Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I do love Chipotle's food. But their perpetration of falsehoods regarding food production is something I don't like. Half of the things their wrappers claim other places do are false or actually illegal(and thus haven't been done for decades)

What do you expect of a company that was at one point a subsidiary of McD's???

Don't get me wrong, I love their food too... I could care less about the "organic, free range rice" that they use or whatever other crap they say.

For me, it's

Flour tortilla
chicken
steak (double meat... and yes, it costs extra)
black beans
white rice
cheese
sour cream




We don't need none of that green crap... the cows and chickens ate that before I ate them

Relapse wrote:

My experience covers almost a decade of Job Instruction and Job Relations training.

So you're an unreliable narrator.

Relapse wrote:

The only reason the data seems sympathetic to my cause is because it reflects truth.

What data? All you have presented are anecdotes.

Relapse wrote:

If you want a number put to "as a rule", up to 80% of a businesses problems can be solved with proper training and employee development.

Piece of advice: don't use a round number if you want people who haven't already bought into the concept you're selling to believe you. Use a number like...83%.

Relapse wrote:

The data came from over 16,000 factories that were polled by the Training Within Industry service post WW2, and it holds true to this day.

So why is it "...up to 80%..." and not just 80%?

 Psienesis wrote:
Beginning in April, the city of Seattle begins its transition to a minimum wage of $15 per hour. Businesses have seven years to come into compliance with that over a series of staged pay-bumps.

Recently, the Seattle Weekly published an article, which has circulated through some conservative circles as proof that raising the minimum wage is damaging to business.

http://www.seattlemag.com/article/why-are-so-many-seattle-restaurants-closing-lately

However, the Seattle Times reached out to the owners of the businesses reportedly closing over the minimum wage hike, and found that, in every case, the increase of the minimum wage had absolutely nothing to do with the closures (and, in one case, the business was sold to a friend of the owner who plans to reopen it under a new name).

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/truth-needle-is-15-wage-dooming-seattle-restaurants-owners-say-no/

A livable wage hurts nobodies' interests, unless your interests are in keeping poor people on slave wages (in which case, feth you.).

So, here's what we know.

a.) Seattle is raising the min wage.
b.) Seattle is doing this gradually, so as to accommodate changes employers will have to make.
c.) They haven't even STARTED to bump the pay up yet.
d.) Buisinesses that haven't even started to raise their wages, are going out of business anyways. So naturally this does not have anything to do with their closing.

And you conclude what I've put in bold off of that. You have no basis for that statement. There are no results of this wage hike to interpret yet, and somehow you've drawn such a definitive and simultaneously weak conclusion. That is pretty ______. I'll let the reader fill in the blank.

You've presented an opinion with no substantiating details. Whoops. Try again in about 7 years.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
We don't need none of that green crap... the cows and chickens ate that before I ate them

You're just eating concentrated veggies

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
We don't need none of that green crap... the cows and chickens ate that before I ate them

You're just eating concentrated veggies

Ohh.... that's a good one

VanHallan wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Beginning in April, the city of Seattle begins its transition to a minimum wage of $15 per hour. Businesses have seven years to come into compliance with that over a series of staged pay-bumps.

Recently, the Seattle Weekly published an article, which has circulated through some conservative circles as proof that raising the minimum wage is damaging to business.

http://www.seattlemag.com/article/why-are-so-many-seattle-restaurants-closing-lately

However, the Seattle Times reached out to the owners of the businesses reportedly closing over the minimum wage hike, and found that, in every case, the increase of the minimum wage had absolutely nothing to do with the closures (and, in one case, the business was sold to a friend of the owner who plans to reopen it under a new name).

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/truth-needle-is-15-wage-dooming-seattle-restaurants-owners-say-no/

A livable wage hurts nobodies' interests, unless your interests are in keeping poor people on slave wages (in which case, feth you.).

