Either way there is going to be massive unemployment in the future as robots run more and more things and we really just don't need the people to work. At some point it'll be nice not to blame them and actually just focus on solving the problem

While I agree with much of what you say, it is a different scenario than what I suggested above. I suggested that government programs are being promoted by companies as a way to subsidize their low pay. In your scenario this person can't get a job to begin with and is getting government assistance.

In theory, if she gets and/or keeps the job and can make $15 she will no longer need (or likely qualify) for government assistance so she can get off of it. Of course, this all depends on how the raise affects the economy. If the cost of living skyrockets as a result of it then she won't be any better off. We will soon be finding out just how it works out.

You missed the sarcasm. Minimum wage is about the job not the age.

Wages
 

The county just south of mine is so wealthy that 15 years ago, the starting salary at McD's was $9 an hour + medical, dental & 401K. For kids in high school who could work 20 hours a week.
That same time, my son went to work at a movie theatre for $5.25 an hour. I asked him why. He said no way he'd work fast food. Don't think he's lazy. The VP of the company, an original of the founding brothers came out the the theatre to see my son. Said it was the only the second time he had done this. Said he would be instantly be promoted to asst. manager, but he was only 17. Company policy, said you must be 18. But they loved his work ethic. He unofficially supervised the managers.
But he was living at home.

I had a friend that moved to rural Indiana and need to supplement his Social security. 1, that's right 1 job, in 50 miles, opened up at a Burger King. $5.25 an hour. 300+ people lined up for this job. All adults. there were no other jobs to be had. There was a pharma company paying good wages. And a 20 year waiting list to get hired.

Minimum wage jobs are only for kids is a myth. Many of my friends are 50+ and if they lose their good job, they know no one will hire them, no matter how good they are. A good portion of that is under current health care, they could raise a company's overall medical insurance costs.

Proof of why capitalism, without controls, doesn't work for the majority.

If employers are allowed to set wages, move offshore and have a never ending supply of job applicants. Wages will drop and drop. Until the voters realise voting in a Government that will subsidise them is the only alternative. Whart is inevitable is the old style Republican Party is dying.

Will Trump voters vote for Cruz?

Because it's inevitable. Germany is doing better than most. Still with jobs going to Czech, Poland, Hungary and the Far East, the only jobs left are low paid that have to be subsidised. We have built up China at the expense of Europe.

The latest fiasco is Defiant China slaps steel tariffs on Britain as trade war looms*

Not until we wakw up and realise the damage that's being done to make the top 5% very rich.

Good for them. But what's the catch?

Let me guess. It only applies to illegals and refugees, right? Everyone else gets paid the actual minimum wage. Gotta be April Fools.

One of the main problems the US economy is having is what type of jobs are being created. 60% of the jobs created these days pay $12 an hour or less where before the recession 60% of the jobs created paid between $13-$25 an hour. The middle class jobs simply are not being created which is one of the reasons the unemployment rate is dropping, but a ton of people are still on food stamps and other assistance.

Add into it the fact that the baby boomer lost a lot during the recession so many of them no longer retiring and it makes it a lot more difficult to move up the income ladder than before.

I went to the McDonald's in my town about a 2 weeks ago for lunch. I would say at least half the people working there were adults. Not elderly people, but people that looked to be in their 30's and 40's.

While I agree with you on some points...And I understand that maybe 1/3 of "refugees" that come to Europe are actually from war conflict zones...And while i also understand that letting in milions of people WITHOUT ANY CHECK on them and without their registration..is not a wise thing at all....I would like to ask you...What is your compassion level ? What would you do if you would be on these guys place ?
http://www.asianews.it/files/img/SIR...da_vittime.jpg
http://photo.sf.co.ua/g/365/4.jpg
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/wp...015/10/scw.jpg
what is your compassion level ?
Do you live in some in/near some rotten ghetto in Rotterdam to totally hate everything that is not dutch ?
Would you stay in "migrants camp" in Turkey or would you rather try your luck to live with some hope and dignity?
https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys...ran-oi-006.jpg
"democracy for whole world " !:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

With new AI voice recognition technology order talking at fast food restaurants does not have to be done by humans -- the problem to be worked out is filtering background noise -- maybe enter the order booth (that is sound deadening). You will probably need maintenance and cleaning help to be human occupations.

