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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:
I question all polls.

I don't even know where to start with this one other than I'm not surprised in the least bit.

I mean, someone posts a reputable poll that proves your statement wrong, you counter it with the claim that you question all polls, you follow that claim up with an article filled with polls in an attempt to back up your original claim, said article is filled with polls that prove you wrong.

posted for the article, not the polls, even polls that support I question unless it is like Government data polls where all data is gathered, not just a random sampling of people called.

Asterios wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:
I question all polls.

I don't even know where to start with this one other than I'm not surprised in the least bit.

I mean, someone posts a reputable poll that proves your statement wrong, you counter it with the claim that you question all polls, you follow that claim up with an article filled with polls in an attempt to back up your original claim, said article is filled with polls that prove you wrong.

posted for the article, not the polls, even polls that support I question unless it is like Government data polls where all data is gathered, not just a random sampling of people called.

Just stop, you aren't helping your case by moving goalposts.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:
I question all polls.

I don't even know where to start with this one other than I'm not surprised in the least bit.

I mean, someone posts a reputable poll that proves your statement wrong, you counter it with the claim that you question all polls, you follow that claim up with an article filled with polls in an attempt to back up your original claim, said article is filled with polls that prove you wrong.

posted for the article, not the polls, even polls that support I question unless it is like Government data polls where all data is gathered, not just a random sampling of people called.

Just stop, you aren't helping your case by moving goalposts.

goal post still the same its just you moving them trying to instigate things, which is why I shall now place you on ignore, since you seem happy to just Troll me.

Asterios wrote:
goal post still the same

Dude, do you even read the stuff you type?

its just you moving them trying to instigate things

Oh goodness, I love it when people tell you that you're moving goalposts and then you tell them that you aren't but they are. This has happened numerous times from plenty of other posters and the end is always the same and I really think you don't seem to understand what "moving the goalposts" means.

which is why I shall now place you on ignore, since you seem happy to just Troll me.

No, I'm calling you out on your endless parade of nonsense. Don't get upset just because you're wrong.

Further discussion of a user's personal belief in polls is getting off topic. Perhaps it is best to place people who toe the line of the rules but don't quite cross them on ignore so you don't have to worry about it anymore and risk getting dragged into rude/off topic discussions

If the official moderator policy toward a user is 'everyone should put them on ignore', isn't that tantamount to banning them?

Anyway! This is good news, so far as I'm concerned. Nice to see the Democrats starting to align so we can get more non-Trump-crazypants policy news.

 Spinner wrote:
Anyway! This is good news, so far as I'm concerned. Nice to see the Democrats starting to align so we can get more non-Trump-crazypants policy news.

Personally, I'd love to see them get on board with some of the ideas that people like Nick Hanauer have. While adopting a party line of $15/hr is a step in that direction, it's only one step, and will be devoid of any meaning without other policy changes.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Unions are satanic. Anything that gives workers bargaining power is anti-capitalist, and if you don't like your working conditions you need to just quit and go find a better job in our not-at-all saturated job market.

*meh*

Private Union shops are fine.

It's the public sector unions that same can be pretty bad.

 whembly wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Unions are satanic. Anything that gives workers bargaining power is anti-capitalist, and if you don't like your working conditions you need to just quit and go find a better job in our not-at-all saturated job market.

*meh*

Private Union shops are fine.

It's the public sector unions that same can be pretty bad.

Agreed. Private sector unions are fine but it's wrong for public sector employees to unionize, even Democrats like FDR were against govt unions. Personally I think private sector unions should be more restricted in size because the biggest (private) unions often all have the same problem of trying to represent too many workers in too many different locations and situations to really have a united stance on labor issues. That's when unions become more about political influence than addressing specific grievances.

 whembly wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Unions are satanic. Anything that gives workers bargaining power is anti-capitalist, and if you don't like your working conditions you need to just quit and go find a better job in our not-at-all saturated job market.

*meh*

Private Union shops are fine.

It's the public sector unions that same can be pretty bad.

Amen!

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
personally i think minimum wage should be handled at a smaller level like city level since they have a better understanding of what their community can handle.

The problem is that then you completely remove any incentive to increase minimum wage. It's just like what we see with towns giving huge tax breaks to attract businesses and vague promises of "creating jobs", if you don't bid all the way to "we won't ever make you pay taxes for the rest of eternity" then that new factory or whatever goes to the town that did. If you let minimum wage be a local thing then you'll get a bunch of towns setting it as low as possible, regardless of whether or not it's enough to live on, in a desperate attempt to keep themselves an option for new businesses. The only way to avoid this problem is to set the minimum wage at a higher level of government so that everyone plays by the same rules and there's no bidding war.

