Top Economists Are Backing Sen. Bernie Sanders on Establishing a $15 an Hour Minimum Wage

a reply to: tridentblue

We don't need that many people to work anymore to produce goods enough for the entire planet.

That's why we have planned obselescence.

We produce so much crap it's out of control. This entire economy is a falsehood built on a false premise of scarcity. A LIE.

It's a joke.

a reply to: onequestion

"We don't need that many people to work anymore to produce goods enough for the entire planet. "

Ah! Someone addresses the actual elephant in the room. I'm an mad AI follower, and I watch robotics a bit. With the former, I feel like we are really at the edge of a breakthrough, and out of that breakthrough comes the latter. AI will produce the robots. A manufacturing revolution is at hand in coming decades, with the slow decay of service sectors coming after that. And yes... I woke up to what you are saying when I first shaved with a perfectly preserved steel razor from the 1950s. Best shave ever, still around, practically never dulls. But we rely on all this plastic crap.

What do you advocate for politically knowing this is coming? I've always been pretty libertarian when it comes to free markets, but all of the sudden I wish we had the communist system as promised (not as it actually was), collective ownership workers paradise and the rest. Otherwise, human workers are going to be pretty irrelevant in what's coming.

a reply to: Phage

Wouldn't increased production costs lead to increased prices?

Well lets use Australia and the Big mac index as an example.

In the US, McDonald's (usually) pays its employees around $7.20US an hour, but in Australia they have to pay there employee's at least 16.50US an hour.

Yet going by the Big Mac index, the cost of a big mac in Australia is only $3.92US, where as the cost of a big mac in the US is $4.79US.

So even though all the workers who contribute to getting a ready made big mac to the consumer are payed more (which includes farmers, truck drivers, factory workers... etc) in Australia, the cost of a big mac still costs less.

Personally, I'd contribute it to the fact that Australia has a larger consumer base per capita, (meaning more people can afford a big mac), which results in more big macs being sold and then more competitive prices. Where as the low minimum wage in the US results in far more billionaires, but less people with a disposable income... per capita, obviously.

a reply to: tridentblue

We have no choice but to turn to a state run economic system.

Sorry if that offends anyone but it's coming and you won't stop it.

Resources need to be put in the hands of the people and taken out of the hands of corporations and the wealthy elite. They need to be managed by councils democratically elected by world regions.

The world governmet is comin it's almost here.

a reply to: onequestion

I don't know what we need, what's coming really has no precedent in history. What's certain is that a system which looks at humans as competing units of economic output will lead us the system where we are replaced by the supreme economic competitors, which will be non-human. Somehow, we need a system which has INNATE value for human beings. What does that mean? The people's socialist state? Do we all need to find Jesus real fast and get everyone on board? I dunno, its an open question, I'd love to hear anyone's opinion because I honestly don't know.

a reply to: tridentblue

As you can see in this thread there is no value in human life only in their ability to make someone else money.

This world is going to become a hell of that doesn't change.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: onequestion

I don't what an "In'n"Out" is but I probably wouldn't go out to one of those either.
I go to restaurants that can cook better than I can. For a reason.

In 'n Out is a primarily west coast chain that's premium fast food, like Panera Bread except it's burgers.

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
In college you can get a degree in map making using the GIS software which is pretty big right now. You then apply for a city with a population of 20,000 people who needs just a guy. That guy will start out at less than 15 dollars an hour most likely but has the potential to make maybe 25 on the upper end. Using the software is a technical skill...it takes time, education and training to learn it. Why should that guy make the same amount of money as a fast food worker? In fact most fast food places have such high turn over that if you stuck it out you would be a shoe in for management...and they make quite a bit...however often work 60 hours a week.

Knowing how to use a piece of software is not a valuable job skill, most software is deliberately made idiot proof.

$25/hour is also just barely over what minimum wage should be if it kept up in purchasing power... that's hardly doing well especially if that's what your profession tops out at.

originally posted by: SolRozenberg
There should be no govt defined minimum wage whatsoever. Are you all not capable of negotiating your own salary?

You can't negotiate a salary for a low tier position, even skilled labor can't do that. If you say no, the company will simply move on to the next person. If there were no minimum wage laws I bet you fast food wages would be $1/hour if that.

originally posted by: Phage
Not really.
The argument is that a drastic increase in minimum wage would result in an increase in unemployment. That, and an untenable increase in inflation.

I don't think unemployment is an issue, for every person unemployed 20 go off of assistance entirely. It's a net gain and with technology improving most of these positions are going to go away before too much longer anyways. It's better to have some people able to support themselves now than just wait for technology to force everyone out of the work place.

a reply to: Phage

1. Yep, that's what you said, when you weren't suggesting that you didn't know "what a living wage was, anyway."

2. Of course it does. A faster more efficient hamburger maker is more productive than one slower or less efficient. You were (supposedly) making your example turn on the efficacy ("worth") of the theorized individual worker.

3. Really? So you don't believe that higher sales volume usually results in higher income/profit? Odd, that's a fairly basic idea. Economy of scale.

4. Do you have any information that you're not sharing? No? Then, think about it. Soft drinks are usually self-serve. Do you really think that the product costs $8.26 a gallon? (128/20 oz x $1.29) Iced tea is an even better deal for the store.

