patrick.net

spydah_hh says

Why? Because first of all these young kids or young adults come from high school or college with no to little work experience.

So what?

This is one of the problems with corporate America. Yet you imply it's a good necessary protocol.

They don't give you experience and than complain they can't give you experience because you don't have experience.

A true catch-22.

What fucking experience does a shitty job like retail or flipping burgers give you?

Unless you are mentally incompetent... nothing!

How fucking hard is it to say "Hi, What Can I Do For You?"

"Your Total is $20."

"Here is Your Receipt."

It is not fucking rocket science to work a fucking cash register, put money inside it, give the change that the computer calculates for you, give the receipt, do refunds and greet customers.

It is not rocket science to put items on a aisle, rack up clothes, vacuum, mop floors and take out the trash.

What experience does one really learn from these jobs?

I'll tell you what... NOTHING except first training you to compliance, being treated like shit, being made to look stupid, useless, worthless and treated like property.

They want you to take these jobs unless you an oligarch's son, so they can first mentally program you to kiss ass, accept being pissed on and belittled.

Only than can you work a corporate office job making $100K but that's also if you have college too.

But the 100K a year salary... Most people end up blowing this salary on a fancy car, a house, eating out, consumer spending and so-forth.

Hell even $200K-$300K yuppies are living paycheck to paycheck.

Way back in the old days in the 1950's... All you needed was a HS diploma or GED.

You went directly to the manager in a suit and tie with a briefcase.

Applied for an apprenticeship and than were hired if you were serious, didn't do drugs, wasn't involved in crime and knew how to give a proper handshake along with having basic manners.

These days you submit a resume to a computer that filters you out to some bullshit criteria that doesn't mean much set by a cunt with a vagina in Human Resources.

And what about the name "Human Resources"... ?

They very indirectly implying that you are all a bunch of human property to the company. You salary is merely is them paying rent to use you just like they use and abuse the shit out of a car rental.

If they really cared about you as a human. They would like it "Human Support" instead of "Human Resources"

And why are mostly all women employed at that particular department especially? It's because women are usually easier to enslave than men. They need to hire women in higher numbers than more qualified men due to government quotas in all departments.

The Human Resources department.... the worst department in all of departments in mostly all companies.

They engage in hypocrisy, stupid hiring rules and criteria along with a host of all kinds of other stupid shit by the department. Most of the people who work there are also the most cowardly, mean-spirited and arrogant people I've come across.

spydah_hh says

Just like the article stated if the McDonalds were forced to raise minimum wage to $15 they will most likely automate many of those minimum wage job.

It was basically a letter to the editor. Not the article. One man's opinion.

spydah_hh says

If Minimum wage was the answer to wealth disparity or the betterment of peoples lives forget raising minimum wage to $15 lets just raise it to $100

Again with the logical fallacy of appealing to extremes? Please stop.

spydah_hh says

Most of the jobs they would have otherwise had are now eliminated due to minimum wage. Companies replaced these low wage jobs with automation or just elimination

Bullshit. These jobs would have been eliminated with or without minimum wage.

spydah_hh says

In other words minimum wage kills apprenticeship. Most people are now force to go through the college lie in order to get a decent job

So let's look at what you're saying. Automation killed jobs because of the minimum wage. You appear to be saying that some jobs would still be around without minimum wage, right? Therefore they would be paying (much?) less than current minimum wage? And you'd consider those "decent" jobs?? Really? Do I have that correct?

spydah_hh says

If labor cost were to increase by raising minimum wage, then employers will just fire those who are on minimum wage and replace them with automation.

This is almost a legitimate point. The correct way to put it would be as follows.

Minimum wage jobs that can be replaced by automation for slightly above the cost of those minimum wage jobs are at risk of being replaced by automation, if the minimum wage is raised to above the cost of automating the jobs.

But 2 things to consider here:

1) What current minimum wage jobs are in this category ? Certainly most retail jobs are not. Even automated cashiers have met with very mixed results (and those are usually not minimum wage jobs - not in grocery stores anyway. ).