You just summed up why we see sectors like manufacturing get moved offshore and never come back. It will always be cheaper to run factories in countries that have different/weaker/nonexistent labor laws.

The more expensive govt makes labor the higher the barrier to entry into the workforce. The more protectionist the govt behaves towards labor the more it incentivizes illegal labor.

If we're going to have a federal minimum wage it was due for an increase, just due to inflation if for no other reason. However the issues plaguing our workforce, labor policy and economy are more numerous and complex than can be solved by a higher minimum wage. Minimum wage can be characterized in an overly simplified manner with exaggerated impact/importance. That's why politicians like to talk about, it can be perceived by voters as a panacea but it really doesn't address the root causes.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
personally i think minimum wage should be handled at a smaller level like city level since they have a better understanding of what their community can handle.

The problem is that then you completely remove any incentive to increase minimum wage. It's just like what we see with towns giving huge tax breaks to attract businesses and vague promises of "creating jobs", if you don't bid all the way to "we won't ever make you pay taxes for the rest of eternity" then that new factory or whatever goes to the town that did. If you let minimum wage be a local thing then you'll get a bunch of towns setting it as low as possible, regardless of whether or not it's enough to live on, in a desperate attempt to keep themselves an option for new businesses. The only way to avoid this problem is to set the minimum wage at a higher level of government so that everyone plays by the same rules and there's no bidding war.

You just summed up why we see sectors like manufacturing get moved offshore and never come back. It will always be cheaper to run factories in countries that have different/weaker/nonexistent labor laws.

The more expensive govt makes labor the higher the barrier to entry into the workforce. The more protectionist the govt behaves towards labor the more it incentivizes illegal labor.

If we're going to have a federal minimum wage it was due for an increase, just due to inflation if for no other reason. However the issues plaguing our workforce, labor policy and economy are more numerous and complex than can be solved by a higher minimum wage. Minimum wage can be characterized in an overly simplified manner with exaggerated impact/importance. That's why politicians like to talk about, it can be perceived by voters as a panacea but it really doesn't address the root causes.

what we as a country need to do is make it not so cheap for companies to go overseas, make it more costly for them, problem is the TPP kind of screwed that.

Asterios wrote:
what we as a country need to do is make it not so cheap for companies to go overseas, make it more costly for them, problem is the TPP kind of screwed that.

No, that doesn't work on a whole lot of levels. First up TPP hasn't cost anyone a job because it hasn't been signed in to law.

Second up, TPP isn't even much of a trade deal, there's very little in it about removing trade protections, for the simple reason that almost all trade protections are already gone. TPP is mostly about establishing consistent business laws on things like IP.

Thirdly, people somehow only understand trade deals in terms of other countries getting to sell in to your country, they never understand that it also makes your country more able to sell goods in to their country. The trade deals that have seen low end manufacturers to relocate to Vietnam or wherever else and then sell goods back in to the US are the same deals that have allowed the US to sell their own goods, whether its aircraft or financial services, in to markets in the rest of the world. And losing those low skill textile jobs might suck for low skilled workers, but when it allows Boeing to expand and offer more high skilled jobs, well then the benefit to the US as a whole should be very obvious.

And because it really needs to be said again and again until people finally understand it - the loss of jobs in US manufacturing isn't because those jobs have been taken by foreigners. It's because they've been taken by machines. The US manufactures more than ever - but it has many less jobs in manufacturing because of automation.

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
what we as a country need to do is make it not so cheap for companies to go overseas, make it more costly for them, problem is the TPP kind of screwed that.

No, that doesn't work on a whole lot of levels. First up TPP hasn't cost anyone a job because it hasn't been signed in to law.

Second up, TPP isn't even much of a trade deal, there's very little in it about removing trade protections, for the simple reason that almost all trade protections are already gone. TPP is mostly about establishing consistent business laws on things like IP.

Thirdly, people somehow only understand trade deals in terms of other countries getting to sell in to your country, they never understand that it also makes your country more able to sell goods in to their country. The trade deals that have seen low end manufacturers to relocate to Vietnam or wherever else and then sell goods back in to the US are the same deals that have allowed the US to sell their own goods, whether its aircraft or financial services, in to markets in the rest of the world. And losing those low skill textile jobs might suck for low skilled workers, but when it allows Boeing to expand and offer more high skilled jobs, well then the benefit to the US as a whole should be very obvious.

