Why do people want a $15.00 minimum wage

No, it really isn't. Otherwise you're arguing that employers have the responsibility to re-train, pay for the education of, and otherwise baby their workers, or they have "failed", which is utterly ludicrous. The skills required for a McDonald's job are extremely low, which is the reason McDonald's jobs are not well-paid.

As a matter of fact, the minimum wage isn't actually applied equally. Businesses with incomes below $500,000 are exempt. Waiters also get paid a lower minimum wage unless otherwise stipulated by the state.

If you insist on eradicating these exceptions and making the minimum wage uniform, the first effect it will have is it will make it more difficult (to the point of near-impossibility) for any small business to hire anyone.

The second effect is that a lot of very low-value jobs will be automated. This is generally positive when it happens organically, but as it doesn't actually positively affect consumer welfare, it isn't positive.

The third effect is that a lot of jobs will simply be performed by "independent contractors" that don't charge ludicrous wages. This will simply mark the acceleration of an up-spike in the last decade of self-employed work.

But none of that even matters because the argument you're making is that every economic activity will resettle at the new "floor", which requires inflation to catch up with the new minimum wage. And when that happens, the rate of inequality will be the same, payscales will be the same, and the relative value of every job will be the same. Your revolutionary policy will have achinothing nothing, if your theory holds.

Then why hasn't Dick's completely replaced McDonald's? When a company has a far superior business model to the other, it drives it out of business.

Automation isn't actually a bad thing. The very existence of modern industry, and especially modern high-value industries, is a form of automation. When a task gets automated, it increases the amount of goods available in the economy (e.g. things get cheaper), as well as the productivity per head of workers themselves.

Anyway, I assure you that humans will never be obsolete. By the time we've automated everything (which entails the creation of AI), we'll have advanced enough to fuse with our technology and become transhuman.

You understand, surely, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Anyway, given that the average corporate profit margin is 9%, if that's what corporations pay their wage workers then it's likely they just don't generate the value to pay more. Or rather, the workers don't.

I should also note that the small business owner's median earnings are lower than this. And you can't impose a minimum wage on business earnings.

 

The demonstrated effect of high minimum wages.

 

That is not what I argued although all employers are required to train their employees for the tasks that they are to perform. I spent most of my career working as a lead in manufacturing engineering and one of my primary tasks was to train highly paid manufacturing engineers/planners on how to build airplanes which represent a unique form of manufacturing. It didn't matter if they had a degree or not because the specifics of compliance with corporate process specifications was unique to every aerospace manufacturing company.

There is really no such thing as a "low skilled" occupation. What we have are occupations that many people can perform as opposed to a few but all of the occupations require skills. For example while I earned over $100,000/yr before retiring I'm completely unqualified to be a burger flipper at McDonalds because I don't have that set of job skills. I would have to be trained just like I trained others to earn high incomes in my field. Compensation has little to do with the actual skills required and is generally related to how many people there are that apply for the job.

There have been exceptions for those that derive much of their income from tips, such as waiters/waitresses, but those cases are limited. The federal minimum wage has no exemptions based upon gross income of the enterprise that I'm aware of but if so then they should be eliminated. There should be no favoritism.

Obviously you've never created a business plan because a higher minimum wage does not prevent an enterprise from hiring anyone. The employment is based upon the necessary tasks that must be done to generate revenue for the enterprise and nothing more. Last year a close friend and I formed a small LLC partnership to manufacture products and established a $20/hr starting wage with health insurance, a retirement plan, and bonus structure for new hires that have zero experience and it wasn't any problem at all. We targeted 25% of gross revenue for employee compensation and during the first year it was actually 22% because sales were slightly better than expected based upon our marketing strategy. Of course had the employee compensation percentage been higher than 25% then we would have been required to improve our marketing strategy to increase gross sales but that's our responsibility as the managers of the enterprise and not the employees.

The problem is that most business owners don't know how to create a business plan and revise the business plan as necessary. That's why four out of five new start-ups fail because an enterprise with a viable business plan doesn't fail.

