Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2761
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Oct 2017, 11:26 am

I am not as concerned about high-school and college students who are working just to make a little money. But some people that age have kids and are working full-time. If you could craft an exception just for students making a little extra money...that would be fine.

First of all it is speculative that the restaurant industry lost jobs. They figured if the restaurant industry had grown as fast as the rest of San Diego they would have added 5,200 and not just 1,300 jobs in a 12 month period. We don't really know why that occurred. But even if we assume San Diego's higher minimum wage had an impact two things should be noted: (1) job growth in San Diego as a whole was good, was apparently not negatively affected, and that's the main thing, (2) the reluctance to add jobs may be due to the fact that employers see increased costs while being uncertain about increased revenues from low-wage workers having more income; things will adjust over time as employers figure out the enhanced revenue they will get from increased demand.

Employers are not going to just cut employees if that results in a loss of revenue. They will try to raise menu prices...but that might cause of loss of revenue. The easiest thing is to see if they can become more efficient--cut employee hours that are not essential (e.g, too many employees on a slow shift).

Anyway, you have to wait several years before you can see the full effect in the food industry. Overall, The San Diego example does not show anything...except good things. If overall job growth is good..and wages have gone up...what's to complain about?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3101
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 05 Oct 2017, 11:28 am

So on the Trump tax plan . . .

While it's impossible to say for sure with the details that have been released, it is very likely that my family will get screwed by this plan. As I've documented here many times, we (now) pay very low federal income tax rates and part of the reason is the large amount of deductions we take, especially in state and local taxes. One of the deductions left in place by the Trump plan is the mortgage interest deduction, but that doesn't benefit us. As a result, we'd likely take the standard deduction, and cut our deductions in half or more. Any reduction in rate is not going to make up for that difference.

But I think that tax reform would be good for the country and so I can't say that I'm against it, but I also have very little confidence that what comes out of the end of the pipe will be anything close to fair. I don't think Trump cares about such things. He just wants to have a list of accomplishments and he'll do whatever it takes to get it passed, and that's the thing that worries me more than anything. Tax reform = good, generally, but Trump's tax reform? We should all keep a hand on our wallet!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 05 Oct 2017, 12:02 pm

But if you pay a college adult less than a different adult you are discriminating! Shame on you!'

You say the report doesn't show anything because growth in San Diego is good. Perhaps the 4,000 job holders would have a different opinion.

Amid an abrupt slowdown in growth, nearly 4,000 food-service jobs may have been cut or not created throughout San Diego County from the beginning of 2016 through February of this year, according to an analysis of federal payroll data by Lynn Reaser, chief economist of the Fermanian Business & Economic Institute at Point Loma Nazarene University.

“This was at a time when both overall economies performed similarly well,” Reaser said. “If job growth in the restaurant sector had just kept pace with the state's performance … the industry could have created 5,200 jobs instead of the 1,300 that took place.” Last month growth turned negative, as the sector actually lost jobs.


Who cares what the reasons are. Fact is that there are job losses due to the minimum wage. Admit that. Your point is that is OK, because it makes some have a living wage. That is little consolation for the unemployed, let go employee.

“Yes, we have raised menu prices. Yes, we’re going to raise them again,” said Jim Phillips, general manager of Studio Diner in Kearny Mesa, who has nonetheless cut staffing from 71 to 65 employees and needs to shed seven more."

Even if such forecasts are correct, there’s plenty of potential for human suffering inside the numbers, especially in high-cost San Diego. If your paycheck drops to zero, a 50 percent raise for your former colleagues provides cold comfort.

So far Freeman, you have suggested treating people differently regarding wages, and supporting something that results in losing their jobs. It does not sound like you.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2761
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Oct 2017, 12:30 pm

But the overall growth rate was very strong. If a job is lost in fast food...but winds somewhere else...who cares? By the way, did you note that they say it may have caused job loss in the retail food industry.--not that I actually did.