2) In cases where the savings from automation would be fairly small, employers may choose to stick with humans, for a number of reasons, some of which are self interest, such as preserving the human interaction factor in dealing with customers or dealings within the corporation.

Still, the automation of jobs is going to change things a lot, and at some point we are going to have to figure out ways of dealing with the fact that many jobs can be done better by machines than by people.

We don't hear many people trying to make the argument anymore that there is not net loss of jobs with automation because of all the jobs that are created building machines or software systems that perform the automated tasks. I think it's pretty much accepted now that in the not to distant future there will not be enough middle income jobs to support the economy.

(funny, it was only a few years ago, when Obama made some off the cuff comment about loss of jobs due to automation,=, using ATMs as an example, and a lot of people were up in arms about how stupid he was for not understanding that with automation you don't actually lose jobs. Now I think it's pretty much accepted that this is obviously true. )

That fact combined with a coming leveling off of population put us only a small step away from rejecting a lot of the laissez-faire free market dogma that has dominated economic policy decisions for the past 50 years.

tatupu70 says

So let's look at what you're saying. Automation killed jobs because of the minimum wage. You appear to be saying that some jobs would still be around without minimum wage, right? Therefore they would be paying (much?) less than current minimum wage? And you'd consider those "decent" jobs?? Really? Do I have that correct?

Yep, I am saying that. Also not all jobs would of been eliminated.

marcus says

Still the point is ultimately worth considering, and at some point we are going to have to figure out way of dealing with the fact that many jobs can be done better by machines than by people.

That's true. However, not all jobs would be replaced by machines.

No kidding. Especially not minimum wage jobs. What happens with automation is middle income jobs that used to be done by a department of 20 people, can now be done (or one day will be done) by a department of 6 people.

tatupu70 says

It was basically a letter to the editor. Not the article. One man's opinion.

The article was also one man's explanation of minimum wage cost would only be .68 cent in a product, however this explanation was incorrect and was appropriately updated.

tatupu70 says

Again with the logical fallacy of appealing to extremes? Please stop.

Umm, sorry but the only fallacy is the cost of minimum wage. If you're going to $15 why stop there? By your definition increasing minimum wage better people's live so why not go higher than $15? Why not $20? $50? $100? Simple, because it doesn't work.

spydah_hh says

Yep, I am saying that. Also not all jobs would of been eliminated.

So how is a job paying LESS than current minimum wage "a decent job"?

spydah_hh says

By your definition increasing minimum wage better people's live so why not go higher than $15? Why not $20? $50? $100? Simple, because it doesn't work.

What is my definition?

When you have to resort to logical fallacies--you need to rethink your position.

marcus says

No kidding. Especially not minimum wage jobs. What happens with automation is middle income jobs that used to be done by a department of 20 people, can now be done by a department of 6 people.

This is for any job. However, from my personal observation a local company called Meyers automated a lot of the work load done by minimum wage workers or those making just a little over minimum wage. Granted from my knowledge they didn't lay workers off due to the automation but they certainly did not fulfill any of their vacation positions either. Though they also didn't hire any of their temporary contract workers either they were removed.

tatupu70 says

So how is a job paying LESS than current minimum wage "a decent job"?

Refer to post #32, posted at 9:11 am this morning. That should help answer your question.

spydah_hh says

Umm, sorry but the only fallacy is the cost of minimum wage. If you're going to $15 why stop there? By your definition increasing minimum wage better people's live so why not go higher than $15? Why not $20? $50? $100? Simple, because it doesn't work.

Oops, I just accidentally liked your post when trying to quote. SO I offset it with a dislike. I normally don't do either one on very many posts.

Your "reasoning" here is beyond stupid. I understand where you're coming from. That if something other than market determines price then you might as well take it to the extreme.

But this is so stupid.

The fact is that the market is not working. If the market allows a price for labor that is below the cost of living, and if that low pay level is supported by the government with food stamps and other aid, then the market is already being tampered with in favor of the employer.

THe flaw in your reasoning is as simple as this. Raising the minimum wage to $10 or $12 per hour may actually improve the economy, where as we all know that raising the minimum wage to $100 per hour destroys everything.