Automation is based upon a cost/benefit analysis and actually targets higher income jobs first because there's more benefit to the enterprise to eliminate high paying jobs as opposed to low paying jobs. That's why high paying manufacturing jobs, including the engineering jobs, were the primary target of automation in the past. The reason lower income jobs are being targeted today is because of the dramatic reduction in the costs of automation.

The minimum wage applies to contractors and contract labor actually costs more than direct labor for the enterprise. I worked as contract labor for many aerospace companies during my career and always received higher compensation (wages and benefits) than the direct employees. That's why I became contractor labor but the caveat is that the contract laborer must perform at a higher level or must perform a task that the employer chooses not to train people to perform due to limited applicability to the overall enterprise or special considerations. For example in my business we require chrome plating so we contract that labor out because it costs a lot of money to set-up a compliant chrome plating shop and we only have limited chrome plating requirements that don't justify the expense. We pay more per item by sending it out as opposed to doing it in-house of course.

I have had discussions with a highly respected member of PF that owns a farm and he often employs migrant labor as "independent contractors" for things like harvesting but upon review of the IRS rules they're not actually qualified to be independent contractors under the law. Basically he's violating the IRS codes so that he doesn't have to directly employ the workers. We do assume compliance with the IRS codes related to employment although many business owners do violate those codes.

Not all price increases relate to inflation. Inflation is caused by the devaluation of the "dollar" relative to goods and services caused by expansion of the money supply by the Federal Reserve. For example copper costs more than it did in the past predominately because of lower supplies relative to demand and that has nothing to do with inflation. We see the price of oil fluctuate based upon supply and demand and that has nothing to do with inflation.

Dick's Drive-ins doesn't franchise it's operations because the owners choose not to. They're making plenty of income for their needs based upon private ownership of the few outlets they have currently. Simply making more and more money (greed) is not the motive of every enterprise owner. Many are quite happy with a comfortable living from their enterprise.

Automation is a double-edge sword. Automation, as noted, benefits society by increasing the productivity per worker but it fails if the workers don't share in the financial benefits of the increased productivity. Employee compensation relative to productivity has been declining since 1970 which is why we have widening income inequality.

Get ready because Artificial Intelligence is going to equal all of the recorded knowledge of mankind by about 2045 based upon predictions and soon after that, probably by the year 2200, most human labor will become obsolete because the technology is being driven by the artificial intelligence. Always remember that Artificial Intelligence and Technology (AI&T) that automates tasks performed by humans is driven by a cost/benefit analysis. That's why middle income jobs were targeted first because you had a lot of people earning a lot of money. That's the primary reason the "middle class" is disappearing from America. High income jobs with the fewest number of employees and low income jobs with the most employees (that's expanding due to middle-income workers being forced into to lower paying positions because of AI&T) are next to be targeted based upon the cost/benefit analysis.

Long before we reach the point where fuse the technology with humans we're going to run out of enough jobs because the automation provides the goods and services without human labor. We will lose the ability to purchase the goods and services because our economy relies on human labor that's being eliminated by AI&T.

Every employee contributes to the success of the enterprise by the tasks they're assigned to do. For example the janitor at a Walmart probably has more influence on the stores performance than the Board of Directors for Walmart. If the restrooms aren't cleaned then Walmart would lose a lot of customers even though they have low prices. It is management's responsibility to define the tasks that must be done for the enterprise to succeed while the employee is responsible for performing the tasks assigned. Bad management results in "non-value-added" tasks being assigned to the employees wasting their labor which reduces the bottom line profits.

That's due to a bad business plan. The owner of the enterprise can derive their income from two sources.

First is by a return on their investment that's unrelated to the gross revenue of the enterprise. If, for example, they invest $100,000 and target an 8% ROI then their business plan should ensure that the business pays them $8,000 at the end of the year regardless of gross income because it's the ROI on the investment. If it doesn't then they obviously need to revise the business plan because the investment is basically a loan to the enterprise from the owner of the enterprise.

They can also earn income as an employee in virtually all small business enterprises but they're only worth what the jobs is worth to the enterprise. For example the McDonalds franchise owner that works as the cashier is worth exactly what they pay their cashiers and they should pay themselves a check for that amount each week. The owner(s) that work at the enterprise are employees and they should receive a paycheck for the work they perform (which is included in the business plan).

