Current Events > increased minimum wage encourages job losses and automation

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.axios.com/study-higher-minimum-wages-hasten-automation-job-losses-2472925911.html

to be fair, the criticism that it doesn't look at increased job growth in other areas is a serious flaw in the study, though I'm not sure that that would save the argument that raising the minimum wage is a net good

anyways I thought it was interesting

guess we need a UBI
---

We need less families starting at minimum wage
---

*comes up with bad idea*
*bad idea gets executed, with bad results*
*comes up with worse idea*
---

If we were to do a UBI, woukd you be in favor of a voucher system instead if straight cash? Like say, this coupon can be used for utilities, this one for rent, etc?
---

im all for increasing min wage, but from a big picture perspective, we should be working on trying to enable people to move past min wage jobs rather than making it seem like a better option to work minimum wage work. as our technology becomes more and more advanced and the general population becomes more educated, obviously the lowest of the low skill jobs are going to go away, and we need to help our people adapt
---

As fender would say, let's just get rid of the minimum wage altogether and let the free market take care of it. Praise be to the free market, let it love us and keep us always.
---

PoopPotato posted...

If we were to do a UBI, woukd you be in favor of a voucher system instead if straight cash? Like say, this coupon can be used for utilities, this one for rent, etc?

No, because targeted subsidies tend to encourage those industries to increase their prices since that covered amount is considered extra. Just look at student loans.
---

Increased automation is a good thing. We shouldn't hold back progress just so we can pay people shitty wages, that's only delaying the inevitable and being miserable while doing so. Address the root problem head on.
---

Yeah, that makes sense. How do we keep people from using their extra 10 grand on cheetos and coca cola, though?
---

PoopPotato posted...

Yeah, that makes sense. How do we keep people from using their extra 10 grand on cheetos and coca cola, though?

We don't.

PoopPotato posted...

Yeah, that makes sense. How do we keep people from using their extra 10 grand on cheetos and coca cola, though?

most of the data suggests the majority won't

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/welfare-reform-direct-cash-poor/407236/
---

Job losses and automation were *already happening* though, attempts to increase minimum wage just sped up the process.

Seriously, let's not pretend like businesses were "forced" into doing something they've been doing for decades (protecting their bottom-line at the expense of all others), let's also not pretend that anyone on CE actually gives a fuck about people being rendered poor and homeless. "Fuck you, got mine" is the mantra of the middle and upper class, always has been.
---

1337toothbrush posted...

PoopPotato posted...

If we were to do a UBI, woukd you be in favor of a voucher system instead if straight cash? Like say, this coupon can be used for utilities, this one for rent, etc?

No, because targeted subsidies tend to encourage those industries to increase their prices since that covered amount is considered extra. Just look at student loans.

...and WIC-only stores.

1337toothbrush posted...

PoopPotato posted...

If we were to do a UBI, woukd you be in favor of a voucher system instead if straight cash? Like say, this coupon can be used for utilities, this one for rent, etc?

No, because targeted subsidies tend to encourage those industries to increase their prices since that covered amount is considered extra. Just look at student loans.

To me it is less about that, and more about the fact that I think people are in the best position to determine how to spend their money almost all of the time. Earmarking the cash for different things is wrongheaded, though I would be okay with some kind of cash-like subsidies like SNAP for stuff like housing and transportation as an intermediary step.



The Catgirl Fondler posted...

Job losses and automation were *already happening* though, attempts to increase minimum wage just sped up the process.

Seriously, let's not pretend like businesses were "forced" into doing something they've been doing for decades (protecting their bottom-line at the expense of all others), let's also not pretend that anyone on CE actually gives a fuck about people being rendered poor and homeless. "Fuck you, got mine" is the mantra of the middle and upper class, always has been.

no one said they were forced into anything, and I do give a fuck about people being poor and homeless
---

Balrog0 posted...

though I would be okay with some kind of cash-like subsidies like SNAP for stuff like housing and transportation as an intermediary step

"Here's a bus pass and a dorm room."

no

here's the monetary equivalent of a bus pass and a dorm room loaded onto your EBT card
---

Balrog0 posted...

no

here's the monetary equivalent of a bus pass and a dorm room loaded onto your EBT card

"but you can only spend it on rent and a bus pass, which incidentally just doubled in price for some unknown reason"

just like food prices have skyrocketed since we implemented the food stamp program!

except that's not what happened

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967
---

1337toothbrush posted...

Increased automation is a good thing. We shouldn't hold back progress just so we can pay people shitty wages, that's only delaying the inevitable and being miserable while doing so. Address the root problem head on.