So, here's what we know.

a.) Seattle is raising the min wage.
b.) Seattle is doing this gradually, so as to accommodate changes employers will have to make.
c.) They haven't even STARTED to bump the pay up yet.
d.) Buisinesses that haven't even started to raise their wages, are going out of business anyways. So naturally this does not have anything to do with their closing.

And you conclude what I've put in bold off of that. You have no basis for that statement. There are no results of this wage hike to interpret yet, and somehow you've drawn such a definitive and simultaneously weak conclusion. That is pretty ______. I'll let the reader fill in the blank.

You've presented an opinion with no substantiating details. Whoops. Try again in about 7 years.

Do you have any evidence that a livable wage hurts anyone? Any at all? Anyone that isn't a slavery-supporting douchebag, that is.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You're just eating concentrated veggies

I thought Nutrilite held that copyright.

Chipotle is the McDonalds of burrito-restaurants.

Everyone who's posted on the last two pages deserves a slap.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Chipotle is the McDonalds of burrito-restaurants.

Everyone who's posted on the last two pages deserves a slap.

Hey someone on this board mentioned Torchies Tacos...REMEMBER!!!
Brought to you by people with more tattoos and metal in their face than you!
http://torchystacos.com/

 Frazzled wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Chipotle is the McDonalds of burrito-restaurants.

Everyone who's posted on the last two pages deserves a slap.

Hey someone on this board mentioned Torchies Tacos...REMEMBER!!!
Brought to you by people with more tattoos and metal in their face than you!
http://torchystacos.com/

Dude... that might actually be better than Q'doba!

Guys... never mess with Mexican food if it's in Texas (or California).

 Psienesis wrote:

VanHallan wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Beginning in April, the city of Seattle begins its transition to a minimum wage of $15 per hour. Businesses have seven years to come into compliance with that over a series of staged pay-bumps.

Recently, the Seattle Weekly published an article, which has circulated through some conservative circles as proof that raising the minimum wage is damaging to business.

http://www.seattlemag.com/article/why-are-so-many-seattle-restaurants-closing-lately

However, the Seattle Times reached out to the owners of the businesses reportedly closing over the minimum wage hike, and found that, in every case, the increase of the minimum wage had absolutely nothing to do with the closures (and, in one case, the business was sold to a friend of the owner who plans to reopen it under a new name).

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/truth-needle-is-15-wage-dooming-seattle-restaurants-owners-say-no/

A livable wage hurts nobodies' interests, unless your interests are in keeping poor people on slave wages (in which case, feth you.).

So, here's what we know.

a.) Seattle is raising the min wage.
b.) Seattle is doing this gradually, so as to accommodate changes employers will have to make.
c.) They haven't even STARTED to bump the pay up yet.
d.) Buisinesses that haven't even started to raise their wages, are going out of business anyways. So naturally this does not have anything to do with their closing.

And you conclude what I've put in bold off of that. You have no basis for that statement. There are no results of this wage hike to interpret yet, and somehow you've drawn such a definitive and simultaneously weak conclusion. That is pretty ______. I'll let the reader fill in the blank.

You've presented an opinion with no substantiating details. Whoops. Try again in about 7 years.

Do you have any evidence that a livable wage hurts anyone? Any at all? Anyone that isn't a slavery-supporting douchebag, that is.

LMFAO

How in the world can you possibly equate somebody who willfully accepted a paying job to a slave? I've held a few minimum wage jobs over the years and while they weren't always fun they sure weren't anything remotely like slavery. Nobody ever sold off members of my family to another company, none of my supervisors brutalized or maimed me over infractions real or imagined, I got paid every two weeks and I could quit at any time. Not exactly Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Starting April 1 workers in Seattle that earn minimum wage will be making at least $10/hr or $11/hr depending on the type of employer and employee. The current minimum wage for Washington state is $9.47. Does the extra $0.53 or $1.53 now make it a "living wage" in your opinion? If making the minimum wage $15/hr fixes whatever problems you feel are caused by having minimum wage only be $9.47 then why spend 7 years slowly increasing it? Why not raise it immediately? Why not raise it to $20/hr?