Once again if more business owners knew how to create and revise a business plan to fulfill the objectives of the business then they wouldn't have any problem in receiving both a ROI and wage compensation as an employee of the enterprise. The problem is that most don't understand the basics of a business plan. They often mistakenly believe that if they invest $100,000 and the business generates $1 million in gross revenue that they deserve $80,000 ROI on a $100,000 investment and that's completely bogus math. Their labor as an employee of the enterprise, that's paid in compensation and deducted like all other labor expenditures (equal to 20%-30% of gross revenue based upon a standard business model), might be worth $80,000 but not their investment which is only worth $8,000/yr.

 

As a child, I could go to the store and buy a coke and a candy bar, and get change from a quarter. Ten cents for each. Due to wage increases, there was massive inflation in the late 70's, and it's been increasing exponentially ever since.

 

The US has a minimum wage that ranges from the federal minimum wage of $7.25 up to $15/hr (effective in Seattle by 2021) and our unemployment rate just dipped below 5% if I recall correctly. Apparently there are factors other than the minimum wage that effect the employment numbers. For example a high youth unemployment rate can be a result of low cost or free higher education where young people remain in school as opposed to working for a living.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not due to wage increases but instead is a direct result of the expansion of the money supply by the Federal Reserve. Wage increases have not kept pace with increased productivity in the United States since 1973.

 

The price raise of "goods" is a total misnomer.

People want a raise to the minimum wage (and the ripple affect thereafter) because for too long we have seen the increase in CEO earnings astronomically increase, while our wages have actually gone down.

I don't make minimum wage. Far more. But year after year, my wages decrease because of inflation. And have been decreasing since republican schemes instituted by Reagan made this trickle down failure policy.

 

Leaving aside everything else...

If you think the unemployment rate is 5%, then you're deluded and I'm not sure I want to continue this discussion.

Anyway, you never did cite a source for that $10.55/hour figure.

 

Now who's wrapped up in legal technicalities?

That's called "ownership". The "market based fee" is called "Property TAX"

Goal posts. You said, and I quote: "Landowners do not contribute anything to production, they add no ($0) value, yet we have created a system (capitalism) where the landowners have a place at the feed troff." Now you're trying to make a distinction between private land ownership and public land ownership without admitting that ownership has a purpose that contributes value to production. If there's no reason to own land, then the state should have no interest in securing it for "exclusive possession" as you put it. You're not upset that the land is owned because that ownership is necessary for production. You would just rather it was the state that was saddled up to the "feed troff" (sic) despite the fact that the public sticks their face in the feed trough whether the land is owned privately or publicly.

Land is a resource, and resources are consumed. The effective management of that consumption adds value to land. Not all land has the same value and not everyone is able to assess that value the same way. Some land contains energy resources, or farming potential, or is good for commerce, or industry. Use effects the value of the land. You can't farm on land that's been polluted with mining run off, for example. You can't extract coal from land that has a functioning hospital sitting on it. This is the reason we have zoning laws, and an EPA; to protect the public interest in ensuring appropriate use of land, and to protect the value of the land against negligent use. If land didn't "wear out" we would have no need for such things.

You didn't answer the question. Do you own yourself, or do you not? If you own yourself, and you own the decisions you make, then that constitutes your claim to ownership of the land under your protection. You wrote about a time when commerce took place without land ownership and that's ridiculously false. Throughout history the majority of our wars were fought for one single purpose: the control of land and the resources that land contains. It's the single purpose for the establishment of government, to secure the possession of land. You even said that there needs to be a means by which exclusive possession of land is secured. That's an increadibly strained way to cede the need for land ownership.

You have to recognize that you can't have multiple people trying to use the same land for multiple purposes because that creates conflict and conflict creates wars. As such, you're not in disagreement with the possession of land, you're in disagreement with the distribution of land. So for some wacky reason you've decided that the public has a more noble interest in the equitable distribution of land but all that does is shift the power of corruption from an individual with a relatively small amount of land to an interest group (leadership) with ALL the land. There's no faster way for the poop to hit the fan then when you shift the power from the many (individuals) to the few (leadership).

