ElRenoRaven
Member
Yea now that's way way too far the other direction. I can get behind 10 or 15 but 25 is just beyond crazy.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Take that Seattle; CA rep wants $26/h minimum wage
- Thread starter Marty Chinn
- Start date
- Status
Yep. And those auto ordering machines they have in Europe.
In all seriousness though, a gradual move could be absorbed quite well. But the suggestion that local limits should be allowed as well as regular increases for inflation adjustment makes sense to me.
CyclopsRock
Member
I loved those things. My girlfriend and I were in Santander waiting for a boat and had hours to kill and, on a Sunday evening, the whole city was shut down. We just kept going up to the electric counter at McDonalds and ordering beer. I don't think I'd have had the requisite lack of shame to do that to a person.
As for this, it's clearly a negotiating tactic. California, though, is another good example of a place where having even a state-wide (let along nation-wide) minimum wage seems mad. Should it really be the same in San Fran as in, say, Fresno?
Vicetrailia
Banned
No one likes minimum wage/low skill jobs not only for the low pay, but for the no-perks, no-nothing grind-factor that's customary. But really there is no supply, there is a lack of recent experience, and by virtue of being overqualified they wouldn't get the job anyway.
polyh3dron
Banned
never going to happen.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I'd like to see them try, just to see what happens.
Is there any way to calculate, as objectively as possible, what constitutes a raise in min. wage that is both marginal enough to not hurt the economy/employment rates, and substantial enough to positively effect poverty/standard of living? Have there been any studies done on this?
It seems to me that both sides on this issue have a point (unemployment vs poverty), but no one can agree on where to set it.
Is there any way to calculate, as objectively as possible, what constitutes a raise in min. wage that is both marginal enough to not hurt the economy/employment rates, and substantial enough to positively effect poverty/standard of living? Have there been any studies done on this?
It seems to me that both sides on this issue have a point (unemployment vs poverty), but no one can agree on where to set it.
timetokill
Banned
:lol typical insane suggestion from ivory tower politicians
the idea that this wouldn't kill small businesses, or have most businesses pack up and leave the state is absurd
the idea that this wouldn't kill small businesses, or have most businesses pack up and leave the state is absurd
There's have been lots of studies. Some show a negative effect, some show none, some even show a positive effect. But I'm fairly certain all these studies look at small increases.
Exactly the way I feel as well.
Ninja Of Chaos
Member
Combine that with a maximum wage, and I would be all for it.
Digital-Hero
Member
"Take that Seattle, CA rep wants $26/h minimum wage"
We won't take it because it IS crap. Not going to fly and not going to pass. This is ludicrous.
We won't take it because it IS crap. Not going to fly and not going to pass. This is ludicrous.
CyclopsRock
Member
I've seen a few studies that suggest that around a 45-50% of the median income for a given demographic will have zero to negligible impacts on employment levels. The more accurate you divide up the demographics, the more this is the case (ie you can have a different minimum wage for 16-18, 19-21, 22+ age groups).
rudieboy77
Member
I think they are going about this the wrong way if they want to try and create a stronger middle class.
Most minimum wage jobs are not stress free. They are shitty jobs that suck ass but require little to no technical skills or education.
Nothing stress free about being in a hot greasey smelly fast food kitchen while some fat ass manager is sexually harassing you or yelling at you because some customer is pissed you didn't let them scam you or whatever.
Yeah, this is a stunt, not a serious proposal.
The bolded is where you're going to run into issues.
Oh, ho, ho. Look at you trying to distance yourself from Berkeley.
JJDinomite
Banned
Man fuck those small business owners. It's about time they payed their share.
Dark Octave
Banned
Everything else would just go up in price.
While $26 seems very excessive, a higher minimum wage would probably push the wages of those with degrees up a lot as well. So all wages would jump.
Thats not really true
Economists were polled for the above graph.
The problem with the propsed 26 dollar hike is that it is much too drastic and you really wouldn't see the benefits of a minimum wage increase (increased demand) before you destroyed businesses.
This sounds like a great way to fuck the middle class, many of whom invested serious time and money into an education to earn $26 an hour. Their costs for goods and services would skyrocket to help pay for the wage increase, and most employers would rather peace out of California than give a corresponding wage increase to the current middle class workers.
Raising the minimum wage is a good idea, but a $26 proposal deserves to end this asshats career. It would be the end of the state.
Raising the minimum wage is a good idea, but a $26 proposal deserves to end this asshats career. It would be the end of the state.
This comes up over and over, but the thing people have to understand is this:
You are not paid based on how back-breaking, dangerous, or unpleasant your job is.
You are paid based on how hard you are to replace.
If your job can be done by any random person on the street, then you are easy to replace. Therefore you won't get paid a lot. If minimum wage goes up enough, then you WILL be replaced by a robot, if the robot costs less than you.
For example, being a janitor is an unpleasant smelly hard job. But janitors don't get paid a lot, because it takes no special skill to be one. It's probable that within a decade or two, we won't need janitors at all, especially if it costs $26/hour to hire one.
Similarly, if what you produce with your job is not valuable enough to society, then if minimum wage goes up enough, that job will simply disappear.
The reason that getting years of schooling tends to increase your pay, is that if you studied the right things, those skills you earned tend to make it harder to replace you.
The flip side is if everyone goes to school, and gets those same skills, then those skills are worthless in making you hard to replace. Likewise, if you picked the wrong thing to study -- something that doesn't make you harder to replace -- then you wasted your time and money.