 Bookwrack wrote:
And yet companies keep doing it because it provides good looking savings on paper.

 Bullockist wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 sebster wrote:


"Worth" is, of course, highly also subjective. There was an idea, from way back in the early days of economics, that wages for a job will move to it's natural marginal value, that it's value can be determined naturally by economic forces. That idea is about three or four generations dead by now, as we've learned that's a nice theory and it helps explain very broad concepts, but in terms of any specifics it's absolutely dwarfed by relative bargaining power and cultural values. Remove the minimum wage and you add the potential for exploitation in to that, and then there's real trouble.

I mean, people are already declining to take jobs they believe are 'beneath' them. We see it all the time. I completely agree that "worth" is subjective, and on two fronts:

1. How much does a business decide a particular job is "worth."
2. Are there individuals willing to accept that job at that "worth."

HSM proposed that, without a minimum wage, people would be working for pennies a day. I think that's a ridiculous notion.

A business is going to pay as little as possible for the job they need done. People that need employment are going to weigh whether what said business is offering is worth their time. No one, in 2015 America, is going to work for pennies a day. As such, businesses cannot pay pennies a day, because there would be no demand for a job that paid pennies day. From there, businesses will continue to raise that wage until someone is willing to take that job. At that point is the correct wage for said job. It doesn't need a minimum wage to artificially drive it.

I've never been in the workforce without a minimum wage. I can tell you though, higher minimum wage is BETTER for everyone. Those who end up making minimum wage end up spending their entire paycheck anyways whether its 10$ or 15$ an hour pay rate. I't comes right back to businesses. A dude that used to snuff at 5 dollar coffee might try or start frequenting Starbucks because hes got some bills in his pocket. Same can be said about everything. People with money are more likely to spend it. It's better for everyone. Eventually everyone wages go up as a result because businesses are selling more product. WIN WIN really.

This, a more powerful lower wage creates more spending in the economy, yeah i get that it is offset by inflation,lower class/lower middle class having a slight raising of pay adds far more to an econmy than tax breaks to the rich. the profusion of GST proves this.

And really, the inflation number that goes with the raising of minimum wage is about 30% of the raise, so that means they're still coming out ahead.

If raising minimum wage increases prices and inflation that inflation only eats up 30% of minimum wage employees' raise then going with the higher increase of $1.53 (from the $11/hr employee) they are going to get an extra $1.07/hr of disposable income. That's $8.56 per working day, $42.80/week.

If that increase in minimum wage would enable workers to spend and extra $6.11/day at Starbucks how is that worker any better off? If they spend all of their raise at Starbucks all you've done is kept them at the same old minimum wage of $9.47/hr plus a cup of coffee per day. How does a cup of coffee make the minimum wage worker any less exploited or impoverished?

How many minimum wage employees have to spend their $42.80/week at a local Starbucks in order to create one new (minimum wage) job at that Starbucks? At $11/hr a full time minimum wage employee earns $22,000/yr gross. Factor in that Starbucks also has to pay benefits to a full time employee and that makes the total compensation cost to Starbucks as what? $30,000? $35,000? For arguments sake we'll go with $32,000. Of course Starbucks wouldn't hire another barrista just to eat up all of the increased revenue from additional coffee purchases so it would take a greater increase to ensure that Starbucks would still see an increase in profit after another hire. So that's more like $42,000. That would require that the local Starbucks see an additonal $807.69/week in coffee purchases. That would require 19 minimum wage employees spending their entire $42.80/wk increase at the same Starbucks every week in order to create 1 more minimum wage job. And again, that leaves those employees with their same earnings as before Seattle's increase, but with an extra cup of coffee.