 

You could buy a coke and three candy bars then turn in the coke can and get two more pieces of candy

 

I do not know who posted this but it surely one of the dumbest things ever posted here.

Land does not wear out? Heck it disappears in some cases or dont you believe in global warming and seas rising? How about over farming or the climate changes and it becomes desert ? Or It has valuable minerals on it that well only last for a period of time until its all mined? There is a reason the value of a piece of land goes up and down

 

some of us are more market oriented and market friendly; we would like whatever the market may bear.

 

How nice. Min wage doesn't create inflation. Most if not all the time, it us used to catch low end workers up to what inflation has taken away.

 

i believe mandating wages upon the private sector is less necessary and less proper than simply using Government to solve social problems such as simple poverty.

The concept of employment at will already exists, as does the concept of unemployment compensation.

Reserving labor in this simple and market friendly manner can better enable the laws of demand and supply to have a more capital effect upon our markets since there would be no need to use socialism to make laws that may need to be enforced though the coercive use of force, by a State.

 

How many jobs would Hillary Clinton’s minimum wage proposal actually cost? Bernie and the other guy were hawking $15/hr, Hillary was pedaling $12/hr

http://freebeacon.com/politics/clintons-wage-hike-would-destroy-nearly-800000-jobs/

Brutal

Seattle increased the minimum wage for restaurant workers to $15 in April. By August they reported the largest job losses since the height of the great recession in 2009.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/10/r...fer-worse-job-loss-since-the-great-recession/

 

What does the current minimum wage do for the unemployed, as a social safety net?

 

In America every citizen can get a free public education and easily get government loans to fund seconary education to learn a valuable trade or skill.
If you choose not to utilize those resources and can only find low wage jobs, you are pretty disposable and cheaply replaced.
Can you share a specific example of the exploitation to which you refer?

 

Loans are deceptive. They seem fine at first, and then they ruin you financially. They're a scam.

Some people have to do these jobs. You're punishing people for doing something that society requires. There's only so much work to do, but capitalism paradoxically requires both infinite growth (we can observe that economic stagnation is disastrous in capitalism) and also shortages. If everyone had everything they needed, our economy would collapse.

This is why I support socialism. Under socialism, you can say "That's all we need done" and keep your economy under control because it's planned. You don't have people living awful lives because there's an excess of production.

You do 100 dollars worth of labour. You get paid 40 dollars. Your boss gets 60 dollars for work he didn't do. This is called the exploitation of labour. If bourgeois property wasn't enforced, the employees could simply kick the boss out and get 100 dollars because he isn't skimming off of them.

 

I want to solve for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.

 

History says that any raises in prices are minimal at most

 

Stafford Loans are not a scam. Every American with a GED or high school diploma can get one.

Unskilled labor is cheap and abundant because unskilled employees are easy to replace and negligably impact profits.

$100 worth of labor?? Really? Demand and supply determine wages. Rock Stars, actors, entertainers, Gucci, Calvin Klein, collectibles... They are worth what people will pay.
If you choose to drop out of school, have no special talent, no valuble ability or skill, don't be surprised when the only jobs you can find don't pay well.
There is no excess production in America.
What is enforced bourgeois property anyway?

 

Raise minimum wage by a buck. Raise it by three. McDonald's will revamp their operation so less paid workers are needed to operate. Self serve check outs will become more and more abundant, paying at the gas pump decreases the need for people behind a register, online shopping means less salespeople jobs.
What people think raising minimum wage would accomplish is a mystery to me.

 

It would create more jobs for illegal aliens who do not have to be paid minimum wage.

 

McDonald's workers in Denmark get paid $22 per hour and there is no talk of inflation there.

 

You assume labor inputs determine the price of those things. I make no such assumptions

As for your question, so I can make more home-made butter.

Edit: Never mind, I make more than $15.00 an hour. We need to raise it to $50 an hour.

 

Illegal aliens are not affected by minimum wage. They are undocumented workers. They are paid under the table.
No jobs are created by raising minimum wage.