This could bring the US to its knees

[Crackpot]

It's not nearly as one sided as you make it out to be Jim. Sure technology improves productivity but you need people that can both operate the technology and know the job the technology is doing.

[Lord Jim]

CP, a lot of the time technology is designed in such a way that it actually requires less skill and effort on the part of the worker then was previously the case...

Supermarket checkers used to have to look for the prices on items, and then punch the price into the register. Now they just run them along a scanner...

Which is more difficult? In that example technology certainly improved productivity, but if anything it made the worker's job easier. Less training is required to teach someone to run items past a scanner than is required to train them to enter numbers correctly and efficiently. (And of course the savings in the training required also represents an increase in productivity brought about by investment. Conversely, in situations where more training is actually required, that cost is also borne by the investors)

Burger flippers used to actually have to cook and flip burgers; now they come out along a timed conveyor belt...

[Gob]

Supermarket checkers used to have to look for the prices on items, and then punch the price into the register. Now they just run them along a scanner...

Nowadays they don't even do that, the customer checks out our own goods.

[rubato]

Knees?

We spent two nights at the Clairmont and went here for the odd dinner on Saturday night. The Permanente medical group paid for a very thorough financial planning seminar so we had to stay somewhere, right?:

http://www.chezpanisse.com/reservations/

Very nice. A friend gave us a gift certificate a while back.

The dinner at the Clairmont was very nice too. Spectacular views of the city from the dining room.

Why would shutting down McNasty drive anyone to their knees? I don't get it. People can't cook at home?

yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

CP, a lot of the time technology is designed in such a way that it actually requires less skill and effort on the part of the worker then was previously the case...

Supermarket checkers used to have to look for the prices on items, and then punch the price into the register. Now they just run them along a scanner...

Which is more difficult? In that example technology certainly improved productivity, but if anything it made the worker's job easier. Less training is required to teach someone to run items past a scanner than is required to train them to enter numbers correctly and efficiently. (And of course the savings in the training required also represents an increase in productivity brought about by investment. Conversely, in situations where more training is actually required, that cost is also borne by the investors)

Burger flippers used to actually have to cook and flip burgers; now they come out along a timed conveyor belt...

You telling me you haven't run into a cashier that hasn't been able to make change even with all this tech? Low skill doesn't mean no skill. And then you get into the areas where technology has impacted skilled trades. Take my industry for instance. Design CAD has revolutionized the industry it has cut product turnaround time from 5 years to 18 months. And I'll let you in on a little secret just about anyone can be trained to use the software. Actually it's not really a secret it's the excuse that the powers that be have used to devalue the work that designers do. The problem is the ability to run software does not make you a designer there are thousands of other things that make you a designer like manufacturability installation visualization not to mention cad specific skills that that allow you to build your models as simple as possible and easy to update. Unfortunately the attitude that the computer does all the work has both eliminated the old experienced (and expensive) designers and years longin the job training that taught one how to design. They were sacrificed on the altar of cheap labor. Now design departments are nearing their old personnel levels only the skill level has suffered greatly. It has got to the point that I am one of the better designers out there. And I know there's a shitload of stuff I never learned.

And another little secret I wouldn't have made it "in the old days". My line work and lettering were atrocious.

[rubato]

And for some intelligent commentary on the problem ...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/ ... ages/?_r=0

August 30, 2013, 2:35 pm
The Audacity of the Fight for Higher Wages

"...

But let’s face it. Something’s broken here in an economy that serves up low wages to significant numbers of adults whose families depend on their earnings (the typical worker earning between the minimum wage and $10 an hour earns half of his or her family’s income; 88 percent are adults). And something’s broken when the media and economic pundits seem to devote a lot more energy to explaining why companies can’t pay living wages than considering what to do about it.

About those questions:

■ Moderate increases in the minimum wage have had their intended consequences of lifting the earnings of affected workers. Yes, the increase is absorbed by small price increases, some redistribution from profits, and other mechanisms, which can include some job or hour losses. But the research is clear on this point: the benefits to low-wage workers far outweigh these costs. Those protesting workers are not economic illiterates at all. The research supports their actions.

■ Yes, it’s still a tough economy, but research on the 1990-91 minimum-wage increase, introduced in a downturn, found the same effects just noted. Moreover, the runway to this debate is very long. Start now and the increase could come when the economy is in better shape.

■ The franchisee point is a strong one. They do operate with narrow profit margins, and one should not conflate their profitability with that of their corporate parents. But minimum wages apply to all companies and industries (though there is an exception for waiters, as the great economist Sylvia Allegretto often notes), so no single company is at a competitive disadvantage. Also, another way part of the wage increase could be offset is through a reduction in the corporate parent’s royalty charge to the franchisee.

So, sure — this is all just capitalism, and I’m all for it. But market failure is also a hallmark of capitalism, and those purporting to hold forth on the economy have a responsibility to recognize such failures, particularly when they violate norms of equity and opportunity. If significant portions of some industries pay wages on which grown-ups cannot support a family, while other industries post historic profits, and, importantly, the gains to the latter fail to ever reach the former, then corrective policy is needed. Some of that should be done through wage subsidies and work support (for example, the earned-income tax credit, and health and housing support), and some should be through moderate increases in the minimum wage.

To me, that’s not radicalism. It’s plain common sense.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

And for some intelligent commentary on the problem ...

Actually what you've got there is dishonest and misleading commentary, which given that you're the one who posted it is hardly surprising...

First this clown says:

Moderate increases in the minimum wage have had their intended consequences of lifting the earnings of affected workers. Yes, the increase is absorbed by small price increases, some redistribution from profits, and other mechanisms, which can include some job or hour losses.

And:

Those protesting workers are not economic illiterates at all. The research supports their actions.