In that scenario the minimum wage increase hasn't helped those employees at all. All it's done is make Starbucks more money. Instead of helping workers it's just more corporate welfare.

So a couple points that I don't think have been brought up yet regarding a living minimum wage and robotics.

1.) The only reason workers accept being paid a non-living wage is because we subsidize their wages through social welfare programs. Companies couldn't find workers for 7.50 an hour if it weren't for the fact that said workers can make up for the shortfall in earnings by accessing foodstamps, subsidized housing, and subsidized transportation. Companies are essentially taking advantage of this because they know people can live on the combination of the petty wages and government welfare programs.

2.) On a macro scale companies do suffer when they have high turnover rates due to people quitting or being fired, but the justification for the treating of workers as disposable is because on a micro scale your boss wants someone who does what he says when he says it, regardless of how it affects the employee. They're willing to eat that hundred or two hundred dollars of lost revenue in training fees for the power the constant threat of quick and easy replacement has over their employees.

3.) The thing that would stop people from Guillotining the person who owns all of the automated robots is if their technology is advanced enough to fully automate the gathering, processing, and manufacturing industries it's advanced enough to make robotic police/soldiers. The only reason popular revolutions win is because the people doing the heavy lifting of a regime are just that, people. Robots won't have any reticence about firing into a crowd, or killing anyone and everyone who they are told to. You can't appeal to their common humanity.

4.) Eventually we will have to either adopt some form of universal stipend on which people live or augment their incomes. General purpose robotics is going to absolutely devastate darn near all blue collar jobs, and likely a large proportion of white collar professions as well. The two ways that can go are the Elysium route or the Proto-Star Trek route. There isn't much room for a middle ground.

Personally I believe we're going to end up with Elysium, the reasons for which being that our democratic institutions are structured in a way that benefits people who can afford to make large "campaign donations" over average people. On top of that, the people don't actually control the actions of their politicians once they are in office, nor do they actually get to vote directly on matters. They have to rely on a representative who is just begging to be influenced by those willing to put personal interests above the interests of their constituents. But I'm getting off topic so I'll leave it at that.

Most minimum wage jobs require almost no training, there isn't much expense associated with hiring a new employee. $100-200 seems rediculously high.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Most minimum wage jobs require almost no training, there isn't much expense associated with hiring a new employee. $100-200 seems rediculously high.

I had this conversation with Dogma about costs associated with training and development. It can surprise you if you're not familiar with the subject about how much training costs, one way or the other.

I know for some jobs it can be expensive, but not for jobs like burgerflipping or bagging groceries. You watch a 30 minute safety video, spend some time with another employee, and you are ready.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I know for some jobs it can be expensive, but not for jobs like burgerflipping or bagging groceries. You watch a 30 minute safety video, spend some time with another employee, and you are ready.

There's quite a bit more to it than that, though, if you want employees that can see and fix gaps in the system that allow things like wrong orders, poorly cooked food, unsanitary facilities, or groceries bagged that damage other product. These things can be what causes bad word of mouth for a business that turn away potential customers, costing a business profit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

My experience covers almost a decade of Job Instruction and Job Relations training.

So you're an unreliable narrator.

Relapse wrote:

The only reason the data seems sympathetic to my cause is because it reflects truth.

What data? All you have presented are anecdotes.

Relapse wrote:

If you want a number put to "as a rule", up to 80% of a businesses problems can be solved with proper training and employee development.

Piece of advice: don't use a round number if you want people who haven't already bought into the concept you're selling to believe you. Use a number like...83%.

Relapse wrote:

The data came from over 16,000 factories that were polled by the Training Within Industry service post WW2, and it holds true to this day.

So why is it "...up to 80%..." and not just 80%?

Long story short, you have your opinions with nothing to back them and no amount of data or professional qualification is going to convince you.

