California to have a $15/hr minimum wage - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Barry-xlovecam · 04-02-2016, 06:21 AM

With new AI voice recognition technology order talking at fast food restaurants does not have to be done by humans -- the problem to be worked out is filtering background noise -- maybe enter the order booth (that is sound deadening). You will probably need maintenance and cleaning help to be human occupations.

Investing in AI and production robotics businesses as well as stock stakeholdings would be a good idea.

Robotics maintenance technician will be a good paying job.

Social welfare stipends and payments would be an increasing expense in the budget. The government could create make-work jobs and pay recipients slave-wages equal to the social welfare stipends and payments they would receive every month

Horse buggy drivers and teamsters adapted, blacksmiths adapted, buggy whip makers folded and their workers adapted to new vocations (or starved).

I see this as a positive thing stimulating new efficiencies -- human workers are getting expensive -- it is time to explore alternatives.

woj · 04-02-2016, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You missed the sarcasm. Minimum wage is about the job not the age.

why sarcasm? I thought the main argument for minimum wage is that the wage needs to be enough to "live on"... this doesn't apply to teenagers, since they don't use the $$ earned for living expenses, but for beer, smokes, movie tickets and a new iphone every year...

so why should everyone "subsidize" (through higher prices on goods/services) teenagers?

Paul Markham · 04-02-2016, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

With new AI voice recognition technology order talking at fast food restaurants does not have to be done by humans -- the problem to be worked out is filtering background noise -- maybe enter the order booth (that is sound deadening). You will probably need maintenance and cleaning help to be human occupations.

Investing in AI and production robotics businesses as well as stock stakeholdings would be a good idea.

Robotics maintenance technician will be a good paying job.

Social welfare stipends and payments would be an increasing expense in the budget. The government could create make-work jobs and pay recipients slave-wages equal to the social welfare stipends and payments they would receive every month

Horse buggy drivers and teamsters adapted, blacksmiths adapted, buggy whip makers folded and their workers adapted to new vocations (or starved).

I see this as a positive thing stimulating new efficiencies -- human workers are getting expensive -- it is time to explore alternatives.

In a dictatorship, Government can do whatever it likes. In a Democracy, not bought by the 1%, it will be voters who decide. All it needs is to get them to the polling booths and vote for people who represent them.

There are alternatives. Reduce the population to a size that fits. So a couple are only allowed one child, massive tariffs are placed on imported goods from countries that saturate other markets with cheap goods.

As for adapting. Using a model based on the days when buggies were being replaced by cars. Shows you haven't thought it through.

Thinking robots will provide jobs for Americans is another mistake.

klinton · 04-02-2016, 07:33 AM

lol just lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

I see this as a positive thing stimulating new efficiencies -- human workers are getting expensive -- it is time to explore alternatives.

Paul Markham · 04-02-2016, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

why sarcasm? I thought the main argument for minimum wage is that the wage needs to be enough to "live on"... this doesn't apply to teenagers, since they don't use the $$ earned for living expenses, but for beer, smokes, movie tickets and a new iphone every year...

So those still living at home relying on Mum and Dad. Can be exempt. Unless Mum and Dad are also on a low wage.

Quote:

so why should everyone "subsidize" (through higher prices on goods/services) teenagers?

Why should a large portion of the population subsidise cheap goods made in China. By losing their jobs?

You're still thinking the present model can keep taking jobs and decent wages away from a large section of the population. And continue. It can't because eventually it will hit your wages as your customers can no longer afford to buy. Unless you're in a profession that's protected and pays well.

And I doubt if you are. Medium Level self-employed programmers are going to find the going tough. Major companies will shove out the small ones, Indians and others can work cheaper, doesn't matter how they are now, they will improve. And the market your clients rely on is shrinking.

MaDalton · 04-02-2016, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nico-t

that's why....

do you know what a one trick pony is?

but since we're at it - how many people do you employ?

Paul Markham · 04-02-2016, 07:59 AM

Most are commenting as if the market and situation is stable. It's not and we are in the middle of an evolving situation.

Jobs are going to Automation and being exported at an alarming rate. The population is increasing at the same alarming rate. Decent paying jobs are getting higher paid and require higher skills. And if it isn't stopped, the customer base we rely on will shrink and shrink.

There are only so many memberships the 1% can buy.

woj · 04-02-2016, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So those still living at home relying on Mum and Dad. Can be exempt. Unless Mum and Dad are also on a low wage.

so you haven't really thought all this through, and are just making it all up as you go along? What if you aren't living at home, but your spouse makes $100k/year, should you be exempt too? Obviously you don't need the $$ to "live on", so why should everyone "subsidize" your employment at $15/hr?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Why should a large portion of the population subsidise cheap goods made in china. By losing their jobs?

You're still thinking the present model can keep taking jobs and decent wages away from a large section of the population. And continue. It can't because eventually it will hit your wages as your customers can no longer afford to buy. Unless you're in a profession that's protected and pays well.

