Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @02:20PM   Printer-friendly

Jennifer Medina reports at the NYT that the the city council of nation’s second-largest city voted by a 14-1 margin to increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020, in what is perhaps the most significant victory so far in the national push to raise the minimum wage. Several other cities, including San Francisco, Seattle and Oakland, Calif., have already approved increases, and dozens more are considering doing the same.

In 2014, a number of Republican-leaning states like Alaska and South Dakota also raised their state-level minimum wage by referendum. The impact is likely to be particularly strong in Los Angeles, where, according to some estimates, more than 40 percent of the city’s work force earns less than $15 an hour. “The proposal will bring wages up in a way we haven’t seen since the 1960s," says Michael Reich. "There’s a sense spreading that this is the new norm, especially in areas that have high costs of housing.”

It's important to remember that the minimum wage hike comes at a significant direct cost to business — well over a $1 billion a year, according to the mayor's analysis — and it would be foolish to pretend that it won't lead to some job losses and business closures. Critics say the increase will turn the city into a “wage island,” pushing businesses away into nearby places where they can pay employees less. “They are asking businesses to foot the bill on a social experiment that they would never do on their own employees,” says Stuart Waldman, president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, a trade group that represents companies and other organizations in Southern California. “A lot of businesses aren’t going to make it. It’s great that this is an increase for some employees, but the sad truth is that a lot of employees are going to lose their jobs.”

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:43PM

    by tftp (806) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:43PM (#185673) Homepage

    What do you think the 'unproductive' people will do when they don't have access to food?

    That is not a relevant question. The relevant question is "what do you to to make sure that each person has access to food?"

    But note that some of those people (or, ultimately, all of them!) may not want to work in order to get access to food. A fair society will only feed genuinely sick and injured members. The rest should be given an opportunity to work and to earn money - but not a guarantee of food and other goods even if they refuse to work.

    There is no alternative to that rule, short of importing robots from aliens. And even then... let's imagine that we have those robots, and only ten operators are needed to monitor them on the whole planet. How would you hire those operators? They'd have absolutely no reason to be stuck in control room for eight hours every weekday. You cannot offer them anything that they can't get already if they remain unemployed. This means that in a roboticized society nobody is going to work, except as an amateur, for personal satisfaction - and not for long, as personal interests are fleeting.

    Currently there is no transition path from a capitalist society to a communist one. Raising of minimum wage will simply automate most of the workers away. Fast food restaurants will become vending machines where unemployed masses will be buying soylent steaks. I am not sure that this is the best society that one can hope for.

    Worse still, those end points are far more stable than the transition between them. As automation progresses, and the minimum wage keeps climbing, you will have 20% of unemployment, then 30%, then 50%, then 80% ... those are extremely explosive mixtures. The society may not even survive until they get to 100% unemployment and full automation. At 100% nobody really has to work. But at 80% you will have a few super-rich programmers of robots and lots of hungry people who hate those programmers for their success and their skills. That's a recipe for a revolt against the system - and against the much hated 20%.

  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 20 2015, @08:23PM

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 20 2015, @08:23PM (#185690)

    That is not a relevant question.

    Bullshit. This has to be taken into account every time somebody wants to 'trim the unproductive'. The reason for that is that there are people who get irrationally judgmental. "Why do you have food stamps and a smart phone?" That said, I do agree that your next question is valid.

    Currently there is no transition path from a capitalist society to a communist one. Raising of minimum wage will simply automate most of the workers away.

    It hasn't happened before, and it's not going to happen now. I don't know why people assume that expensive high-tech solutions are going to be used to get rid of the lowest paid positions but it won't happen in our lifetimes. Seriously, cities all over the world will start looking like something out of Star Wars with a bunch of clunky droids walking around before we get to the level of automating minimum wage jobs thinning out the herd.

    But note that some of those people (or, ultimately, all of them!) may not want to work in order to get access to food.

    The problem with your entire line of thought here is that you operate under the assumption that the vast majority are happy eating, shitting, and sleeping all their life. This is so untrue it's borderline comical. I could go on and on about how people want more than just a ceiling, a locking door, a flickering screen, and ramen until they become worm food, but instead I'll bring you down to a more basic level: Humans want to fuck. How do you make that happen? A nice place to live, a nice car, clothes, a display of responsibility for child rearing, etc. For some reason there's this assumption that the United States is chock full of lazy people yet they ignore the fact that it is the biggest consumption-oriented country in the world... and those two bits of information are in conflict with each other.