IF you can not comprehend this, then you aren't worth talking to.

IF arguing that raising the minimum wage to $100 won't work, is the best argument you have for why raising it to $10/hr, won't work, then I would say you don't have any good arguments.

marcus says

The fact is that the market is not working. If the market allows a price for labor that is below the cost of living, and if it is supported by the government with food stamps and other aid, then the market is already being tampered with in favor of the employer.

The low cost of living only occurs because of government debasement. The counter argument to that is to increase people's wages, but that doesn't work either.

It used to be back in the day you could work at a fast food restaurant is still earn a livable wage, however, due to the debasement of our currency this is no longer the case. This is even starting to effect white collar jobs as well.

So the solution to the problem isn't minimum wage standards it's to simply stop debasing the dollar.

spydah_hh says

It used to be back in the day you could work at a fast food restaurant is still earn a livable wage

Tha'ts not really true. Minimum wage was never a livable wage. Which is also the reason why raising it, not even enough to keep up with inflation, should not even be an issue. It's just a minimum that is way below what one can live on.

spydah_hh says

The low cost of living only occurs because of government debasement. The counter argument to that is to increase people's wages, but that doesn't work either.

Actually, when inflation occurs, wages must go up.

IF you want to argue for ways to prevent inflation from occuring, that's a separate discussion. What you seem to be arguing here is in favor of currency debasement. You are saying what ? That by totally fucking over all workers, by not allowing their wages to keep up with inflation, we may finally be able to put an end to inflation ?

Actually the opposite is true as far as I can tell.

It seems you are in favor of the net outcome of inflation being more wealth moving up to the top.

marcus says

spydah_hh says

It used to be back in the day you could work at a fast food restaurant is still earn a livable wage

Tha'ts not really true. Minimum wage was never a livable wage. Which is also the reason why raising it, not even enough to keep up with inflation, should not even be an issue. It's just a minimum that is way below what one can live on.

Yes it is true. Remember the days where only the father was needed to work to provide a family of 7? Besides my father who is in his 70's remembers working at one of these places and still being able to provide for himself.

bgamall4 says

spydah_hh says

Btw, many McDonald employees get discount foods which means they pay less than the customer, which is just another added cost to the business.

They still make money on their employees. Don't be so naive. Even if you raised their pay to 12 dollars per hour, you would see little effect on the cost of big macs.

Show me the math that your statement is true. Please go visit McDonald corp, policies, finanicial statements, and etc and show me the math that this is true.
Otherwise you're just making up numbers.

bgamall4 says

Where is this low cost of living, Einstein? Because of speculation, hoarding and all, the cost of living is way higher than in the 1990's. The cost of living is so high that it is like a tax.

Government debasement of currency is only a part of it. Speculation and QE that goes to the wealthiest to speculate on commodities is the prime reason things cost more.

So you do understand that this is the problem. Yet you seem to think that minimum wage is the answer? Umm, shouldn't your answer be to stop QE and currency debasement?

marcus says

Actually, when inflation occurs, wages must go up.

No this is a fallacy. Inflation occurs when the mone supply increases. Inflation has everything to do with prices rising as a economy as a whole. Sure some products will experience rising prices due to temporary high demand for the product which can be caused by sudden market changes (i.e. shovels prices for the California Gold Rush). But when the everything rises in prices that's due to monetary inflation not the laws of supply and demand. Therefore in this sense wages do not increase, since there is no new demand or rise in productivity in all the products. And that in a summary is why wages have not increased but prices have.

Once again Minimum wage is not the solution to currency debasement, getting rid of currency debasement is the only solution to currency debasement issues.

spydah_hh says

Yes it is true. Remember the days where only the father was needed to work to provide a family of 7?

Yes. But what does that have to do with minimum wage ?

I had a minimum wage job in 1973 as a teenager. It paid $2.25/hr. It was just part time. But I would have had a tough time living on that full time.

Sure, it would have been a little better than $7.25 is now. But not all that much.

According to this http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

$2.25 in 1973 had the same buying power as $11.81 now. And the bureau of labor and statistics is thought by many to underestimate inflation.

marcus says

spydah_hh says

Yes it is true. Remember the days where only the father was needed to work to provide a family of 7?

