D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
That's a brilliant idea! We could all pool our money together and redistribute it evenly! Every man would be equal!
-
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
People who are at or near the minimum wage perform menial tasks - little better than what trained monkeys can do - and contribute little to our overall economic situation. They are not a big concern.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Human beings deserve dignity and comparing them pejoratively to animals is dehumanizing, hurtful, and reflects poorly on you as a person.
http://cepa.stanford.edu/content/wi...tween-rich-and-poor-new-evidence-and-possible
People do not have the same opportunity to succeed. If they are working 80 hours a week at minimum wage to support themselves and maybe a kid they have no oppurtunity to go back to school and improve their sutation. Moreover, like the linked article notes, people born into poverty have less opportunity to succeed than people who are not. You are punishing people for being pushed out the Vagina of a poor woman.
You are also a horrible human being.
Come on bro...
Holy shit. I see a lot of people degrade these 'menial positions,' but they can bring upon a ton of stress, both physically and mentally. I work in the warehouse scene, which can be minimum wage pending the location (thankfully I make a little more than that), and it is painful on a physical level, and sometime mental level.
Ok that was over the line.
But is it possible to have dignity while you're wearing this?
http://www.burningsettlerscabin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-4.jpg
I'm aware of the differences in opportunity. But there is no need to pay the minimum wage worker more because he is easily replaceable, especially with immigration. So that is why I am saying that these people are not crucial to our long-term economic situation. But if you really want to improve their situation, then investing in education is a better way to go. Someone who's in a minimum wage line of work is probably going to be there for the rest of their life, and he/she is a lost cause and not worth worrying about anymore.
Or we could do both? Making sure that the minimum wage is at a rate that ensures a life not in poverty will give them the opportunity to improve themselves, but it also will boost our economy by increasing demand since the increased minimum wage will go right back into the economy.
You also can't solve the opportunity gap just with better education and more access to education for low-income children. Home poverty has a significant impact on children's educational achievement because it produces toxic stress and also means that your parents are probably working all of the time..
That also has to be some of the most vile shit that ive read.
Oh, the Costco-to-Walmart comparison again. How I love it when this gets brought up in any min-wage thread.
Costco and Walmart may both sell many types of goods, but their business models are completely different. From a post i made in a thread last year
I'm glad you just mentioned Costco - because while I was looking up information about Wal-Mart's margin per store or profit per employee, I found an article about why the often-made comparison to Costco for Wal-Mart is a ridiculous one.
Their business models are completely different. Costco is mostly a grocer, whereas Wal-Mart is mostly a dept store.
Grocers have notoriously thin profit margins, thinner than retailers like Wal-Mart and Target and other big-box stores.
Costcos are typically located in more affluent areas or suburbs - whereas Wal-Marts are everywhere, with concentrations on rural small towns.
Costco doesn't have to pay stockers to unload, sort, arrange, maintain, display, etc. product. Product comes off the truck, and is piled onto the floor still palleted. Wal-Mart requires more employees per sq footage.
Costco also has another major difference - they charge membership fees.
All of this means that although Costco pays their employees more than Wal-Mart does, they also manage to make MORE money per employee than Wal-Mart.
Yeah, the Costco/Wal-mart thing has never made sense to me. They cater to different parts of society.
I said on the last page that I don't have a problem with the minimum wage because it's potential negative effects (if any) will probably fall on the lower classes anyways. But I'm doubtful that there's going to be these great economic benefits to society that you claim. The indirect impact from a rise in the minimum wage on a child's educational results is probably going to be minimal. And for adults, someone who is working minimum wage is very likely to be stuck on a low-income trajectory throughout his lifetime. Those people are the least productive in society, and I don't accept that these people are crucial to our economic well-being.
Septimus Prime
Member
Sam's Club would be a more apt comparison to Costco, no? Do we know if their pay is more in alignment with Costco's?
Anyway, I was doing some thinking about Cyan's question to me earlier, that I couldn't answer. I still can't, but I was just considering that inflation could occur seemingly independent from minimum wage because local/regional economies are not closed systems, and the economies of other regions will also have some impact. A minimum wage increase of this magnitude, though, I'm still very hard pressed to be able to think that it wouldn't impact inflation.
Anyway, I was doing some thinking about Cyan's question to me earlier, that I couldn't answer. I still can't, but I was just considering that inflation could occur seemingly independent from minimum wage because local/regional economies are not closed systems, and the economies of other regions will also have some impact. A minimum wage increase of this magnitude, though, I'm still very hard pressed to be able to think that it wouldn't impact inflation.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/protecting-children-from-toxic-stress/
And the link I provided above all state that the biggest factor in disparities in educational outcomes and succeeding in life is poverty. Poverty also has a negative impact on cognitive functions (thankfully temproarily). It actually makes you dumber. Poverty has a HUGE HUGE impact on a person's outcomes.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/10/lasting-impacts-poverty-brain/7377/
Your feelings and doubts seem like a result of your hatred or sociopathic indifference of poor people. I think we. as a society, should promote policies to give everyone a chance to better themselves in life, not put obstacles in the way just for the sake of short-term economic growth that will pool in the hands of the wealthy. Almost everyone wants to better themselves, but many lack the opportunity to do so. We should change that before condemning poor people as worthless scum. Apparently you disagree.