So...you haven't proven that overall jobs were lost in San Diego (the article said overall growth was strong) or even that jobs were lost in a particular sector. Meanwhile, we KNOW that workers' wages have gone up.

The minimum wage is one of the few tools we can use to prod companies into paying higher wages so we don't have such a stratified society. And you guys keep fighting it. I have worked in a McDonalds before. That was the hardest job I ever had. They deserve to have a living wage.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20586
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Oct 2017, 12:40 pm

freeman3 wrote:But the overall growth rate was very strong. If a job is lost in fast food...but winds somewhere else...who cares? By the way, did you note that they say it may have caused job loss in the retail food industry.--not that I actually did.

So...you haven't proven that overall jobs were lost in San Diego (the article said overall growth was strong) or even that jobs were lost in a particular sector. Meanwhile, we KNOW that workers' wages have gone up.

The minimum wage is one of the few tools we can use to prod companies into paying higher wages so we don't have such a stratified society. And you guys keep fighting it. I have worked in a McDonalds before. That was the hardest job I ever had. They deserve to have a living wage.


Sorry, but I'll stand by this: the goal should be to want people to move up, not to have them satisfied at McDonald's. A "living wage" will end jobs for teenagers. No one will pay a know-nothing $15 an hour when they know the kid will move on in short order.

If you want to un-stratify our society, incentives work better than 2x4's. The minimum wage is brute force and, as you admit, you don't know what effects raising it to $15 will cause. However, your economic shrugging is not too comforting.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 10 Oct 2017, 5:30 am

freeman3 wrote:But the overall growth rate was very strong. If a job is lost in fast food...but winds somewhere else...who cares? By the way, did you note that they say it may have caused job loss in the retail food industry.--not that I actually did.

So...you haven't proven that overall jobs were lost in San Diego (the article said overall growth was strong) or even that jobs were lost in a particular sector. Meanwhile, we KNOW that workers' wages have gone up.

The minimum wage is one of the few tools we can use to prod companies into paying higher wages so we don't have such a stratified society. And you guys keep fighting it. I have worked in a McDonalds before. That was the hardest job I ever had. They deserve to have a living wage.


Sorry to Geo that we are staying off topic, but I think you are missing 2 very important points. The first is that fast food restaurants will continue to automate based on their bottom line. That hardest job you ever had -- which taught you a great deal about work and life and the importance of an education and respecting the hard working poor -- may not be available to the next guy or gal because an automated process is now doing it.

Second, the chains such as McDonalds can drive revenue based on their brands, so they will not go out of business when their bottom line costs go up. However, Brad's friend cannot drive revenue as easily so his business, livelihood, and the jobs that go with it may be lost. An unintended consequence of raising the minimum wage is helping mega-businesses at the expense of the little guy.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 10 Oct 2017, 5:34 am

Geo:
Tax reform = good, generally, but Trump's tax reform? We should all keep a hand on our wallet!


Isn't that true no matter who is the President and who is in Congress?

Regarding state taxes, I would relax. There are obvious solutions, and the Republicans will need the votes of NY and NJ Republican congressmen to pass this thing. Perhaps they can allow real estate taxes, or cap the entire deduction at $25,000, or haircut it by some % for higher income taxpayers.

Tax reform = good and Trump is actually a good guy to have in the Whitehouse for this for precisely the reason you mention: he will sign virtually anything that Congress agrees to.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2761
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Oct 2017, 5:57 am

Personally, I think fast food places impose huge negative externalities in the health problems they create...so I don't much care if they go bye-bye. The point you make about the little guy is valid..but that is why the Seattle study cited by conservatives was so ridiculous because they did not count chains.

The reason why minimum wage laws should not be a net drag on jobs (at least within reason) is that most of the extra wages is going to go right back into the economy in the form of increased consumption. The real risk is inflation due in part to companies raising prices. It's a complex subject but conservatives still have not come up with a good study showing a significant impact. (And believe me they're trying).