And I doubt if you are. Medium Level self-employed programmers are going to find the going tough. Major companies will shove out the small ones, Indians and others can work cheaper, doesn't matter how they are now, they will improve. And the market your clients rely on is shrinking.

raising minimum wage does nothing at all to solve this problem and actually makes it worse... it increases the wage gap between the US and other countries, so it makes setting up production outside of the US even more profitable...

also, I think you are missing what the problem is, the problem is not lack of jobs... the problem is lack of skills, there are ton of available jobs but most of them require some specialized skills... by raising minimum wage you reduce people's incentive to acquire those skills... leaving them stuck with 20th century skills, in 21st century economy...

Sunny Day · 04-02-2016, 08:20 AM

It's time for Economics 101.

Businesses don't pay employees their salaries.

Businesses don't pay taxes.

THE CUSTOMER, who buys the product pays both, plus the cost of the product and all the other costs.

PLUS all the profits for the company's owners. Some owners are more greedy than others.

Now that you've just learned your first college class in Economics, remit the class fee.

MaDalton · 04-02-2016, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

The subsidizing is very simple. McDonald's actually has things in their employee handbook that encourage employees to sign up for government programs like food stamps and help with childcare. They also have people that work for them that will help you out with this process.

So, let's say Jane the average young woman gets herself knocked up and has a kid. She then gets a job at McDonald's. She can't raise that kid on that wage so she signs up for various government assistance programs. She is likely going to qualify for most of these assistance programs. So now she is getting food stamps, help paying for daycare, reduced rent and potentially other things like free health insurance. With the benefits she is likely going to be able to live a lifestyle of someone making $12-$15 per hour or more as opposed to $7.25 per hour.

If she were to take a different job where she could jump up to say $9 an hour she very well may no longer qualify for all these assistance programs so she doesn't she stays at McDonald's which benefits from having an employee that has been there a while, knows how things work and is (hopefully) reliable which is better for them than having to go through the cost of hiring and training new people.

The definition of subsidize is: to aid or promote (as a private enterprise) with public money <subsidize soybean farmers> <subsidize public transportation>. This is exactly what is going on here. If there were no government assistance programs people would likely strike, unionize or at the very least demand more money and I think companies that generally pay minimum wage would be forced to raise their wages, but because these programs exists companies can pay less if there are complaints they can show their employees how to suckle from the government teat.

i have nothing to add - only that minimum wage jobs are not limited to students or teens - as others seem to claim here

Paul Markham · 04-02-2016, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

so you haven't really thought all this through, and are just making it all up as you go along? What if you aren't living at home, but your spouse makes $100k/year, should you be exempt too? Obviously you don't need the $$ to "live on", so why should everyone "subsidize" your employment at $15/hr?

How many people do you think are on minimum wages and married to someone make $100k?

Quote:

raising minimum wage does nothing at all to solve this problem and actually makes it worse... it increases the wage gap between the US and other countries, so it makes setting up production outside of the US even more profitable...

also, I think you are missing what the problem is, the problem is not lack of jobs... the problem is lack of skills, there are ton of available jobs but most of them require some specialized skills... by raising minimum wage you reduce people's incentive to acquire those skills... leaving them stuck with 20th century skills, in 21st century economy...

How many manufacturing jobs pay minimum wage?

Of course there has to be import taxes on companies what want to destroy job. And more spent on education to make sure there are enough to fill the high-skilled jobs.

woj · 04-02-2016, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

How many people do you think are on minimum wages and married to someone make $100k?

I don't know, but why does it matter how many there are? Certainly families like that exist, so do you think they should be exempt from $15/hr minimum wage, or not? If not, why do you think we should "subsidize" the $15/hr wage for them?

Barry-xlovecam · 04-02-2016, 09:11 AM

No Paul -- Obsolescence.

Low wage labor will be partially obsoleted.
Just like the jobs in the magazine and newspaper production industry were. We don't need many pressmen (print shop workers) today. The world changes some of the people fail to change with the world.

My grandfather owned a garment factory in New York City in the 1930 - after the second world war. He made his money exploiting cheap immigrant labor. Then when the workers in the garment industry unionized -- the higher wages made it marginally profitable. In 1949 he sold out to his partner and retired at 58. Henlou Ladies Sportwear, the factory Henrietta and Louis founded is no more today, they no longer sell to Saks Fifth Avenue and other higher end retailers. Couldn’t compete. Same shit new day -- when wages become too high businesses automate or offshore to cheaper labor markets.

The problem will not be solved with handouts for the unemployable. Nor can they be exiled to the space colony or die in the streets begging ... So, only higher efficiency and profits can subsidize the hard core unemployable to a very marginal existence. Forced work for your subsidy is not so unjustified -- child care workers for the employed as an example. May be there needs to be constructed child care centers -- these could be staffed be displaced lower skilled workers. Cleaning up and giving simple daycare to children would not be above their skills if the displaced worker can show metal stability and a willingness to do the job. Cheap help like this is not worth $15/hr ($22.00/hr with mandated work benefits by the state).

Things will rebalance and equalize in the higher cost labor low-skills market.

Maybe, we will have GMO Monkey workers that you can buy -- they will work for bananas sweeping floors and cleaning toilets. You can keep their little monkey offspring in cages. I mean how hard could it be to teach a monkey to clean a toilet -- give him a cookie when he completes his task

Paul Markham · 04-02-2016, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Day

It's time for Economics 101.