Yes. But what does that have to do with minimum wage ?

I had a minimum wage job in 1973 as a teenager. It paid $2.25/hr. It was just part time. But I would have had a tough time living on that full time.

Sure, it would have been a little better than $7.25 is now. But not all that much.

According to this http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

$2.25 in 1973 had the same buying power as $11.81 now. And the bureau of labor and statistics is thought by many to underestimate inflation.

1973 isn't a good time period. Cost of living increased dramatic in the 70s thanks to the removal of the gold standard. If we go back to the 1960 and before that's when standard of living was much better.

Back in 1956 the minimum wage was $1.00 paid in real stable dollars or even in silver. A $1.00 in 1956 is worth $25 today. That's how bad the U.S. government has debased our currency since then.

spydah_hh says

Inflation has nothing to do with prices rising

I see.

I'm reminded of this http://patrick.net/?p=1237705

I'm not interested in that argument. I use the purchasing power definition of inflation. Your definition which presupposes the cause of purchasing power erosion is useless to me, since even if you are correct, it could take a decade for money supply to affect prices, and by then other deflationary forces such as credit market or foreign currency imbalances may have kicked in to offset things.

I'll stick to the real world application level economics and shy away from nebulous theoretical definitions. Besides, for the sake of argument, all that matters is agreement for discussion purposes of what it is we mean by inflation.

marcus says

it could take a decade for money supply to affect prices

Bullshit

marcus says

it could take a decade for money supply to affect prices,

I edited that statement. I meant inflation everything to do with rising prices, not nothing.

marcus says

it could take a decade for money supply to affect prices, and by then other deflationary forces such as credit market or foreign currency imbalances may have kicked in to offset things.

It usually doesn't take decades. But it really depends how much expansion there is.

Here, this is a good commentary and statistical analysis. I'm still reading it. See the graphs which show that the cause and effect relationship between money supply increase and inflation is not by any means a tight as some think (in the short and medium run).

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/inflation/

marcus says

See the graphs which show that the cause and effect relationship between money supply increase and inflation is not by any means a tight as some think (in the short and medium run).

Like right now for instance because the velocity of money is so low.

That does not mean it does not cause inflation as by definition it does.

spydah_hh says

Back in 1956 the minimum wage was $1.00 paid in real stable dollars or even in silver. A $1.00 in 1956 is worth $25 today. That's how bad the U.S. government has debased our currency since then

Again--what the hell is wrong with you?? When one argues with you guys, it's an argument over facts, not opinions. $1.00 in 1956 is worth $8.56 in 2013.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

spydah_hh says

Cost of living increased dramatic in the 70s thanks to the removal of the gold standard.

Actually it was more due to demographics, but that's neither here nor there.

spydah_hh says

If we go back to the 1960 and before that's when standard of living was much better.

And you say this because? The real reason that time period was preferable to now is because the income and wealth inequality was MUCH better than today.

spydah_hh says

Umm, shouldn't your answer be to stop QE and currency debasement?

A weaker dollar is actually good for the US right now. It would bring jobs back here.

You seem to be under the false impression that real wages would perform better under flat or deflationary time periods. Do you have any evidence that leads you to this conclusion?

I decided i was dumb and didn't understand it so I called the Who's Who of the folks who've been around it and I said, "Why won't everybody go South?" They say, "It'd be disruptive." I said, "For how long?" I finally got them up from 12 to 15 years. And I said, "well, how does it stop being disruptive?" And that is when their jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it's leveled again. But in the meantime, you've wrecked the country with these kinds of deals. We've got to cut it out.

Ross Perot when asked about trade agreements with Mexico. Funny how, we've taken all our good jobs, sent them to Mexico, and replaced them with jobs somewhere around oh....six dollars an hour.

indigenous says

Like right now for instance because the velocity of money is so low.

That does not mean it does not cause inflation as by definition it does.

Yes, but there is plenty of velocity and inflation in certain sectors, such as housing (and healthcare), but for some very odd reason it's called "recovery" instead. Sounds much better anyways! ;)

mell says

indigenous says

Like right now for instance because the velocity of money is so low.