I just think that a living wage should be an deontological principle: if you want to operate a business. you pay workers a living wage. And maybe a small business will only hire someone for 20 hours and that person will have to get another job but if you work 40 hours you should receive a living wage. We have people making billions of dollars (an increase of $5 in minimum wage=$10,000 a year; 100,000 workers getting an extra $10,000 a year= 1 billion or equal to the income of 1 hedge fund manager in some cases.), we can make it so the working poor can support themselves. The economy will adjust.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20586
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Oct 2017, 6:14 am

freeman3 wrote:The reason why minimum wage laws should not be a net drag on jobs (at least within reason) is that most of the extra wages is going to go right back into the economy in the form of increased consumption. The real risk is inflation due in part to companies raising prices. It's a complex subject but conservatives still have not come up with a good study showing a significant impact. (And believe me they're trying).


We don’t need a good study. We have economics on our side. It’s basic: it will cause inflation. Who will get hurt the worst? Those on the lower end of the economic spectrum.

Simple solution: raise the minimum wage again!

Liberals act like raising the minimum wage is a magic bullet to solve income inequality and to improve the lives of millions. Prove it.

Prove that it won’t simply trip a never-ending cycle of inflation, won’t cost jobs, and actually will have positive results.

I just think that a living wage should be an deontological principle: if you want to operate a business. you pay workers a living wage. And maybe a small business will only hire someone for 20 hours and that person will have to get another job but if you work 40 hours you should receive a living wage. We have people making billions of dollars (an increase of $5 in minimum wage=$10,000 a year; 100,000 workers getting an extra $10,000 a year= 1 billion or equal to the income of 1 hedge fund manager in some cases.), we can make it so the working poor can support themselves. The economy will adjust.


I just think that workers should strive to have the skills that demand decent pay. Mopping a floor, flipping burgers, and serving popcorn at a theater are not jobs that demand skills. They are also not careers.

“The economy will adjust.”

Sure. With inflation and fewer jobs, which will result in more government aid.

Puerto Rico is an interesting place to examine. Knowing many Puerto Ricans, they describe it as a place where many are on the dole because there are few jobs. Is that the society we want? Or do we want an aspirational society—one in which you can climb as you gain the knowledge and skills necessary. The government using an iron fist to magically “adjust” the economy—what can go wrong?

Everything.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10740
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Oct 2017, 7:12 am

fate
We don’t need a good study. We have economics on our side. It’s basic: it will cause inflation. Who will get hurt the worst? Those on the lower end of the economic spectrum


So your argument is that those earning minimum wage shouldn't be given a raise because it will hurt them economically?


But millionaires must be given tax breaks to buttress the economy for everyone... ?

Fate
I just think that workers should strive to have the skills that demand decent pay. Mopping a floor, flipping burgers, and serving popcorn at a theater are not jobs that demand skills. They are also not careers.

Someone has to do the jobs that require little skill.
Or they don't get done.

As for your argument that you have economics on your side...please quote your source...
Because this source from 2015 refutes that,...
the minimum wage in the U.S. is well below that of other advanced countries. The Economist estimates that the minimum wage should be about $12 an hour in the U.S based on our GDP. That makes a lot of sense, especially because $10.90 would put it just where it was in 1968. If we add a little extra to the minimum wage for the growth in productivity, $12 seems to be a conservative estimate of where the lower bound of workers’ wages should be. In addition to the 1.3 million people working at minimum wage, there are another 1.7 million working below minimum wage (tipped employees) and an additional 21 million employees who are working just above the minimum, but below $10 an hour. They would also be affected, because their pay is pegged to the minimum wage. So an increase in the minimum wage would affect a third of the labor force being paid an hourly basis.
Those against raising the minimum wage often argue that it will hurt young people the most and that they “need the experience” of working at the minimum wage. But notice that the youth unemployment rate in Germany is 7.8 percent, and in Switzerland, it is 8.5 percent. In contrast, youth unemployment is 15.5 percent in the U.S., even though the U.S.’s minimum wage (using Purchasing Power Parities exchange rates) is below that of these Germany’s and Switzerland’s $10 and $9.20 an hour respectively. In other words, both have higher minimum wages, but much lower youth unemployment rates. Their overall unemployment rate is also lower: 4.5 percent and 3.4 percent, respectively. The minimum wage makes no difference on unemployment.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sens ... economics/