And because it really needs to be said again and again until people finally understand it - the loss of jobs in US manufacturing isn't because those jobs have been taken by foreigners. It's because they've been taken by machines. The US manufactures more than ever - but it has many less jobs in manufacturing because of automation.

well several fast food industries are about to remove frontline help with self help order kiosk's like Wendy's and Carl's Jr along with others.

Asterios wrote:
well several fast food industries are about to remove frontline help with self help order kiosk's like Wendy's and Carl's Jr along with others.

Yep. It's not the Chinese, it's the robots.

 sebster wrote:
The US manufactures more than ever - but it has many less jobs in manufacturing because of automation.

To emphasis this;



The US is still one of the world's leading manufacturers (I'm pretty sure China overtook America as #1 in 2014).

Asterios wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
what we as a country need to do is make it not so cheap for companies to go overseas, make it more costly for them, problem is the TPP kind of screwed that.

No, that doesn't work on a whole lot of levels. First up TPP hasn't cost anyone a job because it hasn't been signed in to law.

Second up, TPP isn't even much of a trade deal, there's very little in it about removing trade protections, for the simple reason that almost all trade protections are already gone. TPP is mostly about establishing consistent business laws on things like IP.

Thirdly, people somehow only understand trade deals in terms of other countries getting to sell in to your country, they never understand that it also makes your country more able to sell goods in to their country. The trade deals that have seen low end manufacturers to relocate to Vietnam or wherever else and then sell goods back in to the US are the same deals that have allowed the US to sell their own goods, whether its aircraft or financial services, in to markets in the rest of the world. And losing those low skill textile jobs might suck for low skilled workers, but when it allows Boeing to expand and offer more high skilled jobs, well then the benefit to the US as a whole should be very obvious.

And because it really needs to be said again and again until people finally understand it - the loss of jobs in US manufacturing isn't because those jobs have been taken by foreigners. It's because they've been taken by machines. The US manufactures more than ever - but it has many less jobs in manufacturing because of automation.

well several fast food industries are about to remove frontline help with self help order kiosk's like Wendy's and Carl's Jr along with others.

Inevitable, no news here.

The effect of minimum wage increase in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36760387

National Living Wage has not led to job losses as employers have preferred to increase prices or take lower profits rather than lay off workers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
... as employers have preferred to increase prices or take lower profits rather than lay off workers.

I can promise you that American corporations have next to zero problems laying off workers to cut costs. I live that experience.

Neither do UK corporations, thanks to the Conservatives reducing workers' rights.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
... as employers have preferred to increase prices or take lower profits rather than lay off workers.

I can promise you that American corporations have next to zero problems laying off workers to cut costs. I live that experience.

I would have thought that too, but Walmart chose to raise all employees from minimum wage to a mandatory $10.



Walmart's doing fine. Though I'd argue the success of Costco and Sam's Club in the long run might put Walmart in a similar position to Sears at some point. By that I mean that the former company's market model is more sustainable, and profitable than the later's.

I don't know why debates about minimum wage became this bizarre zero sum game. Companies can't just lay off workers willy nilly. They have work that has to be done. Minimum wage increases won't eliminate any need for labor. Company's already try to keep their workforce costs down. If minimum wage went up, they'd definitely shave jobs, but it's not the end of the world and in the long run the trends in the rest of the world show that the job market recovers. I think $15 is too high, even if phased in over time. $11-13 is far more reasonable. At least at that level, single adults in most parts of the US will probably be able to meet all their basic needs, and have some money left over to do some basic consuming.

Market forces already force many companies to pay more than minimum wage for a number of factors. They're not all blind to cost of living, and wage competition is a real thing. With a minimum wage somewhere around $10, you'd probably end up with most workers in reality earning $15 (EDIT: eh, that's optimistic, probably closer to $12-$14 depending on region) an hour anyway.

I've always wondered what the absolute breaking point is for fast food when automation becomes the more attractive option. It's not like the workers are paid much to begin with. It isn't like the high costs of unionized manufacturing.

I think it is time we all faced facts:

Oxford University researchers have estimated that 47 percent of U.S. jobs could be automated within the next two decades. And if even half that number is closer to the mark, workers are in for a rude awakening.

http://www.wired.com/brandlab/2015/04/rise-machines-future-lots-robots-jobs-humans/

Plus, these robots are getting much better at white-collar style jobs now too. The economy of the future will be nothing like the one we had 50 years ago, the 90's, or even today.

Sadly, the trend in automation will evolve and revolutionize labor much faster than social norms and labor laws will. This is a recipe for social unrest and a greater divide between Have and Have-not.

