• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

$9/h minimum wage

Joecool said:
I think more businesses will end up automating jobs and eliminating them. For example, I was in Japan the other year and went to a restaurant. The menu was automated and you inserted either money or credit card and pushed a button to make your menu selection. A ticket came out and you handed the ticket to the chef who prepared the food. No need to have a waiter.

I could see McDonald's or other fast food places adopting this technology and eliminating jobs.
Click to expand...

Automation also creates jobs. From the design and manufacturing of the systems to the 24/7 service and maintenance with redundant and warehoused replacement parts.

But for jobs that may be entirely replaced with automation, gas station attendants are far off.

Speaking of fast-food automation. There is a machine at our local Jack In the Box that takes your order, if that's how to prefer to place your order. I used it the one time I went there, and if I ever decided to go back, I'd definitely prefer to use an actual person.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Of course, if we didn't have welfare, alot of those people would decide that it was time for them to get to work and the productivity of the country would increase.
Click to expand...

Really now? Wonder why it is that your forefathers thought to bring in welfare and the other components of the social safety net? They must've had some compelling reason as such ideas seldom spring forth for no reason whatever

sir drinks-a-lot said:
But, given the purchasing power of a dollar today I don't think you'd find too may willing to work for such a low wage. You could make more panhandling or dumpster diving, both of which are a bit more on the entrepreneurial side.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....interesting. I've never heard panhandling or dumpster diving described as entrepreneurial. Almost makes it sound attractive. Perish the thought that such endeavours would be emblematic of being thrust down to the lowest spokes of fortune's wheel. How very lemons-to-lemonade of you. :boggled:

sir drinks-a-lot said:
We don't know what price would be set by the market for minimum wage - it would be lower if there was no welfare, but I doubt there would be many people working for $1 an hour.
Click to expand...

No matter the circumstance, there'll always be some desperate fool who's prepared to work for less than the market if only to have the tiniest bit of scratch in his pocket. The market will (of course) seize on that desperation and announce that the new minimum is what the desperate fool is prepared to accept and any looking for more may now go and pound sand.

Economic myopia at its finest. :(

Fitz
 
Minimum wage here (Manitoba) is $10/hour. Goes up every year or two, too.
I was talking to a cousin in the U.S., and was shocked to learn that he made $5/hour. That's not enough to live on. Sure, stuff is cheaper South of the border, but not that much cheaper.

At $9/hour, you might see corporation whining about profits, but not much. After all, they manage just fine here in Canada.
 
daenku32 said:
Just so that you folks know, gas station attendants are there mostly to sell the goods in the store. We are long ways off from having automated stores. I know they've tried them, but we are awfully long ways off. Even in the areas where gas station attendants are paid more (not because they work harder than those that are paid minimum wage, but because of shortage of workers) the gas stations still look just the same.
Click to expand...

Not always - there are an increasing number of fully automated, no staff stations in the UK. Roughly 50% of fuel is sold by supermarkets, who in many cases have no interest in having a separate shop on the forecourt as they are trying to attract people to do their weekly shop, not buy a paper and bar of chocolate. Couple of relevant stories:

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.u...ckburn_Asda_petrol_station_to_go_pay_at_pump/

http://www.thisishullandeastriding....tory-16161468-detail/story.html#axzz2KoUsw7is

As for automated shops, the big growth in the UK is self service checkouts, where one member of staff monitors multiple tills where customers swipe their own barcodes and pay direct. Less staff required.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
I didn't quite follow either, but I think what Nessie is saying is that if wages were higher, fewer people would require government assistance, and therefore taxes could be lowered.

Perhaps the monster from Loch Ness can clarify...
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I am saying.
 
X said:
I was talking to a cousin in the U.S., and was shocked to learn that he made $5/hour. That's not enough to live on.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. With a broad brush stroke, the government wants to make the minimum wage "enough to live on". Where I live at least, most of those minimum wage jobs are occupied by high school or college aged kids. Not working stiffs with families to support. I believe the small businesses will be hurt by the imposition of a 20% hike in the minimum wage.
 
StankApe said:
I have literally never even seen a full service gas station since I have been driving (23 years) I assume some still exist, but they are wayyy in the minority
Click to expand...

Agreed that they're in the minority but they can be competitive. A few weeks back, the beast needed to be fed and using the Gas Buddy iPhone app, I found a nearby station that blew its competition out of the price/litre water. It was full service.

That said, as much as possible I have no truck with the self-service angle. On principle, I never go through self-checkout at the grocery or hardware store even if it means waiting an entire minute more than I might have otherwise. I don't see what greater good is served by incrementally having us all work for the retailers

Fitz
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
You're trying to make this into a moral argument with those who disagree with your view as being against the poor. I am sure there are some people that dislike the poor, but it is really more a question of understanding how economic policy decisions and price fixing affect the market. I am concerned about the poor, and think the minimum wage is a bad idea. So do alot of Nobel prize winning economists. So, yeah, get off your moral high horse and address/understand the economic arguments.



Of course the people have bargaining power, and of course the underclass wouldn't double in an instant. What kind of person could not get to the point where they can do something that is more valuable that $1/hour? Disabled? Mentally insane? The extremely obese?
Click to expand...