We'll be more miserable when nobody has any jobs and the government goes even further into debt in order to implement a UBI
---

Balrog0 posted...

just like food prices have skyrocketed since we implemented the food stamp program!

except that's not what happened

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967

Of course not, because SNAP is awful at actually being earmarked.

automation is a good thing

it just needs to benefit the workers, rather than some wealthy parasite who's never worked a day in their life

the workers need to be in control
---

lol how do you figure SNAP is awful at actually being earmarked?
---

averagejoel posted...

automation is a good thing

it just needs to benefit the workers, rather than some wealthy parasite who's never worked a day in their life

the workers need to be in control

doesn't make sense, once jobs are automated there's no such thing as workers
---

averagejoel posted...

the workers need to be in control

Who, the robots?

Balrog0 posted...

averagejoel posted...

automation is a good thing

it just needs to benefit the workers, rather than some wealthy parasite who's never worked a day in their life

the workers need to be in control

doesn't make sense, once jobs are automated there's no such thing as workers

human labour will never be completely obsolete - there will always be jobs that can't be automated, that machines can't do

technological leaps just make human labour that more efficient. this has always been the case. this efficiency jus needs to benefit the many, rather than the few
---

Balrog0 posted...

lol how do you figure SNAP is awful at actually being earmarked?

"Food" can be Mtn. Dew, or even a case of water that's promptly dumped out back and the bottle deposit cashed in for cigarettes.

But, if it's a "rice & beans" voucher, then yes, the price of rice and beans will increase. Demand will be marginally higher, and the sellers would be guaranteed a purchase at pretty much any price.

Questionmarktarius posted...

"Food" can be Mtn. Dew, or even a case of water that's promptly dumped out back and the bottle deposit cashed in for cigarettes.

I'm sure you know that honestly isn't relevant. They're still buying food. I am concerned about that kind of deadweight loss, but that's why I said I'd prefer straight up cash.

Pretty weak, dude.


Questionmarktarius posted...

But, if it's a "rice & beans" voucher, then yes, the price of rice and beans will increase. Demand will be marginally higher, and the sellers would be guaranteed a purchase at pretty much any price.

Sure I'm not denying there would be _some_ kind of impact on prices, but the onus is on you to show that this is how it would happen in reality, not on a chalkboard.

It's sort of interesting to see people who at least seemingly believe in markets treating sellers of goods as homogeneous or monolithic. Bean Seller A and Bean Seller B still have good reasons to keep prices at a minimum. I guess you could argue there would be some kind of oligopoly and price-fixing, and that is a concern (again, I'd rather have a UBI) but I suspect it's less serious than you're presenting it
---

Automation is an inevitability. Minimum wage should have gone up long ago.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Sure I'm not denying there would be _some_ kind of impact on prices, but the onus is on you to show that this is how it would happen in reality, not on a chalkboard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/06/us/some-stores-cater-to-poor-but-bill-us-for-top-prices.html
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/report-federal-aid-rising-tuition/

Questionmarktarius posted...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/06/us/some-stores-cater-to-poor-but-bill-us-for-top-prices.html

literally saying that the problem is that WIC isn't cash-like the way SNAP is; I agree

Questionmarktarius posted...

http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/report-federal-aid-rising-tuition/

Yeah, college tuition is an okay example. But two things:

1) College assistance is really paid to the institution, not to the recipient; it's more like medicaid than SNAP. I like Medicaid, too, but I think it's much worse in terms of controlling for costs for this reason.
2) the costs didn't increase 1:1 with increased aid, so there was still a net benefit
---

Balrog0 posted...

literally saying that the problem is that WIC isn't cash-like the way SNAP is; I agree

...yeah.
WIC being tightly earmarked is screwing up the market. SNAP being really bad at earmarking isn't doing that.

Questionmarktarius posted...

WIC being tightly earmarked is screwing up the market. SNAP being really bad at earmarking isn't doing that.

no, WIC being used to buy things in terms of volume rather than in terms of price is what's screwing up the market

And you keep saying SNAP is poorly earmarked, but your only examples of it being bad are people using it to buy low-quality food and using it as a pass through to exchange goods they purchased with SNAP for non-food items. Neither of those things mean it is poorly earmarked in the sense of it not being used to buy food. If you just mean it qualifies for a broader range of things, then that's just true by definition.
---

Balrog0 posted...

And you keep saying SNAP is poorly earmarked, but your only examples of it being bad are people using it to buy low-quality food and using it as a pass through to exchange goods they purchased with SNAP for non-food items. Neither of those things mean it is poorly earmarked in the sense of it not being used to buy food. If you just mean it qualifies for a broader range of things, then that's just true by definition.

Yes.

"Here's some cash, whatever." is how it should be. Moral indignation be damned.
The only real workable enforcement for "now spend it on food, dammit!" is shipping a box of food directly, then blissfully assume that that won't be unloaded for easy cash.

If you want to blow your monthly welfare money on smokes and bling, that should very well be your prerogative. Just don't whine when you and your children end up hungry again next week.