The US is increasingly a consumer economy. And with protectionist trade policies in the fore, this will only grow as the US starts to be shut out of markets it once dominated. (See affects of APTA on agricultural exports) .
To improve the consumer economy, those at the bottom of the economy, who spend every dollar they get, require more in their pockets.
Without greater demand apparent, investors don't invest. You don't build a factory hoping that a market will grow.. You build a factory when demand is already apparent...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 10 Oct 2017, 7:21 am

Ricky:
the minimum wage in the U.S. is well below that of other advanced countries. The Economist estimates that the minimum wage should be about $12 an hour in the U.S based on our GDP


We are talking about a minimum wage of $15 in some parts of the US.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20586
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Oct 2017, 7:43 am

rickyp wrote:fate
We don’t need a good study. We have economics on our side. It’s basic: it will cause inflation. Who will get hurt the worst? Those on the lower end of the economic spectrum


So your argument is that those earning minimum wage shouldn't be given a raise because it will hurt them economically?


But millionaires must be given tax breaks to buttress the economy for everyone... ?


Hey, thanks for reading my mind. Please point to ANY post wherein I wrote that. (Hint: I didn’t)

Fate
I just think that workers should strive to have the skills that demand decent pay. Mopping a floor, flipping burgers, and serving popcorn at a theater are not jobs that demand skills. They are also not careers.

Someone has to do the jobs that require little skill.
Or they don't get done.


Right. And, they are done by kids and/or people who do not need to support a family. Everyone else needs to make themselves valuable. That’s capitalism.

As for your argument that you have economics on your side...please quote your source...
Because this source from 2015 refutes that,...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sens ... economics/

Actually, it didn’t speak to inflation. And, it’s tough to compare unemployment rates in socialist-states with the US. You’re only “unemployed” if you’re looking. If you’re paid to not work (socialism), some choose not to look.

You are welcome to socialism. I’ll pass.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2761
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Oct 2017, 7:56 am

California is going to $15 an hour in a few years. Other parts of the country you could get by on less. As for the government being the problem...we've let business have its way. What's happened? A financialization of the country. Our best and brightest go into...moving money around. The idea that financial jobs should make that much money is kind of absurd. That don't directly create wealth. You want your best people making changes to the world, building bridges, designing buildings, inventing new drugs, building faster computers, building new spaceships. Whatever. We got lots of problems to be fixed, lots of new industries that coujd be created. And we are incentivizing people to work in the financial sector and work in middle management of large companies where they ain't creating squat. Putting your best people in moving money around and figuring how to cut labor costs and buy back stock...is not the way to create societal wealth. Obviously, we need people to move money around and handle stock transactions and be in middle management and CEOs, but it shows serious defects in our economy that those jobs have become so lucrative.

Government had nothing to do with this misallocation of societal resources. Sure...it makes sense that the financial sector with 6% of the work force makes 25-30% of the profits of business. They are skimming off the wealth of society, wealth that could easily pay for a decent minimum wage and then some. It's really kind of obscene. Wall Street averaged a $176,000 BONUS PER EMPLOYEE last year. Ridiculous. And you guys are making a big deal over paying someone 30 grand a year.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 10 Oct 2017, 8:02 am

Freeman:
And you guys are making a big deal over paying someone 30 grand a year.


No we aren't. We are saying that many employers will go out of business or not be able to hire them. It's not a big deal for me. It's a big deal for the employer.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 10 Oct 2017, 8:04 am

Freeman:
You want your best people making changes to the world, building bridges, designing buildings, inventing new drugs, building faster computers, building new spaceships.


These aren't minimum wage jobs -- you can provide for a family in any one of these. Nothing is preventing people from doing these wonderful things.