Businesses don't pay employees their salaries.

Businesses don't pay taxes.

THE CUSTOMER, who buys the product pays both, plus the cost of the product and all the other costs.

PLUS all the profits for the company's owners. Some owners are more greedy than others.

Now that you've just learned your first college class in Economics, remit the class fee.

Exactly. At the moment, the US is paying the Chines to produce goods. The taxes that would have been raised by US workers and companies are now being raised in China.

Your economics is 40 years out of date.

Can you pay via Paxum?

Companies like Macdonalds, Walmart, J.C. Penny, can't export their jobs.

Corporate Profits of Low-Wage Employers | Raise The Minimum Wage

Click here to read more.

How many of these jobs can be exported to the Third World? How many of these companies are subsidised by taxpayers? how many of these companies are owned by the very wealthy? How many of them do everything they can to minimise taxes?

Yes Sunny Day, you will have to pay more for your burgers so your fellow Americans get a decent wage. Because the owners have no intention of lowering their income.

Paul Markham · 04-02-2016, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

I don't know, but why does it matter how many there are? Certainly families like that exist, so do you think they should be exempt from $15/hr minimum wage, or not? If not, why do you think we should "subsidize" the $15/hr wage for them?

No, because the extra paperwork would make it cost more than it saves.

woj · 04-02-2016, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

No, because the extra paperwork would make it cost more than it saves.

what extra paper work? it's same exact paper work as the one for the teenager (which you said previously you would be in favor of)...

"are you a teenager or does your spouse make more than $100k/year?" [checkbox]

but either way, assume there is no additional paperwork cost, you could just magically make families making over $100k/year exempt... would you?

Paul Markham · 04-02-2016, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

So, only higher efficiency and profits can subsidize the hard core unemployable to a very marginal existence. Forced work for your subsidy is not so unjustified -- child care workers for the employed as an example. May be there needs to be constructed child care centers -- these could be staffed be displaced lower skilled workers. Cleaning up and giving simple daycare to children would not be above their skills if the displaced worker can show metal stability and a willingness to do the job. Cheap help like this is not worth $15/hr ($22.00/hr with mandated work benefits by the state).

Things will rebalance and equalize in the higher cost labor low-skills market.

Which will mean the better paid, paying a lot more in taxes. Say Income Tax at 45% and up. Sales tax at 25%.

Much like we have in Europe. Especially Countries like Sweden and Denmark where it's around 45% and 49% of GDP.

Or do you think it can be done on the present tax rate of 26%?

Paul Markham · 04-02-2016, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

what extra paper work? it's same exact paper work as the one for the teenager (which you said previously you would be in favor of)...

"are you a teenager or does your spouse make more than $100k/year?" [checkbox]

but either way, assume there is no additional paperwork cost, you could just magically make families making over $100k/year exempt... would you?

It has to be checked to see if it's true. How many families have a spouse earning minimum and a partner earning over $100K? Until you know the figures, don't bother replying.

I said teenagers who are not living with parents able to support them properly. Again more paperwork and checking the facts.

America has a large "ME" culture. Where people will do anything not to care for fellow Americans. That can't continue because eventually the poor will outnumber the rich at the polling booths. They already outnumber them in the population.

A Sanders or a Trump will sail into positions of power and no matter how much the rich spend on adverts. It won't work. In the UK a lot of people are anti-EU and UKIP sprung from nowhere to become a force. Mass migration has turned many voters into right wing voters.

So many demand politicians not tied to the big donators. They will get it if they vote for it, in all elections.

Barry-xlovecam · 04-02-2016, 09:50 AM

I got news for you;

Wage earning workers who make a median of $38K, or less in the USA, a year pay most all of the sales (or VAT) taxes.

So, you are really saying that the qualified worker should pay the taxes for the support of the low-skilled marginally employed minimum wage worker.

That will not fly in the USA. Europe has a hereditary memory of serfdom so maybe the workers there can rationalize it somehow.

What will happen (sarcastically but to the point): is that in a hotel were there were 3 housekeepers to a floor of 100 rooms (@$8/hr) there will now only be 1 housekeeper (@$15/hr) per floor with 4 trained monkey assistants that work for bananas.

Low wage earners will be expected to work harder and more efficiently for a higher wage. Many jobs can be done by automation, robotics or trained animals -- whatever works best.

woj · 04-02-2016, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

It has to be checked to see if it's true. How many families have a spouse earning minimum and a partner earning over $100K? Until you know the figures, don't bother replying.

I said teenagers who are not living with parents able to support them properly. Again more paperwork and checking the facts.

it's a hypothetical question, numbers are irrelevant... it's not a question of "checking the facts" or practicality of it all... it's a question of ethics...

so given the goal of minimum wage is to help poor families achieve enough income to "live on"...

teenagers should be exempt, since they don't use income for living expenses... you agreed with me on that...

so using similar logic, I would think families making over $100k/year should be exempt too, since there is no reason at all why we should subsidize $15/hr wage for them? do you agree? or do you think there is some reason why we should indeed subsidize high wages for them?