So don't waste your time in school studying things that don't make you harder to replace. And don't waste your time in school studying things that anyone else can easily learn. An easy to earn degree is not worth the paper it is printed on.
No amount of minimum wage government regulation is going to change the fundamental truth about the way the world works.
You are not paid based on how back-breaking, dangerous, or unpleasant your job is.
You are paid based on how hard you are to replace.
If your job can be done by any random person on the street, then you are easy to replace. Therefore you won't get paid a lot. If minimum wage goes up enough, then you WILL be replaced by a robot, if the robot costs less than you.
For example, being a janitor is an unpleasant smelly hard job. But janitors don't get paid a lot, because it takes no special skill to be one. It's probable that within a decade or two, we won't need janitors at all, especially if it costs $26/hour to hire one.
Similarly, if what you produce with your job is not valuable enough to society, then if minimum wage goes up enough, that job will simply disappear.
The reason that getting years of schooling tends to increase your pay, is that if you studied the right things, those skills you earned tend to make it harder to replace you.
The flip side is if everyone goes to school, and gets those same skills, then those skills are worthless in making you hard to replace. Likewise, if you picked the wrong thing to study -- something that doesn't make you harder to replace -- then you wasted your time and money.
So don't waste your time in school studying things that don't make you harder to replace. And don't waste your time in school studying things that anyone else can easily learn. An easy to earn degree is not worth the paper it is printed on.
No amount of minimum wage government regulation is going to change the fundamental truth about the way the world works.
Deified Data
Banned
Let's all stumble over each other to see who's more progressive! This proposal basically exists for the sole purpose of feeding wage increase strawmen on Fox News. "You'll never believe what this town thinks teenage fry cooks should be paid!"
$11-$13 is fine for the time being.
$11-$13 is fine for the time being.
Couldn't agree more.
That doesn't conflict with anything I said. There HAVE been studies showing a negative substitution effect. Experts just aren't convinced that this evidence is compelling enough to to outweigh the positive income effect of those who are working and earning more money. Essentially you may be displacing some people, but after factoring in the people who keep their jobs and are getting a raise, we aren't too worried about the displacement. That's basically why I have no problem with this policy. Any negative effects are going to be confined to the lower classes anyways, if they even exist.
I sad it wasnt really true because you slightly miss-characterized it. Most studies show a zero to positive effect while some show a negative effect.
CyclopsRock
Member
It depends entirely on the value. The example given above is a) for a specific dollar value (and at a specific time, one assumes) and b) gives the non-objective, fairly nebulous verdict on whether something is a "desirable policy" by comparing apples to oranges (unemployment vs higher wages). Even with identical data, a preference in one way or the other is not a given.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I feel like the theorycrafting regarding this particular issue is all over the place, so we might as well take the spirit of federalism to heart and let the states do whatever they want with their minimum wage experiments to see what happens.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
And this is the problem, "derp person isn't a genius so they can't get a high paying job, derp, therefore he or she doesn't deserve a living wage derp, even though they have a high stress job, that demands a lot physically and emotionally derp"
You should read the post above. We don't pay people in this country based on how physically and emotionally draining a job might be.
I'm pretty sure most people get this. Seems like an is/ought error here.
You think we should pay people based on how physically demanding their job is?
Honestly I would argue many six-figure jobs are more physically draining than hammering nails all day, because they actually require a mental drain as well. But I don't think we should pay people based on that.
Scratching my head here. Where did I make that statement?
I was asking you a question. Why do you answer a question with a question?
The way you phrased your question made it seem like he was making that claim and you are attacking it. Strawman.
Why do you?
The type of question you asked, and the way you worded it, makes an implicit suggestion that I stated something. I was asking where you got the impression I had stated that.
There are many possible ways to determine what's actually fair to pay someone. In the real world we have a bizzare mishmash that's based in varying amounts on: regulations, market forces, personal assertiveness and attractiveness, skills, office politics, management competence, and plenty of other things.
That it is that way is not the same as saying that it ought to be.
CyclopsRock
Member
This is weird - it's like there's an ongoing conversation with no participants.
At the end of the day though, at least with the current state of affairs we have a decent objective mechanism for how people get paid. If we start giving into something like "fairness", everyone's going to be coming with their hands out. Everyone always like to think that they are doing some incredible work, that they are underappreciated and really should be valued more by society. Reality tells us that this is usually BS. Fairness can be a good concept but its usually abused and a codeword for jealousy and bitterness. You (or somebody else) might think that the burger flipper should make $15 an hour. I think they should make $10 hour. It comes down to a difference in opinion. At least the market sorts that out for us.
too bad the labor market is a monopsony, meaning that the market wage for workers is depressed.
Yes, but that's not really a response. If someone says "it would be more fair to make $xyz" and you say "well the market says they should make $abc" you haven't actually addressed their argument. Pointing to the market result and calling it fair is begging the question.
I'm not convinced the low-wage market (affected by the minimum wage) is a monopsony.
Because you can't address their argument. It's a subjective preference. They just want more money in their pockets, or to improve their conscience.
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
I thought there was a place called Seattle, CA for a second
That almighty comma
That almighty comma
I personally find it repulsive that there are people who advocate that people who work 40 hours a week should live in poverty because the 'market' says so, especially when there are significant differences in opportunity. Endorsing a policy of poverty will just further exacerbate the inequalities in opportunity and hurt our long-term economic situation
Good point. Fixed.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
Not to imply you are lying but is this how it works?
- Status