$15 minimum wage, Illegal immigration and Automation...

Jobs for STEM graduates have been going down yearly because of outsourcing and profit taking. A typical STEM job currently pays $50, 000 to $60,000 yearly with benefits, unless its in Healthcare. That's with experienced employees. With outsourcing, virtually the same wages are paid without benefits.

The cost of getting a college education will not pay for itself in the long run unless the college grad got his company or parents to pay for it. With most companies, they won't hire someone in a STEM position without a degree and experience.

In 10 years or less those jobs will be paying in the mid 30K per year or lower. The Dems say get a college degree, which doesn't solve anything and the Repubs say get off your lazy butt and earn those wages then buddy up if you can't afford the cost of living.

An appalling situation.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Can you imagine the $$$$ that would be spent in a state election to reduce the # of hours legally from 40 to 30 by big corps? (if a state election can trump Federal law)

It would make the anti-label GMO money look like pennies.

The system is broken and those who can fix it have almost all the cards. Until the "consumers" band together like they did in the fight for civil rights, it is piss in the wind.

.

My understanding is the more restrictive law is the one that takes precedence in a state, between state and federal laws. That's why California has Cal-OSHA (more restrictive) and why the feds still raid pot farms (more restrictive).
But yes I can imagine the money spent by Corps. I do not think Americans trust big Corps.

I agree we need to band together. Are you willing to have 10 more hours of time for yourself, or for your family/friends?

a reply to: mysterioustranger

At the UC I work for students leave with an average of $60K in debt for their undergrad degree.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Can the average worker afford 30 hours pay in place of 40?

I agree we need to band together. Are you willing to have 10 more hours of time for yourself, or for your family/friends?

a reply to: Aazadan

New technology still needs to be built, installed, operated, and maintained and most importantly created in the first place. You cant do that with a poorly educated workforce.

Which is why we need better educated people in all fields. So we are constantly pushing innovation forward. The only reason we are not completely stagnating is because we hire better educated workers and scientists from around the world.


If people didn't have to worry about the cost of college they could do these menial jobs whilst going to school for a higher paying job. Instead of being stuck living pay check to pay check. They move up and allow someone else to do the same. The way i see it nobody besides high schoolers should expect to be able to live comfortably in a low wage position for very long. unless they plan on living with their parents long term.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Can the average worker afford 30 hours pay in place of 40?

I agree we need to band together. Are you willing to have 10 more hours of time for yourself, or for your family/friends?

Economics would say all prices would drop by around 25%. Or we would run into a surplus of goods, which may drop prices over 25%.
Right now your arguments are saying the corporations have the upper hand.
The last time we (workers) challenged the corporations, we got higher wages, fewer work hours, weekends off, and trade unions.
You really think we cannot do it again?

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Why would anything get cheaper?

Let's say 100 people to 125
You would have 25 more people with their inherent problems.
25 more people with benefit packages.
Could push businesses with 50 employees over threshold to now require ACA benefits.
All while producing the same amount of product. Or did I miss something.

I am all for it, but imagine the corps who "allowed" wages to stagnate since the mid 1970's doing this? It would be a forced thing.

a reply to: seasonal

How could anything not be cheaper if the populace is making 3/4 of their current income?

What inherent problems do workers have?

Last I checked the ACA was limited to people working 30 hours or more. Drop everyone down to 29 hours, no requirements for benefits (companies already do this).

Of course it would be a forced thing, and there are many current forces out there, who are not happy with the way things are right now. Take: BLM, ANTIFA, Unions, those who advocate for an increase in minimum wage, and college students who will not be able to pay off student debt for over a decade, unite them over a shorter work week, explain the economics. Remind them not to be violent, and start the next worker revolution.

Once the work week is won, then start the fight again for benefits.

Or roll over, because We the People cannot beat the corporations. . . Even though it has been done before.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Whatever dude. You're the one making this topic racial by claiming illegal labor is hurting African Americans. So show the facts yourself that back up your claims. Where are you getting your "facts" form other than from your imagination? Also, how am I playing the victim when it's you bringing up how illegal labor is supposedly hurting black people like myself? I even pointed out that there are plenty of job openings in the inner city where I live. Your BS doesn't match my reality.

And yeah, I also brought up what people right here on ATS said about how they intentionally throw out job applications that have African American names on them. so are you going to claim they were all just speaking rhetorically or nah? Did you even read the thread or are you just guessing what people typed?

True or false: there are more illegal immigrants in this nation than out of work blacks?