Investing in AI and production robotics businesses as well as stock stakeholdings would be a good idea.

Robotics maintenance technician will be a good paying job.

Social welfare stipends and payments would be an increasing expense in the budget. The government could create make-work jobs and pay recipients slave-wages equal to the social welfare stipends and payments they would receive every month :upsidedow

Horse buggy drivers and teamsters adapted, blacksmiths adapted, buggy whip makers folded and their workers adapted to new vocations (or starved).

I see this as a positive thing stimulating new efficiencies -- human workers are getting expensive -- it is time to explore alternatives.

why sarcasm? I thought the main argument for minimum wage is that the wage needs to be enough to "live on"... this doesn't apply to teenagers, since they don't use the $$ earned for living expenses, but for beer, smokes, movie tickets and a new iphone every year...

so why should everyone "subsidize" (through higher prices on goods/services) teenagers?

In a dictatorship, Government can do whatever it likes. In a Democracy, not bought by the 1%, it will be voters who decide. All it needs is to get them to the polling booths and vote for people who represent them.

There are alternatives. Reduce the population to a size that fits. So a couple are only allowed one child, massive tariffs are placed on imported goods from countries that saturate other markets with cheap goods.

As for adapting. Using a model based on the days when buggies were being replaced by cars. Shows you haven't thought it through.

Thinking robots will provide jobs for Americans is another mistake.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
lol just lol

So those still living at home relying on Mum and Dad. Can be exempt. Unless Mum and Dad are also on a low wage.


Why should a large portion of the population subsidise cheap goods made in China. By losing their jobs?

You're still thinking the present model can keep taking jobs and decent wages away from a large section of the population. And continue. It can't because eventually it will hit your wages as your customers can no longer afford to buy. Unless you're in a profession that's protected and pays well.

And I doubt if you are. Medium Level self-employed programmers are going to find the going tough. Major companies will shove out the small ones, Indians and others can work cheaper, doesn't matter how they are now, they will improve. And the market your clients rely on is shrinking.

do you know what a one trick pony is?

but since we're at it - how many people do you employ?

Most are commenting as if the market and situation is stable. It's not and we are in the middle of an evolving situation.

Jobs are going to Automation and being exported at an alarming rate. The population is increasing at the same alarming rate. Decent paying jobs are getting higher paid and require higher skills. And if it isn't stopped, the customer base we rely on will shrink and shrink.

http://static1.businessinsider.com/i...age-growth.png

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zdtJ1XIr7z...urly-wages.png

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...t3-blog480.jpg

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/201...stagnation.png

There are only so many memberships the 1% can buy.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/...rich-2.top.gif

so you haven't really thought all this through, and are just making it all up as you go along? What if you aren't living at home, but your spouse makes $100k/year, should you be exempt too? Obviously you don't need the $$ to "live on", so why should everyone "subsidize" your employment at $15/hr?


raising minimum wage does nothing at all to solve this problem and actually makes it worse... it increases the wage gap between the US and other countries, so it makes setting up production outside of the US even more profitable...

also, I think you are missing what the problem is, the problem is not lack of jobs... the problem is lack of skills, there are ton of available jobs but most of them require some specialized skills... by raising minimum wage you reduce people's incentive to acquire those skills... leaving them stuck with 20th century skills, in 21st century economy...

Wages
 

It's time for Economics 101.

Businesses don't pay employees their salaries.

Businesses don't pay taxes.

THE CUSTOMER, who buys the product pays both, plus the cost of the product and all the other costs.

PLUS all the profits for the company's owners. Some owners are more greedy than others.

Now that you've just learned your first college class in Economics, remit the class fee.

i have nothing to add - only that minimum wage jobs are not limited to students or teens - as others seem to claim here

How many people do you think are on minimum wages and married to someone make $100k?


How many manufacturing jobs pay minimum wage?

Of course there has to be import taxes on companies what want to destroy job. And more spent on education to make sure there are enough to fill the high-skilled jobs.

I don't know, but why does it matter how many there are? Certainly families like that exist, so do you think they should be exempt from $15/hr minimum wage, or not? If not, why do you think we should "subsidize" the $15/hr wage for them?