Paul Markham · 04-02-2016, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

I got news for you;

Wage earning workers who make a median of $38K, or less in the USA, a year pay most all of the sales (or VAT) taxes.

So, you are really saying that the qualified worker should pay the taxes for the support of the low-skilled marginally employed minimum wage worker.

That will not fly in the USA. Europe has a hereditary memory of serfdom so maybe the workers there can rationalize it somehow.

What will happen (sarcastically but to the point): is that in a hotel were there were 3 housekeepers to a floor of 100 rooms (@$8/hr) there will now only be 1 housekeeper (@$15/hr) per floor with 4 trained monkey assistants that work for bananas.

Low wage earners will be expected to work harder and more efficiently for a higher wage. Many jobs can be done by automation, robotics or trained animals -- whatever works best.

So how do you plan to fund your solution?

Paul Markham · 04-02-2016, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

it's a hypothetical question, numbers are irrelevant... it's not a question of "checking the facts" or practicality of it all... it's a question of ethics...

so given the goal of minimum wage is to help poor families achieve enough income to "live on"...

teenagers should be exempt, since they don't use income for living expenses... you agreed with me on that...

so using similar logic, I would think families making over $100k/year should be exempt too, since there is no reason at all why we should subsidize $15/hr wage for them? do you agree? or do you think there is some reason why we should indeed subsidize high wages for them?

I did not agree with you. I said Teenagers that are living with parents who can afford to support them, could be exempt. As could the spouses with partners earning over $100k. Now go find out how many that applies to. Are you prepared to pay more in taxes for the ethical approach to weed out those who don't need the money?

I think many are angry their cheap lifestyle will be upset by higher taxes or prices.

It will be decided at the ballot box when those on a low wage get out and vote for people who will deliver the change they want. They've seen 40 years or more of voting for people who have catered to the top and grown poor by it.

Do you agree that fewer people buying your customers products reduce's your income?

woj · 04-02-2016, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I did not agree with you. I said Teenagers that are living with parents who can afford to support them, could be exempt. As could the spouses with partners earning over $100k. Now go find out how many that applies to. Are you prepared to pay more in taxes for the ethical approach to weed out those who don't need the money?

$100k was just an arbitrary number, if $100k could be exempt, how about $75k or $50k? what do you think the "right" cut off level should be? I would think "subsidizing" family earning more than avg income in the US, which is about $50k, would be hard to justify? so cut off level should be under $50k?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Do you agree that fewer people buying your customers products reduce's your income?

Increasing minimum wage doesn't create more people that will be able to buy products... it simply takes $$ from one group of people and gives it to others... minimum wage workers will have more to spend, but someone else will have less to spend... minimum wage laws don't magically create wealth... if they did, why not just do $25/hr? or $50/hr?

kane · 04-02-2016, 03:06 PM

I'm curious.

For those who believe that raising minimum wage will speed up the process of automation/robotics taking over over low paying jobs, what do you think will them happen? Do you think we will just end up with a big segment of the population that is unemployed/unemployable or do you think there there will be growth in other industries and those people can find jobs there?

woj · 04-02-2016, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I'm curious.

For those who believe that raising minimum wage will speed up the process of automation/robotics taking over over low paying jobs, what do you think will them happen? Do you think we will just end up with a big segment of the population that is unemployed/unemployable or do you think there there will be growth in other industries and those people can find jobs there?

just look back on history, every time new revolutionary tech was introduced, same exact arguments were used as there are now... but life went on, people adapted and pursued careers in other fields... why does anyone think this time it's different?

MaDalton · 04-02-2016, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I'm curious.

For those who believe that raising minimum wage will speed up the process of automation/robotics taking over over low paying jobs, what do you think will them happen? Do you think we will just end up with a big segment of the population that is unemployed/unemployable or do you think there there will be growth in other industries and those people can find jobs there?

i am old enough to remember how people were crying that everybody will be unemployed when robots take over - that was somewhere in the 1980ties

kane · 04-02-2016, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

just look back on history, every time new revolutionary tech was introduced, same exact arguments were used as there are now... but life went on, people adapted and pursued careers in other fields... why does anyone think this time it's different?

I think it might be different this time around because the world has changed. The policies put in place by our government over the last 30+ years have made it very easy for companies to go off shore with their jobs. We are starting to see the results of that as the majority of jobs created now are low paying service and retail jobs. When automation starts to take those low paying jobs over I don't see why companies would expand to create different jobs in the US when they can do it overseas cheaper and with less hassle.

I do think there will new fields opening up and some new opportunities for those who have the correct education/experience, but I don't know how many of those types of jobs we will have.

I can see a future where we as a nation simply no longer create enough jobs at any pay level to accommodate all of those who want a job and we could end up in a situation where we have an unemployment rate that hangs out around 15% or higher and it is excepted as being the norm.

kane · 04-02-2016, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i am old enough to remember how people were crying that everybody will be unemployed when robots take over - that was somewhere in the 1980ties

Same here. I was born in 1971 so I was a teenager in the 1980's. I remember people talking about how computers and robots were going to take over just about every job.