Sam's pays higher than Wal-Mart, but not more than Costco.
Some people never had the opportunity to learn any useful skills. Other people just aren't meant for it. Doesn't mean those people should just be be tossed aside and forgotten. The people who work menial, low-skill jobs still reproduce and have families. Some of those scummy poor families might churn out a kid or two who becomes a really successful asset. As a society, we should want everyone regardless of economic worth to be able to live decently and so they can better provide for their children. Kids who have both parents home at night, help with homework, and extra activities will go on to do much better in life than a kid who doesn't.
$26/hr might be a bit much, but for an area like SF, that isn't too far off from an actual living wage. Unfortunately, the people who live in SF need to have their trash picked up, kids need nannies and teachers, store shelves need to be stocked, and criminals to be caught. Until all those needs are met with robots, there has to be some kind of way for normal people to live in the Bay Area and not be in poverty because of ridiculous rent payments.
Yes, we disagree.
They can live in Oakland. The commute from Oakland to SF is easy.
Vicetrailia
Banned
is his assessment of you correct?
No. I had a longer response, but I ditched it because it would take us way off the topic of the minimum wage (since I said multiple times I don't have a problem with the minimum wage)
TheLaughingStock
Member
Minimum wage laws were enacted in the US over a century ago to get around the lack of bargaining power, wealth, and mobility of labor force. If you're familiar with West Coast Hotel v. Parrish case, then great economic benefits argument for the private sector was preventing employers from racing to the bottom and avoiding a burden on individuals earning living wages. So, correcting selfishness on the part of some with wealth.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This is disgusting.
Seriously dude, this is a downright immoral and horrible attitude
The lack of bargaining power goes back to the idea of monopsony. While that may have been true in the 1930's, it's a dubious concept today. It makes no sense to me intuitively that the retail and fast food markets, etc, aren't competitive. Those have to be the most competitive markets in the country. A retail worker, for example, has no real special skills and can work in pretty much any brainless, dead-end job, like at a call center or as a waiter.
And the empirical evidence doesn't really support it. Because if it did, we'd see stronger evidence of employment increases after a minimum wage hike. But the evidence is mixed, at best.
http://www.economist.com/news/finan...-moderate-minimum-wages-can-do-more-good-harm
I just don't think lack of bargaining power is a good rationale for the minimum wage. It might actually work better in other sectors of the economy, where the minimum wage has no impact.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/03/wal-mart.jpg
Its the most competitive, but still not competitive.
This doesn't tell you anything. Someone who is looking for a job at Wal-Mart has LOTS of options in terms of places to work. Almost infinite. Unless you think that these people have a particular preference for which job they want. At this level, that seems unlikely. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that monopsony power exists in these markets. I'm open to it though.
Wrong, he has the fewest options because that is likely all that he can do. A person with marketable skills can always take a lower paying job if he can't find one in his field. The minimum wage worker does not have that option. There might be more minimum wage employers, but there a lot more prospective minimum wage workers.
Moreover, those 60,000 people who applied for that Wal-mart job in DC should tell you that companies who employ minimum wage workers have no need to pay workers more than the minimum wage because thousands of people want that same job. They do not have to pay the minimum wage worker in proportion to what he produces for the company. If their places of work are almost infinite, why the hell are 60k people applying for minimum wage wal-mart work in DC?
Please support the bolded with some real evidence. Your entire focus is on Wal-Mart as if that's the single employer. If that were the case, yes there would be a monopsony issue. But if there was a monopsony we would see greater evidence of employment increases after minimum wage hikes. The empirical evidence is mixed, at best, with some show a negative effect.
This might be regional. I'd be more convinced of monopsony in rural areas or small towns. Big cities? Doubtful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...art-has-a-lower-acceptance-rate-than-harvard/
My focus on it is because its the biggest employer in the United States and 23,000 (wrong figure last time) people applying for work there indicates that minimum wage workers can't find work 'anywhere'. If they did, those 23,000 people would already have jobs. There is so much excessive labor supply in the minimum wage labor market compared to employers (as evidenced by the Wal-Mart DC) that employers have no need to pay employees what they are worth because they can easily find other workers willing to work for the minimum wage because they are desperate.
As for studies, they would have to use data after 2008 to be remotely relevant to this discussion. I know some of the most famous ones definitely do not. That seems incredibly difficult to measure though because the increase in purchasing power on the economy will likely see an increase in jobs quite a bit later than the adoption of a minimum wage, and how do you tell if its because of the minimum wage?