No Paul -- Obsolescence.

Low wage labor will be partially obsoleted.
Just like the jobs in the magazine and newspaper production industry were. We don't need many pressmen (print shop workers) today. The world changes some of the people fail to change with the world.

My grandfather owned a garment factory in New York City in the 1930 - after the second world war. He made his money exploiting cheap immigrant labor. Then when the workers in the garment industry unionized -- the higher wages made it marginally profitable. In 1949 he sold out to his partner and retired at 58. Henlou Ladies Sportwear, the factory Henrietta and Louis founded is no more today, they no longer sell to Saks Fifth Avenue and other higher end retailers. Couldn’t compete. Same shit new day -- when wages become too high businesses automate or offshore to cheaper labor markets.

The problem will not be solved with handouts for the unemployable. Nor can they be exiled to the space colony or die in the streets begging ... So, only higher efficiency and profits can subsidize the hard core unemployable to a very marginal existence. Forced work for your subsidy is not so unjustified -- child care workers for the employed as an example. May be there needs to be constructed child care centers -- these could be staffed be displaced lower skilled workers. Cleaning up and giving simple daycare to children would not be above their skills if the displaced worker can show metal stability and a willingness to do the job. Cheap help like this is not worth $15/hr ($22.00/hr with mandated work benefits by the state).

Things will rebalance and equalize in the higher cost labor low-skills market.

Maybe, we will have GMO Monkey workers that you can buy -- they will work for bananas sweeping floors and cleaning toilets. You can keep their little monkey offspring in cages. I mean how hard could it be to teach a monkey to clean a toilet -- give him a cookie when he completes his task :)

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/...20100328022522

Exactly. At the moment, the US is paying the Chines to produce goods. The taxes that would have been raised by US workers and companies are now being raised in China.

Your economics is 40 years out of date.

Can you pay via Paxum?

Companies like Macdonalds, Walmart, J.C. Penny, can't export their jobs.

Corporate Profits of Low-Wage Employers | Raise The Minimum Wage

http://static3.businessinsider.com/i...rt_1%20(8).png

Click here to read more.

How many of these jobs can be exported to the Third World? How many of these companies are subsidised by taxpayers? how many of these companies are owned by the very wealthy? How many of them do everything they can to minimise taxes?

Yes Sunny Day, you will have to pay more for your burgers so your fellow Americans get a decent wage. Because the owners have no intention of lowering their income.

No, because the extra paperwork would make it cost more than it saves.

what extra paper work? it's same exact paper work as the one for the teenager (which you said previously you would be in favor of)...

"are you a teenager or does your spouse make more than $100k/year?" [checkbox]

but either way, assume there is no additional paperwork cost, you could just magically make families making over $100k/year exempt... would you?

Which will mean the better paid, paying a lot more in taxes. Say Income Tax at 45% and up. Sales tax at 25%.

Much like we have in Europe. Especially Countries like Sweden and Denmark where it's around 45% and 49% of GDP.

Or do you think it can be done on the present tax rate of 26%?

It has to be checked to see if it's true. How many families have a spouse earning minimum and a partner earning over $100K? Until you know the figures, don't bother replying.

I said teenagers who are not living with parents able to support them properly. Again more paperwork and checking the facts.

America has a large "ME" culture. Where people will do anything not to care for fellow Americans. That can't continue because eventually the poor will outnumber the rich at the polling booths. They already outnumber them in the population.

A Sanders or a Trump will sail into positions of power and no matter how much the rich spend on adverts. It won't work. In the UK a lot of people are anti-EU and UKIP sprung from nowhere to become a force. Mass migration has turned many voters into right wing voters.

So many demand politicians not tied to the big donators. They will get it if they vote for it, in all elections.

I got news for you;

Wage earning workers who make a median of $38K, or less in the USA, a year pay most all of the sales (or VAT) taxes.

So, you are really saying that the qualified worker should pay the taxes for the support of the low-skilled marginally employed minimum wage worker.

That will not fly in the USA. Europe has a hereditary memory of serfdom so maybe the workers there can rationalize it somehow.

What will happen (sarcastically but to the point): is that in a hotel were there were 3 housekeepers to a floor of 100 rooms (@$8/hr) there will now only be 1 housekeeper (@$15/hr) per floor with 4 trained monkey assistants that work for bananas.