Prestor Jon wrote:

If raising minimum wage increases prices and inflation that inflation only eats up 30% of minimum wage employees' raise then going with the higher increase of $1.53 (from the $11/hr employee) they are going to get an extra $1.07/hr of disposable income. That's $8.56 per working day, $42.80/week.

If that increase in minimum wage would enable workers to spend and extra $6.11/day at Starbucks how is that worker any better off? If they spend all of their raise at Starbucks all you've done is kept them at the same old minimum wage of $9.47/hr plus a cup of coffee per day. How does a cup of coffee make the minimum wage worker any less exploited or impoverished?

How many minimum wage employees have to spend their $42.80/week at a local Starbucks in order to create one new (minimum wage) job at that Starbucks? At $11/hr a full time minimum wage employee earns $22,000/yr gross. Factor in that Starbucks also has to pay benefits to a full time employee and that makes the total compensation cost to Starbucks as what? $30,000? $35,000? For arguments sake we'll go with $32,000. Of course Starbucks wouldn't hire another barrista just to eat up all of the increased revenue from additional coffee purchases so it would take a greater increase to ensure that Starbucks would still see an increase in profit after another hire. So that's more like $42,000. That would require that the local Starbucks see an additonal $807.69/week in coffee purchases. That would require 19 minimum wage employees spending their entire $42.80/wk increase at the same Starbucks every week in order to create 1 more minimum wage job. And again, that leaves those employees with their same earnings as before Seattle's increase, but with an extra cup of coffee.

In that scenario the minimum wage increase hasn't helped those employees at all. All it's done is make Starbucks more money. Instead of helping workers it's just more corporate welfare.

Although the post you responded to used SB as an example, this is a bit farfetched. A househould struggling to make ends meet is not going to spend all, or even a significant amount of its increased wages on a luxury item like Starbucks except once in a blue moon (well, not if they have any brains); they'll spend it on other more useful items like food, or that car repair that needed doing for the past forever, or even not spend much more but start saving a little for a bigger investment into a new car somewhere down the line.
I daresay though that people on current minimum wages can't afford to not spend the little bit extra on things that they've needed for quite some time now but never had the money for. And that's the point. Everything that these people now make extra gets pumped back into the economy because they can't afford not to, and while the employer might not see a direct benefit, other businesses will, in turn causing the economy as a whole to grow. This has in theory been the driving force behind an economy for, well, forever. As long as the money keeps being pumped around, all will (eventually) be well. Unless of course this extra money is put into circulation once, and then hoarded upwards through corporate profits into the pockets of shareholders who then sit on it forever as the leeches that they are.

Bran Dawri wrote:


Although the post you responded to used SB as an example, this is a bit farfetched. A househould struggling to make ends meet is not going to spend all, or even a significant amount of its increased wages on a luxury item like Starbucks except once in a blue moon (well, not if they have any brains); they'll spend it on other more useful items like food, or that car repair that needed doing for the past forever, or even not spend much more but start saving a little for a bigger investment into a new car somewhere down the line.
I daresay though that people on current minimum wages can't afford to not spend the little bit extra on things that they've needed for quite some time now but never had the money for. And that's the point. Everything that these people now make extra gets pumped back into the economy because they can't afford not to, and while the employer might not see a direct benefit, other businesses will, in turn causing the economy as a whole to grow. This has in theory been the driving force behind an economy for, well, forever. As long as the money keeps being pumped around, all will (eventually) be well. Unless of course this extra money is put into circulation once, and then hoarded upwards through corporate profits into the pockets of shareholders who then sit on it forever as the leeches that they are.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that we can see, repeatedly, especially around tax season that people who are in that situation would, by your own words "not have any brains"... if they get extra money, it'll instantly go to that new TV or new video game, new wheels for the hoopty car that needs all kind of engine work, etc.

The difference there, for most, is that it is a big lump-sum of money once a year. Having an extra $50 a paycheck is different than getting a big tax return.