That does not mean it does not cause inflation as by definition it does.

Yes, but there is plenty of velocity and inflation in certain sectors, such as housing (and healthcare), but for some very odd reason it's called "recovery" instead. Sounds much better anyways! ;)

True but not what you would think after printing 6 trillion dollars.

Because the bulk of the money is in excess reserve funds because it is not being lent out. So the credit market is much less than it was.

Jon Stewart did a good editing of the show:
>> http://schiffradio.com/b/The-Daily-Show:-Intellectually-Dishonest-about-the-Intellectually-Disabled/-525361918630098994.html

The first group -- which was edited out -- was the unpaid interns who tend to value work experience and connections more than pay. (In fact, “The Daily Show” staffer who booked me, and who was present during the interview, had been thrilled to start there as an unpaid intern). Since many interns work for free, $2 per hour would be an improvement. Some interns are even willing to pay to work. Since employers are afraid to hire them without pay for fear of violating labor laws or inviting lawsuits, they often hire young people working for college credit. These individuals are forced to pay college tuition to get a job they could have had for free had there been no minimum wage.

tatupu70 says

Again--what the hell is wrong with you?? When one argues with you guys, it's an argument over facts, not opinions. $1.00 in 1956 is worth $8.56 in 2013.

Wow seriously going to use the CPLie? If you want to use the CPI sure a dollar back then is worth $8. But if you were to use GDP per capita $1 back in 1956 compared with 2012 would be almost $20. If you compare it to the overall economy it's over $36.

CPI is not a good indicator of standard of living since it has been changed so many times throughout its history.

Here are some more numbers when compared to 1956:

In 1960
$1 from CPI $1.09
$1 from GDP Per Capita $1.12
$1 from total economic output $1.21

In 1990
$1 from CPI is $4.81
$1 from GDP per capita is $8.93
$1 from total economic output $13.30

2000
$1 from CPI $6.34
$1 from GDP per Capita is $13.60
$1 from total economic output $22.90

2012
$1 from CPI $8.45
$1 from GDP per Capita $19.30
$1 from total economic output $36.10

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php

Edit: I find it odd that CPI stays relatively low for over 50 years but the other economic indicators tell a much different story.

spydah_hh says

Edit: I find it odd that CPI stays relatively low for over 50 years but the other economic indicators tell a much different story.

It's called productivity.

spydah_hh says

Wow seriously going to use the CPLie?

lol--yes, I prefer to go with actual facts and data. I prefer that over pulling numbers out of one's ass. Seriously--where did you get $25??

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

Edit: I find it odd that CPI stays relatively low for over 50 years but the other economic indicators tell a much different story.

It's called productivity.

Yet people's wages and purchasing power have stagnated for the last 30-40 years. If real productivity was increasing then people's wages would have increased as well. But that's not the case at all.

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

Wow seriously going to use the CPLie?

lol--yes, I prefer to go with actual facts and data. I prefer that over pulling numbers out of one's ass. Seriously--where did you get $25??

CPI isn't telling the real story it doesn't include things like home sales and energy or even food for the matter. It tends to subcategories food and even homes in a different manner.

So yes the data they present is factual but it doesn't tell the story of higher cost of living since they're not using the right variables in the data.

spydah_hh says

Yet people's wages and purchasing power have stagnated for the last 30-40 years. If real productivity was increasing then people's wages would have increased as well. But that's not the case at all

In aggregate, they have. The problem is that inequality has also grown dramatically so medians don't show it.

spydah_hh says

CPI isn't telling the real story it doesn't include things like home sales and energy or even food for the matter. It tends to subcategories food and even homes in a different manner.

Yes it does. As I've posted on here numerous times--CPI includes housing costs, food costs, and energy costs.

There is also something called core CPI which excludes food and energy because they are more volatile and can skew the numbers. But the straight CPI DOES include everything in the basket of goods.

Like I said--I've spent the past 6 posts correcting all your factual inaccuracies. Which is how most debates go on here anymore.