    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 1) by acp_sn on Wednesday May 20 2015, @08:47PM

      by acp_sn (5254) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @08:47PM (#185705)

      [quote]The problem with your entire line of thought here is that you operate under the assumption that the vast majority are happy eating, shitting, and sleeping all their life. This is so untrue it's borderline comical. I could go on and on about how people want more than just a ceiling, a locking door, a flickering screen, and ramen until they become worm food[/quote]

      I'll have to disagree with you there. Most people would be perfectly happy being kept as relatively well treated pets. This is currently the direction in which our society is moving.

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 20 2015, @08:58PM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 20 2015, @08:58PM (#185717)

        Most people would be perfectly happy being kept as relatively well treated pets. This is currently the direction in which our society is moving.

        Based on what?

        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:44PM (#185797)

          Based on most people supporting at least one of the following: the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, DUI checkpoints, copyright, obscenity laws, FCC censorship, the drug war, any war we've gotten ourselves into within the past several decades, torture, the death penalty, warrantless government surveillance of any sort, mass surveillance of any sort (license plate readers, facial recognition, etc.), etc.

          It shows that a grand majority of people are nothing more than worthless sheep who are more than happy to surrender their liberties and the highest law of the land when they believe it will make them safer. Similar situations exist in pretty much every country, to varying degrees, and not necessarily with all the same issues.

          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:55PM

            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:55PM (#185805)
            Does anybody capable of following a conversation have a useful answer to my question?
            --
            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @01:28AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @01:28AM (#185837)

              "Most people would be perfectly happy being kept as relatively well treated pets. This is currently the direction in which our society is moving."

              In response, you asked: "Based on what?"

              I answered that question. As long as there are bread and circuses and it isn't them who is being oppressed, a grand majority of people are more than happy to be sheep/pets.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @01:37AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @01:37AM (#185844)
                You're in a thread about minimum wage and entitlement seekers.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @03:44PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @03:44PM (#186047)

                  And in that thread, this happened:

                  "Most people would be perfectly happy being kept as relatively well treated pets. This is currently the direction in which our society is moving."
                  "Based on what?"

                  I merely answered. Conversations evolve. Deal with it.

    • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday May 20 2015, @09:56PM

      by tftp (806) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @09:56PM (#185746) Homepage

      It hasn't happened before, and it's not going to happen now.

      You never died before; therefore you will never die.

      I don't know why people assume that expensive high-tech solutions are going to be used to get rid of the lowest paid positions but it won't happen in our lifetimes.

      Lowest paid positions are often associated with simple labor that is easier to automate. How many people in the USA are employed every spring to plough fields with a pair of horses? How many miners are swinging a pickaxe? How many cabmen are transporting people in cities in their horse-driven carriages? How many sailors are employed on huge transatlantic passenger liners like Titanic? How many girls are employed by telephone companies to operate the switchboard? All those positions are already gone, replaced with more efficient ways of doing things. Why do you refuse to see that? Taxicab drivers and truckers will be next, if Google and others have their way with autonomous cars. Airplanes will be automated as well, as humans in the cockpit are more dangerous than useful. Banks are closing whole branches down. Warehouse-like stores proliferate. Everything moves online, as brick and mortar CRE is becoming less affordable. Gas stations are already automated.

      Seriously, cities all over the world will start looking like something out of Star Wars with a bunch of clunky droids walking around before we get to the level of automating minimum wage jobs thinning out the herd.

      Some jobs are hard to automate - say, plumbers, or doctors, or engineers. Other are easier - say, the lawnmowing business, retail, fast food, movie theaters, drivers. But not everyone can be a plumber, or a doctor, or an engineer. What should a 40 y/o cashier do when her job is obsolete and replaced with an automatic checkout stand, like in Home Depot? Should she start studying up to become a dentist?

      The problem with your entire line of thought here is that you operate under the assumption that the vast majority are happy eating, shitting, and sleeping all their life. This is so untrue it's borderline comical.