Falling gas prices are a good example right now: The average money effectively had X more money to spend a month since gas was cheaper (for us it was around $150 a month). Now some probably blew the money on frivolous things. But for others it became money spend on groceries, bills, and debt.

And truly, even frivilous things like "rims" is money that is spend in the community and goes to the business owner and his employees, the driver delivering the rims to the store, the gas station where the delivery driver purchased his coffee, etc.

Or do people not believe in trickle down economics anymore?

 d-usa wrote:
The difference there, for most, is that it is a big lump-sum of money once a year. Having an extra $50 a paycheck is different than getting a big tax return.

Falling gas prices are a good example right now: The average money effectively had X more money to spend a month since gas was cheaper (for us it was around $150 a month). Now some probably blew the money on frivolous things. But for others it became money spend on groceries, bills, and debt.

And truly, even frivilous things like "rims" is money that is spend in the community and goes to the business owner and his employees, the driver delivering the rims to the store, the gas station where the delivery driver purchased his coffee, etc.

Or do people not believe in trickle down economics anymore?

Our economy is based on consumer consumption that's inarguable. The issue that I have with the minimum wage debate is proposed solution doesn't alleviate the articulated problems.

Seattle's legislation only gives minimum wage earners an increase of $1.53 at best and $0.53 at worst starting April 1. What problems faced by minimum wage workers are going to solved because starting in april they'll have an additional $42/wk in gross pay? How much are they going to net every two weeks on payday? $65? That's not going to make them financially solvent or qualified to move on to a better job.

The problem goes beyond just giving people slightly more money. What kind of jobs are created in a consumer consumption based economy? Automation and globalization are already having a dramatic impact on our economy and both factors are only going to exert more pressure in the future. Faced with the downward pressure of automation and globalization how does making labor more expensive create more jobs? Higher labor costs creates incentives for outsourcing and automation of jobs (which are already becoming cheaper alternatives thanks to inevitable technological progress).

Increasing minimum wage can make living on minimum wage slightly more comfortable and create an increase in consumption but isn't going to create a greater abundance of better jobs or help the people "trapped" in minimum wage jobs to land those better jobs. All it does is try to maintain a status quo that can't be maintained, putting off the kind of real changes that need to be made in the name of political expediency.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Seattle's legislation only gives minimum wage earners an increase of $1.53 at best and $0.53 at worst starting April 1. What problems faced by minimum wage workers are going to solved because starting in april they'll have an additional $42/wk in gross pay?

There's also that little bit where, Im sure Washington will find some way to tax you an additional 1.80 when the new increase kicks in (seriously, this state will nickel and dime you every chance they fething get)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Seattle's legislation only gives minimum wage earners an increase of $1.53 at best and $0.53 at worst starting April 1. What problems faced by minimum wage workers are going to solved because starting in april they'll have an additional $42/wk in gross pay?

There's also that little bit where, Im sure Washington will find some way to tax you an additional 1.80 when the new increase kicks in (seriously, this state will nickel and dime you every chance they fething get)

That's just another example of how govt solutions tend to not really solve the problem at all. If you increase your earnings the govt will reduce or remove your assistance, increase your taxes and leave you worse off than you were before. Incentivizing people to avoid being productive isn't a good thing.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Most minimum wage jobs require almost no training, there isn't much expense associated with hiring a new employee. $100-200 seems rediculously high.

The training costs I used are associated with the first day or two of work for the new hire, in which they watch that training and safety videos and generally aren't very productive. On top of that there is the pay of the employee who is training them instead of doing their own job to their full capacity, and finally there is almost always some kind of product waste associated with a new hire as they are probably going to screw up once or twice or possibly more before they get into the swing of things. It all adds up.

Relapse wrote:

Long story short, you have your opinions with nothing to back them and no amount of data or professional qualification is going to convince you.

A well constructed data set would convince me. Unfortunately you don't have that as it is pretty much impossible to create one that spans multiple employers.