EDIT:

The Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics reports that the biggest mark-ups on any restaurant menu are drinks and side dishes, thus maximizing the profits for the business.

This holds especially true with fast food restaurants. McDonald’s, for example, spends between 13 and 18 cents to produce a soft drink.

That includes the syrup, the cup, water, ice, electricity, labor, and wastage.

If the particular restaurant has customers fill their own drinks, you can essentially take labor out of that as well.

A medium sized soft drink at McDonalds costs them 15 cents or less. The typical profit margin on fountain beverages is approximately 85%. McDonald’s profit margin is 90% or more because of their volume purchasing power.

Concentrate for 50,000 Cokes costs $2.60, including labor. A single penny’s worth of syrup makes almost 200 cups of Coke.

Source

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: tridentblue

As you can see in this thread there is no value in human life only in their ability to make someone else money.

This world is going to become a hell of that doesn't change.

Why should someone be able to afford a minimal living simply because they work full time?

Isn't it better for the government to subsidize business profits with social programs to make up the difference?

Jeez.

/s

a reply to: Gryphon66

Why should someone be able to afford a minimal living simply because they work full time?

Because we're supposed to live in a 'civilized' society... where everybody is meant to have a say and everyone deserves the right to a decent quality of life.

There for, a hard days work, should always be rewarded with a fair days pay.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Did you notice the "/s" ?

My response was sarcastic. I don't disagree with you.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah, it did dawn on me after I replied that you were actually in support of a fair minimum wage.... But, your comment (even if sarcasm) still works nicely as a template to put my point of view across to the hardcore conservatives. Who claim people in the richest country on the face of the earth should be forced to work full time, well living a life of poverty, just to keep themselves from going hungry.

Suppose then if folks are against raising min wage, they shouldn't dare yell at folks on welfare because low wage will mean people still need to eat and have help. When working 2 to 3 jobs still means people need to be on welfare, something has to change, and that's NOT making these folks work 4, 5 or 6 jobs. 10 an hour is doable. If you live in the right place where rent is low and you still have amazing homes, then 10 dollars is like 50 an hour.

Sometimes you just gotta pick up what you can carry, take your last paycheck and move to a small town and live better than you did in the city.

I did it. Every home around here is 600 a month or less, and I'm talking 3 to 5 bdrm homes, very nice, comparable to the 250, 000 dollar 3 bdrm houses up by my old Chicago burb area. I"m in Southern Indiana now, so yeah. Just saying. 10 is more than enough to live decently, still have a lot of hundreds left over at the end of the month. Long as you'r smart about it

a reply to: sarra1833

Being paid $10US an hour or less should only be appropriate for apprentices, trainee's and individuals who are under 18 years of of age.

Everybody on this planet who is over 18 years old, should be entitled to $12.50US an hour with benefits.... Benefits should include, payed holiday & sick leave, a guarantee of being payed for a 38 hours a week, and also workers rights that include not being allowed to be dismissed without written warnings and a reasonable reason.

People who aren't entitled to the workers benefits mentioned above, should all be entitled to at least $16.50US an hour.

This is what any civilized society would be obligated to pay there workers.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa
there is one difference between Australia and the US that might be at play though.
Australia economy, if my information is correct, is a resource economy. One of it's biggest exports are natural resources.
Whereas it seems that the US's biggest export is dollars and debt securities, I am probably exaggerating with that one but well....it seems like we import everything just about that we need.

a reply to: sarra1833

but are the wages scaled down also? that's what is seems like to me, if you find an affordable place to live, well, the jobs in the area are also lower so if you were struggling in the big city on the higher wage, you are gonna be struggling in the small town also. if you can get into an occupation where your job doesn't involve you showing up in an office everyday and clocking in, something like a truck driver, or another job that requires you to be away from home alot, it does work out real well. although you will miss your family and home life.

why don't we just bring back all the jobs we have lost that actually do pay 10-15 an hour starting. if they were done by americans. but no. we'll pay fast food workers 15 an hour, keep everyone complacent. and keep right on outsourcing. how can mcdonald's make 1.5b in profit (in 2012 i know they aren't doing well lately) and their workers alone claimed 1.2b in government assistance? m.huffpost.com...
the answer isn't "well let's just pay everybody more" it should be left to the companies to decide what a fair wage is. i mean obviously mcdonald's CAN afford to pay their people more, but they don't. my husband works for a mom and pop store, is able to work 48 hours a week if he wants and makes over 15 an hour regular time plus time and a half over 40 hours. and his store only made a little over a million in profit last year. why does he make what he does? because the owners know they can afford to pay a high wage, so they do. i wish more places would follow suit so that the government wouldn't feel the need to start talking crazy.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah, it did dawn on me after I replied that you were actually in support of a fair minimum wage.... But, your comment (even if sarcasm) still works nicely as a template to put my point of view across to the hardcore conservatives. Who claim people in the richest country on the face of the earth should be forced to work full time, well living a life of poverty, just to keep themselves from going hungry.

To my mind it's primarily a matter of economics, and ironically, conservative fiscal values. More money in the hands of workers means more spending in the local economy. More spending means greater demand, more production to meet demand, and economic growth. Conservatively, a living minimum wage should simply be part of the cost of doing business, rather than having government subsidize business via the social safety net.

a reply to: blondegiraffe

Right because companies are known for putting the needs of their employees and/or fair treatment ahead of profit.