And yet in the very same article there's this; (Which surprise surprise you didn't include in your copy and paste)

the striking fast-food workers, calling for an increase in their pay to $15 an hour (the average for these workers is around $9, up from $8.66 in 2009).

Just eyeballing that, I make the wage increase sought to be about 70%...

On what planet is a 70% increase considered "moderate"? Did this guy learn how to do math the same place you did?

He claims' they're not "economic illiterates" and then proves that they are...(or that he is)

What a dim bulb...No wonder you're impressed with him....

[dgs49]

When I got out of the service I needed a job immediately and had no skills that any civilian employer would value. I went to work as a laborer in a non-union manufacturing facility (laid off after a few months), cab driver (less than minimum wage, net), security guard (approximately minimum wage) and telephone collector for Sears (part time, along with the other jobs). I believe that the MW at the time was $1.60/hr.

None of these jobs paid "a living wage." I had no illusions about the fact that if I wanted to make more money I would have to either get promoted or find a better job. I worked for three different security firms, constantly looking for a better position, and jumping ship when I found one that paid more. I went from $1.60/40 hours to $2.50 with essentially unlimited overtime potential. This is how I supported myself until I took a hiatus from school and went to work in retailing - a 2-year fiasco.

How many of the people in this public debate have ever tried to support themselves on minimum wage, as I did?

Approximately zero. Otherwise they wouldn't spout such stupid shit.

Get a better fucking job; and by the way, don't quit your current job until you have a better one.

Don't go "on strike." You could get fired. Really.

[Econoline]

[Lord Jim]

Look, I think it's reasonable to argue about the loss of purchasing power with the minimum wage...

I support the existence of a minimum wage for a variety of reasons, and I think rube has on occasion actually presented a valid argument about how low cost labor is subsidized by the state in a variety of ways...(the trick is how to balance the subsidy off against the wage in a way that doesn't cause businesses to go under and leave the state footing the entire bill for support)

If your ability to offer "X" wage is only possible because the state is providing food stamps and subsidized housing, then the state has a legitimate interest in determining what "X" wage should be...

That having been said, the idea that you can somehow tie the value of labor to increases in productivity*, (as The Senior Senator from Massachusetts suggested) is pure unadulterated bollocks...

It's no more logical or rational to believe that, then it it is to believe that the the world was created in 4004 BC....

There are people on both sides of the political aisle who believe ridiculous things...


*Edited to change "worker productivity" to the more accurate "productivity"...

[Econoline]

BTW...My first used car (a 1953 Plymouth coupe) cost 20 hours of minimum-wage work in 1964, and another 20 hours bought enough gas to drive it 1200 miles. A year's college tuition at the University of Illinois was 136 hours of MW then; Illinois Institute of Technology, where I went, was 960 MW-hrs/yr. (If I could have gotten in, Harvard would have cost 1360 MW hours for a full year of tuition and fees.)

What can today's minimum wage buy in terms of transportation or education?



ETA: Jim, look at that second graph. Was none of the rise in income between 1947 and 1973 due to increased worker productivity? Were none of the productivity gains between 1947 and 1973 due to investment?

[Lord Jim]

ETA: Jim, look at that second graph. Was none of the rise in income between 1947 and 1973 due to increased worker productivity? Were none of the productivity gains between 1947 and 1973 due to investment?

The rise in income between 1947 and 1973 was due to a number of factors, not least among them the fact that we were the only major industrial power to emerge from WW II not only with our industrial base not diminished by the war, but actually enhanced by it...

[Lord Jim]

Digression:

Econo, would you please open the PM I sent you so I will have completed my good deed...

[Lord Jim]

I want to apologize for using the term "worker productivity"...

That's misleading; it should just be "productivity"...

[dgs49]

The idea that some generalized benefit can come out of a government mandate for higher wages is simply fatuous.

Even those who (seriously) promote an increase in the MW acknowledge that it must be modest, otherwise the negative impacts will far outweigh the positive ones. Furthermore, it is the most vulnerable among us (minority teens) who bear the brunt of the job losses, as their effort carries the least value in society.

Haven't we all noticed the dramatically increased number of college grads and obviously capable people doing jobs for which minimal skills & knowledge are required? How can a HS dropout - even a hard-working otherwise capable one - compete with an unemployed college grad when the employer is compelled to pay, say, $12/hr for entry-level work? It just won't happen.

The laws of ECON are fairly clear on what happens when the PRICE of something exceeds its VALUE: The consumer (employer) uses less of it; they find ways around it (automation); and/or a "black market" will be created to get around the mandated pricing.

If the MW were increased to $15/hr, the private sector "black" unemployment rate would skyrocket.

But maybe that's the intent.

[Big RR]

The laws of ECON are fairly clear on what happens when the PRICE of something exceeds its VALUE: The consumer (employer) uses less of it; they find ways around it (automation); and/or a "black market" will be created to get around the mandated pricing.

Somehow that never seems to happen at the top; salaries for CEOs (not to mention other senior and even middle managers) of even failing companies are very high, and it is hard to imagine there is any value exceeding those numbers. Face it, value of any individual service is just a judgment, not a carved in stone number. If the paradigm were to shift to recognize more the value at the production and customer contact end than at the top, the system would still be balanced, although some at the top would make less.

[Gob]

Fast-food workers across the US are staging a 24-hour strike in protest against low wages, organisers say.




Walkouts were reported in New York, Chicago, Washington DC, and also Detroit, Michigan; Raleigh, North Carolina; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Organisers hope nearly 100 cities will participate in what is the latest in a series of strikes.

Unions want a $15-an-hour (£9.19) federal minimum wage. The current one, set in 2009, is $7.25 per hour.

President Barack Obama has said he will back a Senate measure to raise the minimum wage rate to $10.10.

[Gob]