You'll obviously take the negative view because you think minimum wage workers are throwaway mules who barely do anything for the economy, but I think it makes far more sense to say that in times of depressed demand due to high unemployment, stagnant wages, and high corporate profits that boosting demand though increasing the minimum wage (which has fallen way behind what it 20-30-40 years ago) will increase employment. More demand means employers will actually move in and try to fill that demand.
cuevas. PhD.
Member
You say this like college makes people smarter. Lol.
adamsappel
Member
Why do you not think of yourself as underpaid?
We don't know what happened to those 23,000. That's why I say it means nothing. An application/job ratio is really useless. My friend was applying to government internships and for one of them, they got over 120 apps for only 2 positions. This is just one example, because many other places are even worse. That doesn't mean everyone who struck out had no work for the summer. The school boasted something close to a 100% employment rate.
People don't get their first choice - such is life. My impression is that very often, low-wage workers are snobby about the kind of work they'll do. A lot of them will refuse to work in food establishments. I don't know why we should respect that preference. That's all anecdotal though.
If you want to use the minimum wage as a counter-cyclical measure, then I think it's a weak, indirect tool. It'd be much better to just use direct government expenditures. The poor may spend a lot, but even with minimum wage hikes, they make very little as well. But since you think there is some "competitive" wage that the poor are not rightfully earning, what is that wage? And what do you base it on?
SteveWinwood
Member
im gonna chalk this up as a classic george bush jr tactic where you overshoot massively and then when you back down its seen as a compromise and you get 100% what you actually wanted anyway
I managed a thrift store and made about two bucks over minimum wage, and you'd be surprised how much mental stamina a single weekend day really demands just on space management alone.
turnbuckle
Member
Perhaps it has something to do with those jobs not paying close to a living wage. Oh, those darn snobs.
phxxBullet
Banned
He said what I was always saying. Degrees are nothing in a world where so many people don't have a job.
Ever person who at least has some months experience in a job is more worth than a person who "wasted" 5 years studying and has no clue how to (lets say someone who works in a supermarket) use the scanner at for the warehouse or products in the store.
SouthernDragon
Member
The historical high for the minimum wage was around $22, adjusted for inflation.
$26 is high, and a sudden shift to that instead of a phase in would be problematic to say the least. The minimum wage needs to be drastically increased, however.
$26 is high, and a sudden shift to that instead of a phase in would be problematic to say the least. The minimum wage needs to be drastically increased, however.
What makes you better than a janitor?
Of course every job trains you...only problem here is that if a job specifically requires a college degree and you don't have on they throw your application in the trash and move to the next one.
CyclopsRock
Member
In economic terms, many years invested in schooling I should think.
Just_myles
Member
That's about what I am making now. lol, not sure how that would go over with everybody else though.
fuzzyreactor
Banned
gross
You really need to get out more if you actually believe this.
Awesome Animals
Member
OMG STOP! You're an awful person.
They are basically the economic backbone of Earth, so not sure what you're saying here.
Aquamarine
Member
Never mind.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
Just a minute... just a minute. Now, hold on, Mr. Potter. You're right when you say my father was no businessman. I know that. Why he ever started this cheap, penny-ante Building and Loan, I'll never know. But neither you nor anyone else can say anything against his character, because his whole life was... why, in the 25 years since he and his brother, Uncle Billy, started this thing, he never once thought of himself. Isn't that right, Uncle Billy? He didn't save enough money to send Harry away to college, let alone me. But he did help a few people get out of your slums, Mr. Potter, and what's wrong with that? Why... here, you're all businessmen here. Doesn't it make them better citizens? Doesn't it make them better customers? You... you said... what'd you say a minute ago? They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent home. Wait? Wait for what? Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken down that they... Do you know how long it takes a working man to save $5,000? Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn't think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they're cattle. Well in my book, my father died a much richer man than you'll ever be!
George Bailey - It's a Wonderful Life, 1946
Late, but in that chart they account for Sam's club in the Wal-Mart numbers. Reason being Wal-Mart doesn't release the Sam's numbers seperately in their reporting, I think.
Except they tend to pump 95%,of their income back into local economies as spending on goods and services. You know, 85% of US GDP.
Personally I say "job creators" are useless. We've given them massive tax breaks, government welfare, and deregulation and all they've done is reduce the number of good paying jobs while increasing profit margins. Profit are then dumped into low interest savings (treasuries) and not spent in capital improvements to labor or buissnesses.
Supply follows the demand, always have. Mythical job creators taking their ball and going home is a bunch of malarky, as someone is always going to meet demand. Black markets and drug markets prove it, where demand produces job creators and jobs, despite the risk. High risk, high reward, in a high demand market.
Aquamarine
Member
Oh wow.
Yeah I get keeping the minimum wage increases consistent with inflation, but $26 an hour?
At such a high price, I'm starting to side with the profit-maximizing institutions / Republicans on this one. That's just flat-out anti-business.
Minimum wage workers and near-minimum wage workers are the backbone of our country. While they may be sub-human to you, they're vitally important to maintaining the status quo. Everybody has a role in this country...don't belittle jobs just because you may feel that you're superior to it.
- Status