To me, the difference now is that technology is quickly becoming a reality. In the 1980's it was pretty limited, but these days technology is advancing at a pace that we could see some major changes within in the next 10-15 years.

Barry-xlovecam · 04-02-2016, 04:01 PM

Trade Act Programs | United States Department of Labor

The could be a wage rate readjustment act also -- there might be a payroll tax 50/50 worker/employer to fund it.

There should be vocational retraining opportunity however limited its success has been. Tax supported vocational training schools and 2 year college schooling towards getting AA degrees in needed skills would go a long way toward eliminating a lot of need to work temporarily at minimum or low wages to help pay for continuing or advanced schooling.

There only might be a need of 1/3 of today's current minimum or low wage job positions in the near future.

Do we behave like a Luddite and destroy the machines or regress progress with Luddite politics -- the idiots shall inherit the earth?

altmman · 04-02-2016, 04:02 PM

$15/hr to flip burgers? There are skilled tech support people making $12. Dang
Fast food workers, meet your replacement

If I owned a restaurant I'd go right out and buy these. No human error. No paid benefits. No sick days. No attitude. Always on time.

kane · 04-02-2016, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by altmman

$15/hr to flip burgers? There are skilled tech support people making $12. Dang
Fast food workers, meet your replacement

If I owned a restaurant I'd go right out and buy these. No human error. No paid benefits. No sick days. No attitude. Always on time.

I think fast food is where we will see the next big automation explosion. If they used kiosks like this for ordering and paying and had machines that cooked the burgers for you so someone doesn't have to stand there and flip them they could run an entire place with just a few employees.

Paul Markham · 04-03-2016, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I'm curious.

For those who believe that raising minimum wage will speed up the process of automation/robotics taking over over low paying jobs, what do you think will them happen? Do you think we will just end up with a big segment of the population that is unemployed/unemployable or do you think there there will be growth in other industries and those people can find jobs there?

Those out of work will become more political and vote for people who will provide benefits. Or take up their guns and start a revolution. Isn't that what some claim an armed militia is for?

Paul Markham · 04-03-2016, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

just look back on history, every time new revolutionary tech was introduced, same exact arguments were used as there are now... but life went on, people adapted and pursued careers in other fields... why does anyone think this time it's different?

When you look back. Which part do you see where the Third World was the manufacturing hub?

The strength of the British Empire was its Third World Empire producing the raw materials. With 100% of the profits flowing back to Britain, where the rich were obscenely rich compared to the poor. See the parallel?

You may be one of those that's in the top bracket and convinced the poor should remain poor and increase in numbers. So you can remain rich. that won't last.

Paul Markham · 04-03-2016, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I can see a future where we as a nation simply no longer create enough jobs at any pay level to accommodate all of those who want a job and we could end up in a situation where we have an unemployment rate that hangs out around 15% or higher and it is excepted as being the norm.

Are Job Creation numbers keeping pace with the population increases? No. To keep pace the US needs to create 1.5 million jobs a year. That's ignoring the facts that many of those jobs pay a low wage.

This is also a problem in the UK.

Paul Markham · 04-03-2016, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Trade Act Programs | United States Department of Labor

The could be a wage rate readjustment act also -- there might be a payroll tax 50/50 worker/employer to fund it.

There should be vocational retraining opportunity however limited its success has been. Tax supported vocational training schools and 2 year college schooling towards getting AA degrees in needed skills would go a long way toward eliminating a lot of need to work temporarily at minimum or low wages to help pay for continuing or advanced schooling.

There only might be a need of 1/3 of today's current minimum or low wage job positions in the near future.

Do we behave like a Luddite and destroy the machines or regress progress with Luddite politics -- the idiots shall inherit the earth?

Vocational training to do what?

There's no need to destroy the machines. Just to make sure they're made in the West for making cars, clothing, electrical goods, metals, etc. And not in the Far East.

Examine who got very rich from changing to the new Industrial Revolution practices. Where they lived and where their wealth stayed. Your approach is more Luddite than you think. You want to hang onto the old ways of sending jobs and wealth overseas.

How many members do you have in China?

Barry-xlovecam · 04-03-2016, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

How many members do you have in China?

More than we had a few years ago

Our biggest problems are in France where poor economic growth has translated to customer attrition. France: where there is a more social equitable system ...

A lot of our customers are spending more than $300 a month and I am guessing that they don't derive their income from US or EU minimum wage workers. In fact, 90% to 95% of all workers are employed. Our average buyer is most likely not the manager of a McDonalds nor the department manager at Wal-Mart either.

An person in the states making $15/hr is just getting by -- he is not paying $120/hr to mess around with cam girls in private.

To assert that the man able to pay $120/hr to buy camgirl love is profiting by his crew of 15 burger-flippers is nonsense.

arock10 · 04-03-2016, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I'm curious.

For those who believe that raising minimum wage will speed up the process of automation/robotics taking over over low paying jobs, what do you think will them happen? Do you think we will just end up with a big segment of the population that is unemployed/unemployable or do you think there there will be growth in other industries and those people can find jobs there?