The poor get exploited enough as it is and reading your nonsense would just mean they would be exploited more. Why are you attacking everyone that doesn't agree with your "there shouldn't be a minimum wage" opinion? I'm on a moral "high horse" because I think people should have a minimum of dignity when working and can at least afford some sort of roof over their head. Please cite these "Nobel Prize economists" that say min wage should be abolished altogether and give us a good explanation why there shouldn't be a min wage - all you've done in this thread is call others out on their views without fully explaining yours. Smells like a troll to me.

Getting rid of min wage will just make the rich richer and the poor poorer. And more American's will become poor as their wages go down. I can't for the life of me figure out how you don't get this.

Does that make for the kind of successful economy you speak of? You don't need a nobel winning economist to tell you that it doesn't work too well - just look around the globe. Is the answer for America to have 90% of the population working for peanuts so they can have a viable, healthy economy for the rich? (read: China).
 
I think what surprises me most about this thread is the presumption that everyone can work these higher-value careers (whatever they might be). Let's be honest; not everyone's cut out in that regard and then the underlying question that follows it up is what then do we do with those unfortunates?

Is empathy and 'there but for the Grace of God go I' entirely passee in this age of efficiency fixation?

Fitz
 
fitzgibbon said:
I think what surprises me most about this thread is the presumption that everyone can work these higher-value careers (whatever they might be). Let's be honest; not everyone's cut out in that regard and then the underlying question that follows it up is what then do we do with those unfortunates?

Is empathy and 'there but for the Grace of God go I' entirely passee in this age of efficiency fixation?

Fitz
Click to expand...

Just look no further than Sir Dinks A Lot, I'm sure it would be wonderful experience to be an employee of his.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Huh?
Click to expand...

It seems to assume that waiting in line is preferable to having to scan your own purchases across a barcode scanner, even if that takes less time, because the latter is "working for the retailers" while the former is, I dunno, some form of leisure activity?

I am always curious as to what the people who refuse to use self service checkouts because they cost retail jobs do about buying over the internet, which costs many more.
 
Wirelight said:
The poor get exploited enough as it is and reading your nonsense would just mean they would be exploited more. Why are you attacking everyone that doesn't agree with your "there shouldn't be a minimum wage" opinion? I'm on a moral "high horse" because I think people should have a minimum of dignity when working and can at least afford some sort of roof over their head.
No, you're on a moral high horse because you keep insisting that those who don't share your misunderstandings of basic economics are somehow against the poor or care less about the poor than you do.

The issue is what to do to help the poor once you've decided you care about them. Would increasing the minimum wage help or hurt the poor? That is the question. You don't seem to have looked into the economic arguments very much, so instead you try to present yourself as caring more about the poor. It is a common strategy, and why economists often say that they have to convince non-economists of the same things over and over. It is more politically popular, of course, to play your game and speak of caring for the poor by raising minimum wage. Most people won't look into it that much, and it helps win election points and make people feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Please cite these "Nobel Prize economists" that say min wage should be abolished altogether
Click to expand...

Trivial to find yourself. Can you name any economists?

all you've done in this thread is call others out on their views without fully explaining yours.
Click to expand...

I've stated my views, but haven't fully explained them in the same way as you haven't fully explained yours. Besides, I have to deal with all of the rest of the posters telling me how terrible I am being to the poor.

Getting rid of min wage will just make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

Is the answer for America to have 90% of the population working for peanuts so they can have a viable, healthy economy for the rich? (read: China).
Click to expand...

Sigh. Strawman. Can you do no better than this?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
It seems to assume that waiting in line is preferable to having to scan your own purchases across a barcode scanner, even if that takes less time, because the latter is "working for the retailers" while the former is, I dunno, some form of leisure activity?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing he is thinking that by scanning your own groceries, you are working for free for the retailer. When actually you're working for yourself.

I am always curious as to what the people who refuse to use self service checkouts because they cost retail jobs do about buying over the internet, which costs many more.
Click to expand...

I am curious why they're not equally upset about construction crews using bulldozers and cranes instead of shovels. More people would be employed if they would all stick to using shovels, instead of all of that greedy, awful automation.

Actually, on further thought, they should not even use shovels, but dig with their hands. Then it would take hundreds of people to build a single house. (Although they wouldn't be building many because they'd be so expensive!)
 
theprestige said:
It's almost as if, overnight, the gas station attendant, without working any harder, or any smarter, suddenly started providing an extra $1.75/h in value to that gas station!

Except, of course, they didn't. So why are they getting a 20% pay increase?
Click to expand...

Perhaps they do provide $9/hr of value but they are only compensated 7.25 and someone higher up in the company gets that other 1.75
 
The_Animus said:
Perhaps they do provide $9/hr of value but they are only compensated 7.25 and someone higher up in the company gets that other 1.75
Click to expand...

If I can get people to deliver $9 of value for $7.25 then I deserve at least part of that $1.75.
 
s d-a-l: you said "Of course, if we didn't have welfare, alot of those people would decide that it was time for them to get to work and the productivity of the country would increase."
This implies that they choose not to work now. I'm not sure why you feel it's a derail to point that out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom