Business & Finance Rising Labor Costs & Automation Affordability

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
I can remember having this discussion with the leftist types over on WordForge about how raising the minimum wage would only result in the cost of everything else going up, and would probably also result in younger people with no experience being shut out of jobs, and would probably also result in more people overall losing their jobs due to the increased cost of labor making automation more affordable by comparison. Naturally, their leftist brains had no way of wrapping themselves around that and they would fall back on feelings.

Fast forward to recently, and I can't help but notice all the ads in my facebook feed talking about investing in automation for fast food joints. :LOL:

Link to advertisement site
 

Bassoe

Well-known member
Blaming the rise of automation on peasants daring to want a livable wage is ridiculous, the robots were coming anyway. Automation is an existential threat for everyone who isn't an idle rich robotics company executive.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Why would we want to hurt poor people, small business owners, and the economy at large like that?
Well, we need a minimum wage of some sort; becuase companies cannot be trusted to pay their employees a fair wage unless they're forced to. Though it's also obvious we can't keep using raising it as a bandaid to fix our many, many, other issues; because all that does is make them worse.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Well, we need a minimum wage of some sort; becuase companies cannot be trusted to pay their employees a fair wage unless they're forced to. Though it's also obvious we can't keep using raising it as a bandaid to fix our many, many, other issues; because all that does is make them worse.
No. Minimum wage consistently harms the worst off and encourages automation. The idea that a minimum wage helps the poor is just so wrong. It raises the bar on entry level jobs, putting them permanently out of reach from people w/o college or prior job experience, while the artificially increased pay encourages overqualified people to apply for jobs, crowding out people who need them. And then it encourages illegal immigration because there are jobs worth $5 an hour that can't legally employ people, so they employ illegals instead.

Also, companies don't owe anyone a 'fair' wage, that's commie talk. A company owes a worker what they both agree to. Now usually, there would be competition to hire people at low wages, but the minimum wage basically causes an excess of supply right around the minimum wage, which harms everyone. But right now, because of both inflation and Covid, the minimum wage is being inflated away, and we can see how aggressively people are hiring, even unskilled jobs. The price of unskilled labor is finally rising above minimum wage and people can now pick and choose where they work, as it should be in a healthy job market.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Well, we need a minimum wage of some sort; becuase companies cannot be trusted to pay their employees a fair wage unless they're forced to. Though it's also obvious we can't keep using raising it as a bandaid to fix our many, many, other issues; because all that does is make them worse.
The problem is that as with any other price fixing, you distort the market and cause (in this case) underconsumption. Specifically raising minimum wage increases unemployment, as jobs that were viable at less than minimum wage quit being viable anymore.

Additionally, it only helps people who remain employed, but as automation improves, the number of jobs humans can do better than computers decreases. We're currently closing in on half a million jobs permanently lost to robots in the US which isn't a massive number, yet, but is constantly increasing. Each robot per thousand workers in the US drops real wages for everybody 0.42% and the employment-to-population ratio goes down by 0.2%. Minimum wage can theoretically help with the first part but that only accelerates the second half of the equation.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
No. Minimum wage consistently harms the worst off and encourages automation. The idea that a minimum wage helps the poor is just so wrong. It raises the bar on entry level jobs, putting them permanently out of reach from people w/o college or prior job experience, while the artificially increased pay encourages overqualified people to apply for jobs, crowding out people who need them. And then it encourages illegal immigration because there are jobs worth $5 an hour that can't legally employ people, so they employ illegals instead.

Also, companies don't owe anyone a 'fair' wage, that's commie talk. A company owes a worker what they both agree to. Now usually, there would be competition to hire people at low wages, but the minimum wage basically causes an excess of supply right around the minimum wage, which harms everyone. But right now, because of both inflation and Covid, the minimum wage is being inflated away, and we can see how aggressively people are hiring, even unskilled jobs. The price of unskilled labor is finally rising above minimum wage and people can now pick and choose where they work, as it should be in a healthy job market.
If you're not paying people enough money to even feed themselves without government assistance (which $5 an hour is far too low to manage that), you're stealing money from taxpayers to keep your business afloat, when it by all rights should have failed a long time ago. Companies don't owe anyone a 'fair' wage? Fine; but by that same logic, we don't owe them their continued existance either.



The problem is that as with any other price fixing, you distort the market and cause (in this case) underconsumption. Specifically raising minimum wage increases unemployment, as jobs that were viable at less than minimum wage quit being viable anymore.

Additionally, it only helps people who remain employed, but as automation improves, the number of jobs humans can do better than computers decreases. We're currently closing in on half a million jobs permanently lost to robots in the US which isn't a massive number, yet, but is constantly increasing. Each robot per thousand workers in the US drops real wages for everybody 0.42% and the employment-to-population ratio goes down by 0.2%. Minimum wage can theoretically help with the first part but that only accelerates the second half of the equation.
More automation is a good thing; I'm not a fan of employing people to do things that don't actually need doing, simply to keep them busy. Our economy just needs to adjust to the fact that, eventually, there's not going to be enough work to go around.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Robots have one problem that humans don't.

Humans can operate through a Carrington Event/CME plowing into our magnetic field; robots would be fucked and fried, our sat network would mostly be toast, and so would most of the electronics in good chunk of the world.

Production lines that use mostly human labor and local supplies would have better chance of surviving the economic, and civilizational devastation that would cause.

Also, they still need humans to program those robots.
No. Minimum wage consistently harms the worst off and encourages automation. The idea that a minimum wage helps the poor is just so wrong. It raises the bar on entry level jobs, putting them permanently out of reach from people w/o college or prior job experience, while the artificially increased pay encourages overqualified people to apply for jobs, crowding out people who need them. And then it encourages illegal immigration because there are jobs worth $5 an hour that can't legally employ people, so they employ illegals instead.

Also, companies don't owe anyone a 'fair' wage, that's commie talk. A company owes a worker what they both agree to. Now usually, there would be competition to hire people at low wages, but the minimum wage basically causes an excess of supply right around the minimum wage, which harms everyone. But right now, because of both inflation and Covid, the minimum wage is being inflated away, and we can see how aggressively people are hiring, even unskilled jobs. The price of unskilled labor is finally rising above minimum wage and people can now pick and choose where they work, as it should be in a healthy job market.
No, we need a minimum wage and a lot of our labor regs to keep shit from getting worse. The US could easily slip back to the days of company towns, company script, wage-slavery, Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle', and the Meeker Massacre real fast if we start doing away with things like the minimum wage and other basic US labor regs.

Keeping companies from using illegal labor is part of what needs to be addressed here.
 

LordSunhawk

Das BOOT (literally)
Owner
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Note, the minimum wage was implemented by Woodrow Wilson explicitly as a typically racist attempt to force black Americans out of the workforce by raising the floor above them. The intention has always been to harm the poor by making it so it was uneconomical for business to hire them.
 

Bassoe

Well-known member
That's bush-era bullshit. Corporations claim that economic prosperity is dependent upon letting them do whatsoever they like, but when they're allowed to assume the authority they want, the results are always the same, the fuck over everyone who isn't their leadership. The inevitable consequences of modern 'libertarianism', aka, 'weaken anything that could stop the corporations from taking over everything and ruling as feudal lords' is the corporations from taking over everything and ruling as feudal lords. Recognize the race-to-the-bottom and create a goverment strong enough to stand against it or be reduced to serfhood. There's a middle ground between 'soviet union' and 'corporations can do anything they like' and if you don't enforce otherwise, you'll end up living in a soviet-tier dystopia ruled by a single absolutist faction anyway.
  • Maintain minimal standards of worker pay and safety so that corporations can't compete by lowering them.
  • Prevent the formation of and break up preexisting monopolies.
  • Tax the successful corporations sufficiently that, though they absolutely can be rewarded with profit for their success, the goverment also has enough money to protect its citizens besides the successful corporate executives.
  • Keep corporations from taking people's rights. If you have the money, they can't prevent you from buying their products, they cannot prevent you from using their products how you like once you own it, and they can't refuse to employ you on ideological grounds.
  • Treat attempted corruption of the regulating system as what it is, treasonous subversion and persecute it as such by any means necessary.
  • Recognize that because of the above, your businesses and the value of your labor cannot compete on equal grounds with foreign businesses and the value of foreign who don't have such self-inflicted limitations. Consequentially, tax said foreign businesses and labor sufficiently to make up the difference if they want to operate in your countries. If you're a large enough potential market, they'll accept it as the cost of doing business with you.
These six steps won't spontaneously transform you into the soviet union, but not executing them essentially will, only instead of an overreaching goverment commanding the entirety of civilization, it'll be an overreaching corporate monopoly.

Look at China, capitalism in which the corporations have been reminded who holds the monopoly of force works. Look at Europe and New Deal-era America, regulations work. For decades, we've practically worshiped corporations in the hope that sufficient faith would cause the wealth to trickle down and the fear that not doing so would lead to soviet-tier despotic dystopia, and in return for our faith, the very corporations themselves attempted to create said dystopia with themselves on top. Fuck them, if you 'traditionalists' want to keep being their Useful Idiots, don't be surprised when they continue taking everything from you. And you want an obvious path to power, stand against them and watch people join your cause as their only opposition since the modern 'left' sure isn't standing against them so long as they buy indulgences from the cult of wokeism by tweeting the occasional rainbow flag version of their company logo.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
If you're not paying people enough money to even feed themselves without government assistance (which $5 an hour is far too low to manage that), you're stealing money from taxpayers to keep your business afloat, when it by all rights should have failed a long time ago. Companies don't owe anyone a 'fair' wage? Fine; but by that same logic, we don't owe them their continued existance either.

This is exactly how it is supposed to work. If a company isn't paying you enough for what they want you to do, don't work for them, and then they go out of business if nobody will work for them.

In order for it to be a free market, the exchange must be voluntary on both ends.