As I said in this and all these threads we are going to be faced with massive unemployment anyway at some point. Post recession unemployment levels have dropped but at the same time many of the new jobs are crappy jobs that are the ones looking to be roboticized. Globalization has pushed the "good blue collar" jobs out a while ago

I'm curious the average gfy politics poster these days because it always seems like they grew up in the generation where you could work at the factory and afford two cars a house and a family. Oh and could work your way to the top it just took some hard work!

woj · 04-03-2016, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

When you look back. Which part do you see where the Third World was the manufacturing hub?

The strength of the British Empire was its Third World Empire producing the raw materials. With 100% of the profits flowing back to Britain, where the rich were obscenely rich compared to the poor. See the parallel?

You may be one of those that's in the top bracket and convinced the poor should remain poor and increase in numbers. So you can remain rich. that won't last.

I really don't see where the problem is... 3rd world labor is in many ways equivalent to slave labor from few centuries ago... did anyone ever complain that "slaves are taking our jobs"? Did society collapse because there were no jobs for non-slaves?

ErectMedia · 04-03-2016, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i have nothing to add - only that minimum wage jobs are not limited to students or teens - as others seem to claim here

Can't speak for other countries but if someone lives in the US and makes minimum wage and they aren't on a jail release program or mentally/physically disabled then they are unmotivated as plenty of jobs that start at $10-$15+ with minimal training.

Barry-xlovecam · 04-03-2016, 06:39 AM

Robots and robotic machines are man's new slaves. This is more humane with regard to slavery.

Unfortunately, a lot of lesser intelligent and skilled people globally will be obsoleted.

Maybe, half of them can be retrained in some fashion to be able to support themselves.

The other half? And this is a global issue. A shoe making robot and robotic machinery works for less, in both grief and labor cost, as a human worker in Asia. The product manufacturing will go where the technical talent is to build and manage the robotics.

Paul Markham · 04-03-2016, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

More than we had a few years ago

Enough for you to survive on?

Quote:

Our biggest problems are in France where poor economic growth has translated to customer attrition. France: where there is a more social equitable system ...

Poor economic growth, mass migration shrinking of wages.

Quote:

A lot of our customers are spending more than $300 a month and I am guessing that they don't derive their income from US or EU minimum wage workers. In fact, 90% to 95% of all workers are employed. Our average buyer is most likely not the manager of a McDonalds nor the department manager at Wal-Mart either.

Are they always going to have a job at a level where they can spend $300?

Quote:

An person in the states making $15/hr is just getting by -- he is not paying $120/hr to mess around with cam girls in private.

Whereas he might have been if he had a well paid job.

Quote:

To assert that the man able to pay $120/hr to buy camgirl love is profiting by his crew of 15 burger-flippers is nonsense.

As the number of low paid grow the number of people who can afford $1200/hr to buy camgirl love. Will shrink.

You're assuming everything can stay as it is. Why? Given that the facts point to the opposite.

Paul Markham · 04-03-2016, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Robots and robotic machines are man's new slaves. This is more humane with regard to slavery.

Unfortunately, a lot of lesser intelligent and skilled people globally will be obsoleted.

Maybe, half of them can be retrained in some fashion to be able to support themselves.

The other half? And this is a global issue. A shoe making robot and robotic machinery works for less, in both grief and labor cost, as a human worker in Asia. The product manufacturing will go where the technical talent is to build and manage the robotics.

You agree with me. But maybe not the solution.

Bring the jobs back to the countries of sale. Even if automated it returns the Wealth to the country. High taxes starting at the average wage, to keep the unemployed from picking up a gun.

Then a population control scheme limiting all migrants who aren't going to earn $50,000 + and introduce tough measures to limit births.

Half a population living on the breadline is very dangerous for the other half. Especially when they all own guns. What can't happen is a population like the Third World or Cuba, N. Korea, etc. First World people won't stand for it.

Paul Markham · 04-03-2016, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErectMedia

Can't speak for other countries but if someone lives in the US and makes minimum wage and they aren't on a jail release program or mentally/physically disabled then they are unmotivated as plenty of jobs that start at $10-$15+ with minimal training.

So none of these people once had a decent job.

I agree kids today are less motivated. Especially in places where there are so few decent jobs, education is poor, parents were made redundant. The facts show factories are closing faster than "Macdonalds" and "JC Penny" can create jobs.

Barry-xlovecam · 04-03-2016, 08:06 AM

Quote:

:
A person in the states making $15/hr is just getting by -- he is not paying $120/hr to mess around with cam girls in private.
------
Whereas he might have been if he had a well paid job.

$15/hr is not a well paid job to be able to afford what I sell. Our business lives off of the top 5%

Maybe, they are making their money importing good globally, trading FOREX, in top end banking positions (they are not the tellers), Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers ... I never ask -- I just take their money.

I have another camsite where we are producing private cam shows for 99¢/minute with an entry level package of $10. The median purchase is $25. Conclusion: Even when cheaper entertainment and lower price points are offered customers with little money to spend don't buy. Some do and I'll offer them that "opportunity" but I won't be able to live off it -- it is cream off the top -- additional revenue -- a small % of buyers.