Should be a fun couple decades as these trends start to materialize to a point where they can no longer be ignored. This $15 minimum wage is still looking at the old Labor models, and not the future. In the future, the greatest limit on labor will not be cost, but on material resources, energy resources, and governmental costs.

 Easy E wrote:
I think it is time we all faced facts:

Oxford University researchers have estimated that 47 percent of U.S. jobs could be automated within the next two decades. And if even half that number is closer to the mark, workers are in for a rude awakening.

http://www.wired.com/brandlab/2015/04/rise-machines-future-lots-robots-jobs-humans/

Plus, these robots are getting much better at white-collar style jobs now too. The economy of the future will be nothing like the one we had 50 years ago, the 90's, or even today.

Sadly, the trend in automation will evolve and revolutionize labor much faster than social norms and labor laws will. This is a recipe for social unrest and a greater divide between Have and Have-not.

Should be a fun couple decades as these trends start to materialize to a point where they can no longer be ignored. This $15 minimum wage is still looking at the old Labor models, and not the future. In the future, the greatest limit on labor will not be cost, but on material resources, energy resources, and governmental costs.

This has always been a common threat, and will only increase as technology increases.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I think it is time we all faced facts:

Oxford University researchers have estimated that 47 percent of U.S. jobs could be automated within the next two decades. And if even half that number is closer to the mark, workers are in for a rude awakening.

http://www.wired.com/brandlab/2015/04/rise-machines-future-lots-robots-jobs-humans/

Plus, these robots are getting much better at white-collar style jobs now too. The economy of the future will be nothing like the one we had 50 years ago, the 90's, or even today.

Sadly, the trend in automation will evolve and revolutionize labor much faster than social norms and labor laws will. This is a recipe for social unrest and a greater divide between Have and Have-not.

Should be a fun couple decades as these trends start to materialize to a point where they can no longer be ignored. This $15 minimum wage is still looking at the old Labor models, and not the future. In the future, the greatest limit on labor will not be cost, but on material resources, energy resources, and governmental costs.

This has always been a common threat, and will only increase as technology increases.

Agreed, which means our societal view on work and "value" needs to evolve as automation increases.

I am no expert, and I have read this thread for some education and thought provocation. I have had the same job for 20 years but before that I was a bus boy and burger flipper in high school. There was a minimum wage increase when I worked at Whataburger and I think it went up to $4.75 or something like that, many many years ago. the immediate response was to raise prices. I don't remember anyone being laid off. However the thought that went through my head then was if prices go up, all that extra money Im making is just going to purchase the same stuff at a higher price, so I'm really not gaining anything.

There seem to be some smart people here, so explain to me how that is wrong?

problem is before it used to be not cost effective to replace workers with automated machines and such cause the costs of maintaining them was high, but when minimum wage goes up to $15 an hour those costs become negligible and it becomes more cost effective to use automated machines, hell a manufacturing company in China just laid off like 30K employees with automation. so we are not far behind me thinks. fast food will probably be the first to go that way, the owner of Wendy's already said they will be swapping out employees with machines within the year. http://fusion.net/story/302781/wendys-self-service-kiosks-fast-food-automation/ the problem is will this lead to protests against machines? could this be the start of SkyNet? who knows. but too be honest from the customer service i've seen at a lot of fast food places, no real loss there since a computer would be much nicer then then the person behind the counter.

 redleger wrote:
I am no expert, and I have read this thread for some education and thought provocation. I have had the same job for 20 years but before that I was a bus boy and burger flipper in high school. There was a minimum wage increase when I worked at Whataburger and I think it went up to $4.75 or something like that, many many years ago. the immediate response was to raise prices. I don't remember anyone being laid off. However the thought that went through my head then was if prices go up, all that extra money Im making is just going to purchase the same stuff at a higher price, so I'm really not gaining anything.

There seem to be some smart people here, so explain to me how that is wrong?

problem is when does a BigMac become too pricey? $10? $11? $15? already paying over $5 for a BigMac now (not the meal just the burger.), fast food businesses have some of the highest employment numbers, but when it becomes cheaper to cook at home by a whole bunch then go out for fast food it will hurt fast foods bottom dollar.

It had always been cheaper to cook at home.

 d-usa wrote:
It had always been cheaper to cook at home.

Well, if people are actually taught to budget and cook.

 d-usa wrote:
It had always been cheaper to cook at home.

yes it has always been cheaper, but then convenience played its tune but soon convenience will be too costly to consider.