I said the victim thi g because it seems everytime i notice you this summer youre crying about how youre a victim because there exist racists in this world, type bs. But nevermind the party you worship (apparently increasingly) is selling you out just as hard as anyone if not more so. Sure a bunch of white people might prefer non ghetto coloreds, but it democrat wide open borders policy that as much as anything else helps ensure black america stays that way. Then their propaganda model has tou be oversensitized to racial factors others criticizing it in your peoples favor even you go off the handle with divisive bs. Note i wasnt even talking to you. I was making sure the insult to the injury that is the policy was noted herein and you well full blown partisan when i am NOT a partisan. Get a grip. A year ago you were as level headed and enjoyable as liberals around here come and this summer youre now gettinf to be as annoying with this kind of crap as any ever was.

Im a United Statesian and so is black america, and the policy it just goes wothout saying hurts them. Therefore ethical logic dictates i be at odds with it. Just looks at the population numbers alone, factor in this nation bankrupt, its just common sense. Unless youre implying they wont do any of those jobs? If not then they dont deserve all the handouts. Nobody should if they wont do their part. And this is the team that says yaaaaah socialism. A disgrace.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
5 pages and no one has hit on the simple solution to providing more jobs overnight. Simply lower the hours required for full time work. If the work week was lowered to 30 hours a week, we would have 25% more jobs by virtue of needing more people to fulfill the hours that would have been worked by current employees.
How is this not a solution more people are in favor for?

I've suggested that very thing before. It does work to employ people, but it also reduces wages so it's really only possible when paired with deflationary economic policies. We're not currently in a good position for deflation.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Inner city residents aren't qualified for the jobs we have open. Most are high school drop outs when they need to be doctors and engineers.

I don't see lowering the work week to simply make more jobs available is a solution. It's a net sum game. It's more of a headache for businesses, what's their advantage to having 4 workers do the job that 3 can? It's similar to automation, industry will always opt for the more efficient way.

Will the 4 workers make the same as the 3 had ma? Good luck convincing workers to take one for the team at the tune of 33% of their income.

a reply to: pavil
Forget 4 men doing 3 mens jobs, the problem comes when automation takes full hold. no jobs, no jobs even if you want one.
Currently there are about 320 million people in the US, what happens when the "robots" are doing all the work.
Say 318 million people have no jobs because they are being done by machines. The only people working are those servicing the machines to keep the running. THAT'S the crux of the matter. The principal is the same now and in the future when that does happen.
The solution which everybody hates is it HAS to be done by government enacting laws that limit the amount that share holders, company owners etc. can keep off the company profits that their company generates by robotics.
Example:- a company employs 500 people, after costs, wages etc, they make a profit of a million dollars, they get replaced by "robots", initial cost of installation and yearly service cost the company makes 2 million dollars (because machines don't stop for breaks, don't take holidays, do not get sick and above all don't get paid).
Now those 500 people out of work has to rely on benefit (and that word there explains all you need to know) that is paid by government. But what about the extra million dollars that the company earns? The share holders, owners etc. pocket the extra million what they have not earned (the robots have earned it for them) do people say then to them that's benefit you don't deserve?
Come on you all know what's got to happen whether you like it or not. Just for you Pavel:- the money ALL robots make, after costs, r and d must be taken by the government to pay people a living income, not luxury, a living income.
JUST WHO THE HELL SAYS YOU HAVE TO WORK FOR MONEY?

a reply to: crayzeed

You are probably closer to the Truth than you think. It's going to be crazy seeing how various countries approach this. I'd have to imagine different parts of the country would have different UBI. It won't be universally equal, of that I'm pretty sure.

a reply to: crayzeed

You are probably closer to the Truth than you think. It's going to be crazy seeing how various countries approach this. I'd have to imagine different parts of the country would have different UBI. It won't be universally equal, of that I'm pretty sure.

Raise minimum wage so high and make everyone expect it....will make nrw robots a viable alternative. Goal of robot makers.

Check.
And mate.

a reply to: LambertSimnel

No, the goal of automation equipment makers is to sell their products to any buyers they can find. They'll continue doing that whether we raise or lower the minimum wage.

Truckers make way more than the minimum wage, but they're still going to be replaced by self driving vehicles. On the other hand, fast food workers & grocery store clerks typically make minimum wage or close to it, yet they'll also be replaced by as much automation as possible. The "we need to keep wages low to prevent automation" argument is management's argument to keep workers settling for lower wages until they're replaced by automation.