I would probably have better luck selling them (the financially limited) a 6 pack and a joint for entertainment and then they go to a freemium camsite to be a grey and fap for free or a tube and wank to the vids

Raising wages without a raised productivity will not benefit me or my business. Get an education in a well paying field.

ErectMedia · 04-03-2016, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I agree kids today are less motivated. Especially in places where there are so few decent jobs, education is poor, parents were made redundant. The facts show factories are closing faster than "Macdonalds" and "JC Penny" can create jobs.

If you live in cornland and every job pays minimum then maybe ya can deal with it as living costs are cheap as well. In Chicago they keep smacking up houses that all look the same with no yards and the sign reads starting from 399k and that's 15-20 minutes south of downtown, downtown I see new condos with 800k price tags so depends where ya live but personally I wouldn't be happy with minimum unless the town was handing out free houses. My cousins wife recently debated coming to Chicago for a new job and realized they couldn't afford it as any raise she would be getting would be sucked up by housing cost increase and our wonderful taxes, cigarette, pop, bottled water, netflix, etc...

Barry-xlovecam · 04-03-2016, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErectMedia

[In] Chicago they keep smacking up houses that all look the same with no yards and the sign reads starting from 399k and that's 15-20 minutes south of downtown, downtown I see new condos with 800k price tags so depends where ya live but personally I wouldn't be happy with minimum unless the town was handing out free houses. ...

You either need a damn good job, own a business, posses a good professional eduction or be a medium level drug dealer to live like that.

tony286 · 04-03-2016, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by altmman

$15/hr to flip burgers? There are skilled tech support people making $12. Dang
Fast food workers, meet your replacement

If I owned a restaurant I'd go right out and buy these. No human error. No paid benefits. No sick days. No attitude. Always on time.

If they worked for $3 an hour and they could be replaced with this they would. Dont kid yourself.

The problem is now the avg min wage worker age is 29, so we the tax payer are making up the difference. Talk about socialism. Alot of these people would have been working in factories making a decent dollar but thanks to Nafta that's gone.
Also, $15 an hour isn't some oh my god wage, the problem is wages have been so flat. That's considered a good wage and it's not. I started in a factory in the 80's knowing nothing and they gave me $11 to start.

Barry-xlovecam · 04-03-2016, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

If they worked for $3 an hour and they could be replaced with this they would. Dont kid yourself....

If those machines (order taker kiosk) cost less than $140,000 that machine is a 24 month payback ROI over human employees, for 16 hrs daily for 720 days ...

They will make the 'order taker kiosk' for a lot less than that and lease them for 3 or 5 years. The inventory control and the work flow control is already in place now.

A1=sum((8+11)/2)*1.26
Mandated FCIA, unemployment taxes, workman's comp and liability taxes, minor employer-paid fringe benefits are maybe near an additional 26%
=sum((A1*16)*362)*2

It's fuckin' math running a business. Bottom line ROI.
You can get there any way you want -- but the bean stackers effect the decision in the end.

BaldBastard · 04-03-2016, 10:14 AM

Min wage here in Aus is over 20 bucks an hour and all the fast food chains still manage to make a profit.

crockett · 04-03-2016, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

why sarcasm? I thought the main argument for minimum wage is that the wage needs to be enough to "live on"... this doesn't apply to teenagers, since they don't use the $$ earned for living expenses, but for beer, smokes, movie tickets and a new iphone every year...

so why should everyone "subsidize" (through higher prices on goods/services) teenagers?

Its not about the lowest paying jobs.. Go to states like FL or Texas.. look at their CL postings.. most of the "Blue Collar" jobs pay shit wages in these states.. You are talking semi skilled jobs that pay $10/hr.

Meanwhile you go somewhere like CT,MA, even CO and the exact same job is paying $15-16/hr.

Staples is good example I worked for them in CT and was making $17/hr with a 3 day work week. I kept the job so I could have insurance.

I tried to transfer to one of their FL DC's doing the exact same job for the same company and they would only pay $13/hr.

The min wage hike is needed because of shit like that. Companies that can afford to pay more in other states fuck the workers in all the lovely "right to work states".

Most of you guys who complain about this, have sat behind your computer screens far too long, living a sheltered life and have no clue what the real world is like.

04-02-2016, 07:59 AM	#57
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Most are commenting as if the market and situation is stable. It's not and we are in the middle of an evolving situation. Jobs are going to Automation and being exported at an alarming rate. The population is increasing at the same alarming rate. Decent paying jobs are getting higher paid and require higher skills. And if it isn't stopped, the customer base we rely on will shrink and shrink. There are only so many memberships the 1% can buy. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

04-02-2016, 08:20 AM	#59
Sunny Day Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 1,406	Wages It's time for Economics 101. Businesses don't pay employees their salaries. Businesses don't pay taxes. THE CUSTOMER, who buys the product pays both, plus the cost of the product and all the other costs. PLUS all the profits for the company's owners. Some owners are more greedy than others. Now that you've just learned your first college class in Economics, remit the class fee.