      Unfortunately, it is true. You are simply blessed with good job and good education and good brains. You work because it pleases you. You probably never had to drive a truck for 12 hours every single day; you probably never had to carry bricks, dig trenches and pull pipes in construction. You probably never had to stand at a lathe for the whole shift and do the same repeated movements with your hands all day long. That very plumber that I mentioned before would be happy as a clam if he doesn't have to go to work today and pull a new sewer pipe under some old house. I'm pretty certain that the plumber does not enjoy being all wet with contents of the old pipe. Those are bad jobs - and their number is legion. You can be absolutely certain that every worker who works those positions will be glad to stay at home and watch TV all day long. If that becomes tiresome, one can always travel, see places, paint awful paintings, sing badly or compose bad music, and do many other things that we call entertainment. Rare a job rates as entertainment. You may like cooking, but you'd hate to be stuck in a kitchen of a restaurant for 12 hours every day.

      I'll bring you down to a more basic level: Humans want to fuck. How do you make that happen? A nice place to live, a nice car, clothes, a display of responsibility for child rearing, etc.

      I take it that tribesmen, peasants, factory workers of 1900s, and a whole lot more of other, less than wealthy people in last ten thousand years had no chance to propagate their genes? They must have a nice place and a nice car and nice clothes to enjoy each other? That's certainly news. Females do select the best candidates... but they select only from those that are available. If 80% of the population lives in a Dipple, that's what where the women will be selecting their husbands - not on some other planet.

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 20 2015, @10:33PM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 20 2015, @10:33PM (#185765)

        Lowest paid positions are often associated with simple labor that is easier to automate.

        There is no correlation between pay and ease of automation. Humans are not simple button pushers that follow a tight script. That guy who flips burgers also breaks down all the machines in the kitchen, washes them, and reassembles them for the next shift. The guy who twirls the sign in front of the payday loan place can prevent himself from being vandalized and/or stolen. Drivers need to be replaced with technology that, despite being actively tested now, is still in the realm of sci-fi. (Even when that day does happen, which I'll concede will be in our lifetimes, those vehicles will still be *very* expensive for a very long time. Supply and demand will ensure that.)

        Why do you refuse to see that? ... Airplanes will be automated as well, as humans in the cockpit are more dangerous than useful. Banks are closing whole branches down. Warehouse-like stores proliferate. Everything moves online, as brick and mortar CRE is becoming less affordable. Gas stations are already automated.

        Probably because I don't have an over-simplistic view. Airlines, for example, hire more staff than just pilots. Banks found a more lucrative model of screwing people with fees and the competition isn't making customer service a priority. Everything can't move on-line. I haven't seen a human-less gas station because they are also convenience stores that require cleaning and re-stocking. It's just not a convincing argument right now.

        You can be absolutely certain that every worker who works those positions will be glad to stay at home and watch TV all day long.

        They can. They don't. Think about it.

        I take it that tribesmen, peasants, factory workers of 1900s, and a whole lot more of other, less than wealthy people in last ten thousand years had no chance to propagate their genes?

        Are you responding to somebody else's post...?

        Females do select the best candidates... but they select only from those that are available. If 80% of the population lives in a Dipple, that's what where the women will be selecting their husbands - not on some other planet.

        Again.. I have no idea whose post you're responding to, but I didn't say anything about females having to pack up, hop on a plane, and find their mate. What I did say, which you begrudgingly supported in your reply, that there's still the race upwards.

        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:26PM (#185787)

    This means that in a roboticized society nobody is going to work, except as an amateur, for personal satisfaction - and not for long, as personal interests are fleeting.

    That's absurd. As a quick sanity check, note that there's a lot of famous entertainers (of various kinds: athletes, movie directors, actors, popular writers, etc.) that have publicly known incomes in the millions. Clearly any of these people could easily retire and life off savings for the rest of their life, but they don't. On top of that you have volunteer jobs and a lot of professions like social workers, teachers, and scientists (among others, I'm sure) that are vastly underpaid because the people doing them are passionate about the work and willing to accept low wages. These people also would not stop working just because they had enough money.

    Maybe you'll have trouble finding fruit pickers and janitors but enough money to afford food/shelter is clearly not the only reason people do work.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @01:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @01:32AM (#185840)

      Clearly any of these people could easily retire and life off savings for the rest of their life, but they don't.

      True, some of them could. But how often do people spend their money wisely? They buy far too much garbage that they don't need (mansions, houses more expensive than they can afford, needlessly expensive cars, etc.), so these people may need to keep working to sustain their shallow consumerist lifestyles.

      Maybe you'll have trouble finding fruit pickers and janitors but enough money to afford food/shelter is clearly not the only reason people do work.

      Indeed. Personally, I will still develop software even if machines advanced enough were able to replace me for most things.