As to professional qualifications: no, they won't convince me. In fact leaning on them would make me more reluctant to trust your opinion.

 Ratbarf wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Most minimum wage jobs require almost no training, there isn't much expense associated with hiring a new employee. $100-200 seems rediculously high.

The training costs I used are associated with the first day or two of work for the new hire, in which they watch that training and safety videos and generally aren't very productive. On top of that there is the pay of the employee who is training them instead of doing their own job to their full capacity, and finally there is almost always some kind of product waste associated with a new hire as they are probably going to screw up once or twice or possibly more before they get into the swing of things. It all adds up.

Even in a scenario like that, its still cheaper to hire someone new than pay someone more. The cost of training isn't significant enough to warrant serious employee retention procedures.

Prestor Jon wrote:
All it does is try to maintain a status quo that can't be maintained, putting off the kind of real changes that need to be made in the name of political expediency.

Which are?

 Grey Templar wrote:

Even in a scenario like that, its still cheaper to hire someone new than pay someone more. The cost of training isn't significant enough to warrant serious employee retention procedures.

That will vary according to the business in question, but generally you're correct; at least in any major metro area.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Long story short, you have your opinions with nothing to back them and no amount of data or professional qualification is going to convince you.

A well constructed data set would convince me. Unfortunately you don't have that as it is pretty much impossible to create one that spans multiple employers.

As to professional qualifications: no, they won't convince me. In fact leaning on them would make me more reluctant to trust your opinion.

You still haven't shown any data to support your position, just your anecdotal reminiscences.

Another article about training, with data compiled from 2500 companies:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emad-rizkalla/not-investing-in-employee_b_5545222.html

From data compiled by the government post WW 2 from 600 companies:

http://www.twi-institute.com/training-within-industry/about-twi/history/

Relapse wrote:

You still haven't shown any data to support your position, just your anecdotal reminiscences.

Then we're on a level playing field.

Relapse wrote:

Another article about training, with data compiled from 2500 companies:

That article doesn't link to the ASTD data which it is citing, and you are referring to.

Relapse wrote:

From data compiled by the government post WW 2 from 600 companies:

TWI Institute is clearly trying to sell itself by leveraging Rosie the Riveter, despite not being responsible for any war production. Bonus points for obviously rounded statistics.

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
All it does is try to maintain a status quo that can't be maintained, putting off the kind of real changes that need to be made in the name of political expediency.

Which are?

I freely admit that I don't have all the information needed, the time to analyze it to come up with a definitive positive solution.

I do think it would be good start to evaluate our current economic, education and labor policies and culture. Are the jobs we value highest and push our children to seek and build our public and higher education systems around the right jobs? I think we should be promoting and incentivizing the well paid blue collar jobs that are necessary to maintain the infrastructure our society is built on. Those are the jobs that are the least likely to be outsourced or automated. We've moved away from manufacturing for decades and automation and globalization aren't going to let us bring those jobs back. Service sector and retail jobs are always going to be predominantly low paying or minimum wage jobs and those jobs will continue to decrease in number. Technology will always eliminate jobs, that's the impetus behind technology, increasing productivity.

Predicting the future is extremely difficult and we shouldn't let the govt push one narrow solution instead of a diverse plan. The world has changed and will continue to change. Govts are deliberately slow at responding to change so we need to make sure govt allows the private sector to be dynamic and innovative without leaving workers too vulnerable. I can't anticipate where new jobs will come from in the future but I know it's futile for govt to try to postpone the inevitable.

Increasing minimum wage will benefit those that hold minimum wage jobs and keep them but only in the near term. The longterm outlook for minimum wage jobs that only require basic skills, when the govt artificially inflates the cost of the labor to do them, is bleak. Those jobs will go away as cheaper alternatives for employers become more plentiful and viable. If we don't start planning for that inevitability now its only going to increase the societal pain felt when that future arrives.