UC Berkeley Touts $15 Minimum Wage Law, Then Fires Hundreds Of Workers After It Passes

a reply to: xuenchen

So we went from however many thousands of jobs all requiring assistance, to 500 people needing assistance, and the others fully supporting themselves. You don't see how that's a good thing?

a reply to: Aazadan



I guess I don't understand.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: schuyler

Yeah robotics are going to seriously cause issues with millions of low paying jobs. We are pretty much screwed when that happens.

High paying jobs, too. There's no reason you need a lawyer to write a will; a robot can do it. And as for diagnostic medicine? Watson (IBM's AI) is better and more accurate than an M.D. Manufacturing used to provide solid middle-income jobs. Robots can do it faster with no complaining. Design an integrated circuit? Robots already do that.

It's kind of like the price of oil. When the price of oil goes up it becomes cost-effective to go after the stuff that's harder and more expensive to extract. The rise in the minimum wage will make that cross-over point come more quickly. When robots grow sentient enough to have an IQ effectively equivalent to 100 (even though they don't, really), then yup.

Were pretty much screwed when that happens.

Actually the robots will demand better pay when they can actually think for themselves. Or they will go on strike. Imagine it. lines of robots with picket signs!!

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: xuenchen

So we went from however many thousands of jobs all requiring assistance, to 500 people needing assistance, and the others fully supporting themselves. You don't see how that's a good thing?

No these newer fires go into the thousands who are now needing support. The un employment rate is not really down. thats a lie they are selling us to placate the people.

Firing 500 people so that others can make 15/hour sounds elitist to me.

So 500 suffer so that others can enjoy a higher minimum wage.

I guess the leftists are elitists.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Poorly thought out altruism often ends up looking elitist or disturbing to those looking at the bigger picture.

Which reminds me of some bathroom humor but I will let it pass.

a reply to: Ahabstar

What those "greedy" people making 15/hour should have done is take a pay cut to allow those 500 people to have employment.

originally posted by: mkultra11
You don't have to be an economist to figure this one out. The more people make the less employees you can afford.
Minimum wage was and should be a stepping stone job on the way to a better one. A lot of people are content with minimum wage jobs and that's it. I think it's almost like the next level of welfare. The next thing is that they are going to force companies to hire a minimum amount of minimum wage employees bc so many will be getting laid off.

Right on. This is exactly what the opponents of the $15.00 minimum wage hike have been trying to say.

Here is some more to digest:

Michael Saltsman, research director at the Employment Policies Institute, argued:[22]

“ Look no further than San Francisco’s restaurant industry, which has been hit hard by the $15 minimum wage that passed in November 2014 and is currently phasing in. Abbot’s Cellar, once one of the city’s top 100 restaurants, closed its doors earlier this year and cited the minimum-wage hike as a determining factor. For Source, a now-shuttered vegetarian restaurant, the increased labor costs were the “nail in its coffin." ... Labor markets in Imperial County, for example, already struggle to supply even more-experienced job-seekers with work. The unemployment rate for all employees hovers around 22 percent. Across all occupations, the median hourly wage is $13.79. Even supporters of a higher minimum wage are uncomfortable with a wage floor that’s much higher than half of the median wage, which means $15 would be economic suicide for Imperial County.[12] ”

Mike Der Manouel, Jr., president and CEO of the Der Manouel Insurance Group, said:[23]

“ A lot of big cities that have leaped ahead on this issue are feeling the pinch of job losses. I've never understood why people continue to push for a higher minimum wage when they know it does economic damage to the very people that they're intending to help.[12

ballotpedia.org...$15_Minimum_Wage_Initiative_(2016)

I always laugh when I see people protesting for a higher minimum wage, they are literally advocating to be fired or replaced by machines. Personally I'm against a minimum wage, but if you're going to advocate for a minimum, at least make it something reasonable! If you think McDonald's is going to hire some kid at $15 an hour you are fooling yourself, we might as well rename it MachineDonald's.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

I guess I don't understand.

Let me clarify, I don't know how many Berkley was hiring but lets say they had 1000 minimum wage workers. That's 1000 people who needed public assistance to survive, so 1000 people who weren't independent. With the increase in minimum wage 500 people were laid off but the other 500 are now independent. So while total wages work out to the same, under one model you have 1000 people dependent on the government while the other has 500 dependent and 500 independent. I see that as progress.

a reply to: Aazadan

Once you have single payer healthcare - everyone is dependent on the government. Once the global warming agenda is completed, everyone will be dependent on government for energy. Using government to raise the minimum wage just gives government even more power. Giving government more power never ends in more people being independent, just the opposite.

a reply to: Aazadan

Ah yes I see now.

It's the old "ultimate sacrifice" game.

Yes it is "progress".

a reply to: Aazadan

But isn't the public assistance dollar amount the same?

Maybe even more with 500 that are 100% assisted instead of minimally assisted.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

I guess I don't understand.

Let me clarify, I don't know how many Berkley was hiring but lets say they had 1000 minimum wage workers. That's 1000 people who needed public assistance to survive, so 1000 people who weren't independent. With the increase in minimum wage 500 people were laid off but the other 500 are now independent. So while total wages work out to the same, under one model you have 1000 people dependent on the government while the other has 500 dependent and 500 independent. I see that as progress.

UC Berkeley carries 37-38,000 students. Universities usually hire students, especially in the lower wage positions. Many students aren't even eligible for public assistance. So basically, UC Berkeley employs 24,700 people directly, 1620 full time faculty, last in, first out layoff policy.

I could be wrong but many students aren't able to get public assistance. The 500 who lost their jobs were most likely part timers and are out a job and need to find new employment. The 500 who received wage increases, again, most likely part timers, only increased their hourly wage by a $1.50. IIRC, the min wage was $13.43/hr. If you're working 25 hours a week, your weekly pay escalates by $37.00, certainly isn't going to get one out of the gutter. So tell us, who really won?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: IAMNOTYOU

Now that's some logical thinkig. It should be illegal for executives to get raises when they are laying people off or cutting employee pays and benefits but it seems to be the standard practice of corporate crooks.

I remember working for staples a few years back in their business to business division and they laid off 100 employees at my location because share prices were dropping but the CEO somehow got a bonus of over 2 million.

If they don't give the money out as bonus then it is left as corporate profit and gets corporate taxed. So they let go the employees they transferred their payroll to the CEO so the money stayed on the same side of the books. If that money went into profit, they would lose more to taxes and giving out dividends to shareholders because stock prices would go up reflecting the new profit.
How do you know the CEO didn't reinvest that money back into the company at the low cost shares?

Looks like a smart move to save the company that was spin doctored to fit a hate wallstreet narrative.

So you are saying that corporations should be allowed to lay off massive amounts of people while giving their CEOs huge bonuses so they can avoid paying the taxes which they should lawfully be paying ? I'm not sure I understand the logic here.

The fact is that companies which are still profitable say they are losing money. Yet they really aren't losing money they just didn't make as much as was protected. It's an absolutely insane way of running businesses. Even if a company made 5 million dollars more than the previous year in profits they call it a loss because it's all based on speculation.