Low wage earners will be expected to work harder and more efficiently for a higher wage. Many jobs can be done by automation, robotics or trained animals -- whatever works best.

it's a hypothetical question, numbers are irrelevant... it's not a question of "checking the facts" or practicality of it all... it's a question of ethics...

so given the goal of minimum wage is to help poor families achieve enough income to "live on"...

teenagers should be exempt, since they don't use income for living expenses... you agreed with me on that...

so using similar logic, I would think families making over $100k/year should be exempt too, since there is no reason at all why we should subsidize $15/hr wage for them? do you agree? or do you think there is some reason why we should indeed subsidize high wages for them?

So how do you plan to fund your solution?

I did not agree with you. I said Teenagers that are living with parents who can afford to support them, could be exempt. As could the spouses with partners earning over $100k. Now go find out how many that applies to. Are you prepared to pay more in taxes for the ethical approach to weed out those who don't need the money?

I think many are angry their cheap lifestyle will be upset by higher taxes or prices.

It will be decided at the ballot box when those on a low wage get out and vote for people who will deliver the change they want. They've seen 40 years or more of voting for people who have catered to the top and grown poor by it.

Do you agree that fewer people buying your customers products reduce's your income?

$100k was just an arbitrary number, if $100k could be exempt, how about $75k or $50k? what do you think the "right" cut off level should be? I would think "subsidizing" family earning more than avg income in the US, which is about $50k, would be hard to justify? so cut off level should be under $50k?

Increasing minimum wage doesn't create more people that will be able to buy products... it simply takes $$ from one group of people and gives it to others... minimum wage workers will have more to spend, but someone else will have less to spend... minimum wage laws don't magically create wealth... if they did, why not just do $25/hr? or $50/hr?

I'm curious.

For those who believe that raising minimum wage will speed up the process of automation/robotics taking over over low paying jobs, what do you think will them happen? Do you think we will just end up with a big segment of the population that is unemployed/unemployable or do you think there there will be growth in other industries and those people can find jobs there?

just look back on history, every time new revolutionary tech was introduced, same exact arguments were used as there are now... but life went on, people adapted and pursued careers in other fields... why does anyone think this time it's different?

i am old enough to remember how people were crying that everybody will be unemployed when robots take over - that was somewhere in the 1980ties

I think it might be different this time around because the world has changed. The policies put in place by our government over the last 30+ years have made it very easy for companies to go off shore with their jobs. We are starting to see the results of that as the majority of jobs created now are low paying service and retail jobs. When automation starts to take those low paying jobs over I don't see why companies would expand to create different jobs in the US when they can do it overseas cheaper and with less hassle.

I do think there will new fields opening up and some new opportunities for those who have the correct education/experience, but I don't know how many of those types of jobs we will have.

I can see a future where we as a nation simply no longer create enough jobs at any pay level to accommodate all of those who want a job and we could end up in a situation where we have an unemployment rate that hangs out around 15% or higher and it is excepted as being the norm.

Same here. I was born in 1971 so I was a teenager in the 1980's. I remember people talking about how computers and robots were going to take over just about every job.

To me, the difference now is that technology is quickly becoming a reality. In the 1980's it was pretty limited, but these days technology is advancing at a pace that we could see some major changes within in the next 10-15 years.

Trade Act Programs | United States Department of Labor

The could be a wage rate readjustment act also -- there might be a payroll tax 50/50 worker/employer to fund it.

There should be vocational retraining opportunity however limited its success has been. Tax supported vocational training schools and 2 year college schooling towards getting AA degrees in needed skills would go a long way toward eliminating a lot of need to work temporarily at minimum or low wages to help pay for continuing or advanced schooling.

There only might be a need of 1/3 of today's current minimum or low wage job positions in the near future.

Do we behave like a Luddite and destroy the machines or regress progress with Luddite politics -- the idiots shall inherit the earth?

$15/hr to flip burgers? There are skilled tech support people making $12. Dang
Fast food workers, meet your replacement

http://libertynews.com/wp-content/up...rs-750x350.jpg

If I owned a restaurant I'd go right out and buy these. No human error. No paid benefits. No sick days. No attitude. Always on time.