principles. It's been working out just fine for the better part of a century, and the introduction of those socialist principles is what led to the widespread growth and improvement in quality of life for all.

You appear to be from Canada, perhaps it works for you up there, but lets not forget that several of our cities in the states have a larger population then your entire country. Great ideas don't always work with larger numbers.

Economies of scale work in exactly the opposite manner than you apparently thing. It's easier with larger populations.

I am a realists and you think automation hasn't removed jobs, you need a serious history lesson.

Automation has been an ongoing process ever since the invention of the cotton gin, in 1794. And what's the history of unemployment look like?



Outside of the spikes in the 1890s and 1930s (due to economic collapse, not automation), it's been relatively consistent, with no identifiable uptick over time, despite automation continuing to increase throughout.

One of us is ignoring history, and it ain't me.

[Hiricine]

Its simple.

Their wages would remain the same, they would be more likely to get jobs they are underqualified for, and those that remained would see their wages effectively drop as the cost of living goes up. At the same time, less jobs would be available, and people would be forced to be underemployed just to keep jobs.

On a final note, the minimum wage is immoral, as it involves a third party interfering in a voluntary contract between two people. Even assuming the positive effects of increasing the minimum wage (which there aren't, at least looking at the complete picture), it would be wrong to initiate force against those two individuals by setting a minimum wage. Are you willing to put someone in jail for paying someone less than what you deem a minimum wage? Are you willing to put someone in jail for accepting less than minimum wage as payment?

[Gorgodeus]

Show me yours? Why is mine anecdotal and yours is not?

Retailer Albertsons LLC, for instance, has already pulled its self-checkout systems, as did Big Y, a New England grocer. Ikea is moving to do the same thing.

At the heart of these reversals: Customer rejection.
http://www.computerworld.com/article...kout-tech.html

[Celista]

On a final note, the minimum wage is immoral, as it involves a third party interfering in a voluntary contract between two people.

You want to pay them less? If anything it's immoral to have a minimum wage that does not afford an individual who is working a 40 hour week to the basics of life.

A huge part of this discussion should be related to rising living costs. Especially housing, as it has been outpacing inflation for several decades now.

[zEmini]

Lol. Do you even have the slightest clue on what you are talking about?

You are in essence saying that established businesses will substantially increase their customer base and output while the overall number of employees sharply falls, both in the face of a significant rise in demand. Pray tell how does the economics of that work?

I work in the business world, and unlike you or Endus - don't believe in economic fairy tales.

1. Business A sells out.
2. Business B buys out business A
3. Business B poaches their customer base (not all business is retail which a lot of you fail to consider in your arguements)
4. Business B liquidates what they can, maybe keep a person or two on board to manage that region if needed. End of story.

So the weak businesses that claimed to have a failed business model (local business for the most part) is now gone.

[Gorgodeus]

Its simple.

Their wages would remain the same, they would be more likely to get jobs they are underqualified for, and those that remained would see their wages effectively drop as the cost of living goes up. At the same time, less jobs would be available, and people would be forced to be underemployed just to keep jobs.

On a final note, the minimum wage is immoral, as it involves a third party interfering in a voluntary contract between two people. Even assuming the positive effects of increasing the minimum wage (which there aren't, at least looking at the complete picture), it would be wrong to initiate force against those two individuals by setting a minimum wage. Are you willing to put someone in jail for paying someone less than what you deem a minimum wage? Are you willing to put someone in jail for accepting less than minimum wage as payment?

Hahahaha. But allowing businesses to pay even less is moral, right? Are you really trying to tell us that low-end workers would not be paid even less if there were no minimum wage? You are delusional.

[Multibocks]

Clearly we need to let more money trickle down from the multi-billionaires. Can't you guys give them a tax break please?

[Icuren]

Part of living in a society and living under a gov. is having rules like min. wage that protect you and allow you to have a higher quality of life. It's like people think any amount of gov. in any small portion of their lives is evil.

[analmoose]

You people realize that when costs (aka wages) get raised by 50%, then so will the price of the product. It is artificial and will get nobody anywhere. You want a better wage? Work to better yourself, do more than the minimum job and you'll get more than the minimum wage.

[Celista]

Clearly we need to let more money trickle down from the multi-billionaires. Can't you guys give them a tax break please?

You joke but I have met some very wealthy individuals who discussed quite seriously their fondness for Reagan and the merits of trickle down economics...

It can be hard to keep a straight face around such people.

[Daelak]

Its simple.

Their wages would remain the same, they would be more likely to get jobs they are underqualified for, and those that remained would see their wages effectively drop as the cost of living goes up. At the same time, less jobs would be available, and people would be forced to be underemployed just to keep jobs.

On a final note, the minimum wage is immoral, as it involves a third party interfering in a voluntary contract between two people. Even assuming the positive effects of increasing the minimum wage (which there aren't, at least looking at the complete picture), it would be wrong to initiate force against those two individuals by setting a minimum wage. Are you willing to put someone in jail for paying someone less than what you deem a minimum wage? Are you willing to put someone in jail for accepting less than minimum wage as payment?