04-02-2016, 06:21 AM	#51
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	With new AI voice recognition technology order talking at fast food restaurants does not have to be done by humans -- the problem to be worked out is filtering background noise -- maybe enter the order booth (that is sound deadening). You will probably need maintenance and cleaning help to be human occupations. Investing in AI and production robotics businesses as well as stock stakeholdings would be a good idea. Robotics maintenance technician will be a good paying job. Social welfare stipends and payments would be an increasing expense in the budget. The government could create make-work jobs and pay recipients slave-wages equal to the social welfare stipends and payments they would receive every month Horse buggy drivers and teamsters adapted, blacksmiths adapted, buggy whip makers folded and their workers adapted to new vocations (or starved). I see this as a positive thing stimulating new efficiencies -- human workers are getting expensive -- it is time to explore alternatives.

04-02-2016, 09:11 AM	#63
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	No Paul -- Obsolescence. Low wage labor will be partially obsoleted. Just like the jobs in the magazine and newspaper production industry were. We don't need many pressmen (print shop workers) today. The world changes some of the people fail to change with the world. My grandfather owned a garment factory in New York City in the 1930 - after the second world war. He made his money exploiting cheap immigrant labor. Then when the workers in the garment industry unionized -- the higher wages made it marginally profitable. In 1949 he sold out to his partner and retired at 58. Henlou Ladies Sportwear, the factory Henrietta and Louis founded is no more today, they no longer sell to Saks Fifth Avenue and other higher end retailers. Couldn’t compete. Same shit new day -- when wages become too high businesses automate or offshore to cheaper labor markets. The problem will not be solved with handouts for the unemployable. Nor can they be exiled to the space colony or die in the streets begging ... So, only higher efficiency and profits can subsidize the hard core unemployable to a very marginal existence. Forced work for your subsidy is not so unjustified -- child care workers for the employed as an example. May be there needs to be constructed child care centers -- these could be staffed be displaced lower skilled workers. Cleaning up and giving simple daycare to children would not be above their skills if the displaced worker can show metal stability and a willingness to do the job. Cheap help like this is not worth $15/hr ($22.00/hr with mandated work benefits by the state). Things will rebalance and equalize in the higher cost labor low-skills market. Maybe, we will have GMO Monkey workers that you can buy -- they will work for bananas sweeping floors and cleaning toilets. You can keep their little monkey offspring in cages. I mean how hard could it be to teach a monkey to clean a toilet -- give him a cookie when he completes his task

04-02-2016, 09:50 AM	#69
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	I got news for you; Wage earning workers who make a median of $38K, or less in the USA, a year pay most all of the sales (or VAT) taxes. So, you are really saying that the qualified worker should pay the taxes for the support of the low-skilled marginally employed minimum wage worker. That will not fly in the USA. Europe has a hereditary memory of serfdom so maybe the workers there can rationalize it somehow. What will happen (sarcastically but to the point): is that in a hotel were there were 3 housekeepers to a floor of 100 rooms (@$8/hr) there will now only be 1 housekeeper (@$15/hr) per floor with 4 trained monkey assistants that work for bananas. Low wage earners will be expected to work harder and more efficiently for a higher wage. Many jobs can be done by automation, robotics or trained animals -- whatever works best.

04-02-2016, 03:06 PM	#74
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	I'm curious. For those who believe that raising minimum wage will speed up the process of automation/robotics taking over over low paying jobs, what do you think will them happen? Do you think we will just end up with a big segment of the population that is unemployed/unemployable or do you think there there will be growth in other industries and those people can find jobs there?

04-02-2016, 04:01 PM	#79
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Trade Act Programs \| United States Department of Labor The could be a wage rate readjustment act also -- there might be a payroll tax 50/50 worker/employer to fund it. There should be vocational retraining opportunity however limited its success has been. Tax supported vocational training schools and 2 year college schooling towards getting AA degrees in needed skills would go a long way toward eliminating a lot of need to work temporarily at minimum or low wages to help pay for continuing or advanced schooling. There only might be a need of 1/3 of today's current minimum or low wage job positions in the near future. Do we behave like a Luddite and destroy the machines or regress progress with Luddite politics -- the idiots shall inherit the earth?

04-02-2016, 04:02 PM	#80
altmman Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: usa Posts: 468	$15/hr to flip burgers? There are skilled tech support people making $12. Dang Fast food workers, meet your replacement If I owned a restaurant I'd go right out and buy these. No human error. No paid benefits. No sick days. No attitude. Always on time.

04-03-2016, 06:39 AM	#90
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Robots and robotic machines are man's new slaves. This is more humane with regard to slavery. Unfortunately, a lot of lesser intelligent and skilled people globally will be obsoleted. Maybe, half of them can be retrained in some fashion to be able to support themselves. The other half? And this is a global issue. A shoe making robot and robotic machinery works for less, in both grief and labor cost, as a human worker in Asia. The product manufacturing will go where the technical talent is to build and manage the robotics.

04-03-2016, 10:14 AM	#99
BaldBastard Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Sydney Posts: 15,941	Min wage here in Aus is over 20 bucks an hour and all the fast food chains still manage to make a profit.