Bluntly put, if someone is supporting minimum wage, they're showing that their understanding of economics is shallow or nonexistent.

And equating it with lolbertarian-level 'allow corporations to effectively become local governments' is a strawman. 'Socialism or corporatism' is a false dichotomy.
 

Bassoe

Well-known member
Humans can operate through a Carrington Event/CME plowing into our magnetic field; robots would be fucked and fried, our sat network would mostly be toast, and so would most of the electronics in good chunk of the world.
If there's a Carrington Event, civilization has bigger problems, whether labor is being done by humans or robots. Humans won't directly die of EMP, but if the farms and factories and transportation infrastructure to move food and goods from said farms and factories to housing is destroyed, the end results will be the same. Carrington Event = bronze age collapse scale catastrophe. And is a great example of the flaws of our current system, EMP-shielding electronics is possible, but, much like supply chains that don't stretch the world over, not immediately profitable outside of apocalyptic Outside Context Problems.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
Raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and index it to inflation, removing it as a continual political shit fight.
That's a horrible idea, and will gaurantee all sorts of horrible unintended consequences.

  • Maintain minimal standards of worker pay and safety so that corporations can't compete by lowering them.
  • Prevent the formation of and break up preexisting monopolies.
  • Tax the successful corporations sufficiently that, though they absolutely can be rewarded with profit for their success, the goverment also has enough money to protect its citizens besides the successful corporate executives.
  • Keep corporations from taking people's rights. If you have the money, they can't prevent you from buying their products, they cannot prevent you from using their products how you like once you own it, and they can't refuse to employ you on ideological grounds.
  • Treat attempted corruption of the regulating system as what it is, treasonous subversion and persecute it as such by any means necessary.
  • Recognize that because of the above, your businesses and the value of your labor cannot compete on equal grounds with foreign businesses and the value of foreign who don't have such self-inflicted limitations. Consequentially, tax said foreign businesses and labor sufficiently to make up the difference if they want to operate

1. I can certainly agree with safety standards in the work place, but not with a minimum wage.
2. Completely agree with the break up of monopolies.
3. Shouldn't we just be taxing all corporations? I have never believed that the government should be able to pick favorites in business. It leads to all sorts of ugly things that aren't ethical, don't help this country and pit us against one another.
4. I get where you're headed here, however, I still believe in the business' right to refuse service to anyone. If you FORCE someone to labor for you, that's slavery. You're headed that way if you take this too far. I also have no other problem with people using something for which the seller did not intend. However, if Doofus loosed an eye, toe or whatever in an unintended activity, then he has no standing to sue. In regards to ideological grounds...why? If I am a company with a specific ethos, why the heck should they be FORCED to hire someone that doesn't agree with that ethos.
5. Corruption of the regulation system. You'll need to define what you mean here. Especially if you intend to change the definition of what is required for Treason and Subversion.
6. I have no problem using tariffs to 'level the playing field' as it were. Would you agree to the idea of lessening those tarrif's as a way to help bolster an allies economy, or do you intend this as a concrete rule with no exceptions?
 

Typhonis

Well-known member
Separate the SEC from Wall Street so they can monitor them as they should instead of being in bed with them. How many lawsuits were filed over the mess in 2008?
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
Separate the SEC from Wall Street so they can monitor them as they should instead of being in bed with them. How many lawsuits were filed over the mess in 2008?

I'm in favor of that, but you run into the problem that happens with all such oversight/auditory bodies. Some of the best people to investigate are the ones that were former members of Wall Street. Their very strength, that they know the players and how they operate, is also a potential source of weakness and conflict of interest. You can see that working through the SEC and many other organizations.

I'm just not sure how to get the hunters the expertise they need without exposing them to the same kind of potential weakness that's present.

Establishing the utmost in ethical standards and holding EACH person in the organization accountable it absolutely essential.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Why would we want to hurt poor people, small business owners, and the economy at large like that?

Yes, keeping the minimum wage low does that, so why don't you want to raise to help everybody like the actual data says it does? Let's also talk about how schizophrenic it is to argue you're in favor of poor people-who overwhelmingly favor the measure I speak of, including in States such as Florida-by keeping their wages low.

That's a horrible idea, and will gaurantee all sorts of horrible unintended consequences.

So horrible you can't name them because they don't exist. We have seen no net negative effects in the United States to doing this or even in historical terms; the minimum wage adjusted for inflation was much higher in the 1960s with regular increases too.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Yes, keeping the minimum wage low does that, so why don't you want to raise to help everybody like the actual data says it does? Let's also talk about how schizophrenic it is to argue you're in favor of poor people-who overwhelmingly favor the measure I speak of, including in States such as Florida-by keeping their wages low.



So horrible you can't name them because they don't exist. We have seen no net negative effects in the United States to doing this or even in historical terms; the minimum wage adjusted for inflation was much higher in the 1960s with regular increases too.

Raising the minimum wage raises or stagnates unemployment, and makes it harder for low-skilled people, especially young people, to enter the workforce.

Here's one of the world's greatest economists talking about the subject:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top