Higher wages means more consumption and investment in our consumer economy, which in turn creates higher wages, higher real estate appreciation, which brings better funding for local governments, like education and lower crime, and higher GDP growth which increases retirement and investment portfolio returns, which directly benefits your own financial well-being. This is modern economics.

[Pantomime]

I'm loving a leftist Canadian appealing to tradition with regard to America. I love the obvious hypocrisy when it comes to Leftists and tradition. Guns? Nope. Morality? Not a chance. Immigration Laws? Oh God no, the original incarnations were so racist and problematic! A poem written in 1883 by one of the (((chosen people))), and inscribed on the statue in 1903? Truly a shining beacon of American tradition, and something that we all need to keep close to our hearts.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on "In God We Trust". I'd also like to point out that artificially stagnating wages as we have been for going on thirty years while at the same time using other citizens tax dollars to subsidize that stagnation is about as immoral a practice as I can conceive.

Edit: I'm also amazed that in this day and age people still ascribe to Supply-Side economics. That sir, is how you create an Oligarchy.

[Daelak]

You people realize that when costs (aka wages) get raised by 50%, then so will the price of the product. It is artificial and will get nobody anywhere. You want a better wage? Work to better yourself, do more than the minimum job and you'll get more than the minimum wage.

That isn't how wages nor inflation work.

[Gorgodeus]

You people realize that when costs (aka wages) get raised by 50%, then so will the price of the product. It is artificial and will get nobody anywhere. You want a better wage? Work to better yourself, do more than the minimum job and you'll get more than the minimum wage.

Educate yourself so you will not look so foolish.

Costs =/= wages. Labor is but a fraction of a business' costs. A 50% increase in labor costs does not translate to a 50% increase in the cost of providing a product. Nowhere near close to that.

[zEmini]

Educate yourself so you will not look so foolish.

Costs =/= wages. Labor is but a fraction of a business' costs. A 50% increase in labor costs does not translate to a 50% increase in the cost of providing a product. Nowhere near close to that.

Your first sentence is false. Some business - service industry for example - labor is indeed over 50% of their costs.

[Nynax]

You joke but I have met some very wealthy individuals who discussed quite seriously their fondness for Reagan and the merits of trickle down economics...

It can be hard to keep a straight face around such people.

It's funny because all you have to do is look at the biggest businesses to know it doesn't work. I mean, trickle down economics is totally gunna work when Apple is holding onto $80 BILLION just sitting in the bank not being used; and they are far from the only one.

[zenkai]

It's funny because all you have to do is look at the biggest businesses to know it doesn't work. I mean, trickle down economics is totally gunna work when Apple is holding onto $80 BILLION just sitting in the bank not being used; and they are far from the only one.

too many stupid people buying over priced iphones and ipods because it's the "in" thing, thats why they have all that money

[Fugus]

Your first sentence is false. Some business - service industry for example - labor is indeed over 50% of their costs.

Actually, he wasn't saying that wages weren't or couldn't be a large percent of the costs. He was saying that it wasn't 100% of the costs and he is correct in that regard.

The only way a 50% increase in wages leads to a 50% increase in prices is if wages make up 100% of your expenses and you make a 0% profit margin. Anything less than that, and a 50% increase in wages will not lead to a 50% increase in prices, it is mathematically impossible to be caused by increased in wages.

Even using your example, if wages made up 50% of the companies expenses and all of them were minimum wage workers, than a 50% increase in wages with the full costs of that pushed onto your customers as to avoid effecting your profits would still only be a 25% increase in prices.

[Nynax]

too many stupid people buying over priced iphones and ipods because it's the "in" thing, thats why they have all that money

Thats why Apple specifically has that money, but they aren't the only company. Google is another big one. Granted, It's something that is easy for tech companies to do... but the point is that a small Government development plan of a few million dollars gets hailed with trumpets and fireworks as a job creator. Meanwhile some of these companies have Savings reserves that are bigger than entire small countries...and they aren't using it.

[alexw]

I work in the business world, and unlike you or Endus - don't believe in economic fairy tales.

1. Business A sells out.
2. Business B buys out business A
3. Business B poaches their customer base (not all business is retail which a lot of you fail to consider in your arguements)
4. Business B liquidates what they can, maybe keep a person or two on board to manage that region if needed. End of story.

So the weak businesses that claimed to have a failed business model (local business for the most part) is now gone.

You might work in the business world but you have absolutely no clue on how macro-economics works. You know how businesses work on a business level but that is all. It is a fallacy to apply that to the economy overall and expect the same result. That is not what happens. We know that this is so.

So you can spout your nonsense as much as you want but all the evidence shows that you are wrong. For example Australia's minimum wage is far far higher than the US relative to average income. What is its unemployment rate? ~6%. Economies adjust and as long as the $15 MW is brought in gradually the system absorbs and adjusts to it. Yes some will lose employment but the increase in demand will increase employment elsewhere greater than the amount lost, and thus in our demand deficient economy boost economic growth. This is what we know to be true and denying that reality because you don't like it won't change that reality one iota.