T
twf
Guest
Every McDonald’s I’ve been to for some time has touch screens for placing orders. There are still humans behind the counter preparing meals, but most of the intake is done by machine.
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
These quotes are from the UW Working Papers (a & b), October 2018.
Essentially all of the earnings increases accrue to the more experienced half of the low-wage workforce. The less experienced half saw larger proportionate decreases in hours worked, which we estimate to have fully offset their gain in wages, leaving no significant change in earnings.
Jardim et al. (2018a) reported that Seattle’s second minimum wage increase to $13 in 2016 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by 6-7 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by 3 percent. The net effect was to decrease the total amount paid to low-wage workers in Seattle.
Approximately one-quarter of the earnings gains can be attributed to experienced workers making up for lost hours in Seattle with work outside the city limits.
It was always understood that some people would assuredly gain from an increase in the minimum wage. Pointing to those who saw improvement doesn’t capture the full impact of the increase. The question has always been: what is the down side?
According to the report “The net effect was to decrease the total amount paid to low-wage workers in Seattle”. On net, raising the minimum wage decreased the incomes of low-wage workers. There was also a negative impact on the hiring of new minimum wage workers.
Just as the new minimum wage ordinance began to be enforced in 2015, the pace of growth in new workers entering Seattle’s job market stalled and lagged behind the rest of the state thereafter.
There has been a significant decrease in the number of new workers in Seattle relative to the rest of the state, and it started right at the time of the increase. As I said, some people gained, others lost, and while these results may be ambiguous there is no moral choice involved in believing that increasing the minimum wage makes economic sense. There is nothing in Catholic social teaching to support higher minimum wages or basic incomes.
F
Felicia1
Guest
It’s really tragic that the people “hurt” by the new law got paid the same amount of money for working less. I’m sure the prospect of working more hours for the same money is very attractive to them.
People are finally realizing that the area’s boom doesn’t have to be confined to Seattle. The suburbs and cities around Seattle have begun to surpass it on the lists of hottest real estate markets.
M
mythbuster1
Guest
Except it changes the incentive structure. If doctors retire because they don’t want to pay for this, that drives up the cost of healthcare. If people stop working because they’d rather live off the basic income than have to work, it robs the economy of production while still maintaining or increasing demand.
In truth, I’m not opposed to a basic income, but only if it is funded by the commons, not by taxing people to redistribute.
In truth, I’m not opposed to a basic income, but only if it is funded by the commons, not by taxing people to redistribute.
M
mythbuster1
Guest
One detail you neglect is that the 40-hour workweek is much shorter than standard workweeks approved by the Scriptures and the Fathers. It is no injustice to require a man to work 72 hours a week (i.e. 12 hours a day, six days a week) in order to support a large family, while the man with a smaller family only works 40 hours to earn what his family needs. So then, while workers with more dependents should certainly be given priority for overtime, it does not follow that their base hourly wage should be increased.
M
mythbuster1
Guest
No, the reason so many people live paycheck to paycheck is because they don’t know how to manage money. Sometimes this is because they were never taught, but sometimes it’s because they aren’t interested in learning.
When I was in graduate school, I was making $2400/month before taxes and union dues, but I wasn’t living paycheck to paycheck; rather, I was saving a third of my net pay. Why? Because I had three roommates and prepared most of my own meals, and I didn’t have a car. Sure, there were times when lunch was a couple candy bars, but that was because I didn’t have time to get anything else on my way to class, not because I couldn’t afford better.
Conversely, I have seen people twice my age who make more than I do, yet I have more saved for retirement than they do, not because they have huge families to support, but because they chose to buy luxury goods rather than saving or made terrible investment decisions.
When I was in graduate school, I was making $2400/month before taxes and union dues, but I wasn’t living paycheck to paycheck; rather, I was saving a third of my net pay. Why? Because I had three roommates and prepared most of my own meals, and I didn’t have a car. Sure, there were times when lunch was a couple candy bars, but that was because I didn’t have time to get anything else on my way to class, not because I couldn’t afford better.
Conversely, I have seen people twice my age who make more than I do, yet I have more saved for retirement than they do, not because they have huge families to support, but because they chose to buy luxury goods rather than saving or made terrible investment decisions.
S
Socrates92
Guest
Likewise, stop assuming that most people don’t. An UBI across the board a select few who are incapable of finding alternate min. wage part time employment is an overreaction.
What is hyperbole, specifically?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There is no cannonical “standard work week” approved by Scripture and the Fathers. You can cherry-pick writings here and there, but they are not morally applicable to life today.
E
Ender
Guest
The objective of raising the minimum wage one can assume was to raise the living standard of the poor. How did that work out?
“The net effect was to decrease the total amount paid to low-wage workers in Seattle ”
Apparently not so well.
And how is that boom playing out in Seattle (the area actually affected by the new minimum wage)?
“Just as the new minimum wage ordinance began to be enforced in 2015, the pace of growth in new workers entering Seattle’s job market stalled and lagged behind the rest of the state thereafter.”
Apparently not so well.
So, as a result of raising the minimum wage to $15/hr there are fewer low wage jobs being created in Seattle, and those who work them and have the lowest skill level actually saw a decrease in their earnings. Feeling good about oneself really doesn’t seem to justify those results.
Last edited:
M
mythbuster1
Guest
I have learned about Modern Monetary Theory, and it’s ridiculous. You can’t force the economy to accept the surplus fiat currency that comes off the printing press. People need legal tender to pay their taxes, but as to the deficit spending, they’ll only accept the legal tender to the extent that it’s convenient as a measure and store of value. In Venezuela, nobody wants to be paid in bolivars; they want US dollars (or euros, or other solid currencies), because they know that the dollars will retain their value while the bolivars lose 10% or so every single day. Once the workers and business owners have enough legal tender to pay their taxes and such contractual obligations as are payable in the legal tender, they are free to demand alternate forms of payment, such as foreign currency or precious metals, and they simply won’t price their goods or services in legal tender. Even if demand for legal tender increases, the money changers will happily provide it in exchange for hard currency or gold.
P
phil19034
Guest
The problem with amnesty is that it doesn’t work unless they fix the problem first.
I would be totally fine with amnesty if/when they fix the system to drastically reduced the amount of illegal immigration first.
Fix the system first, then you can grant amnesty to those here.
But if you grant amnesty first, you simply invite more illegal immigration
P
phil19034
Guest
That’s why we need to encourage small businesses, something conservatives are often most concerned with
F
Felicia1
Guest
Pretty well. People either made more for the same work or made the same for less work. A small percentage may have had to change plans but overall it was beneficial to the city. Seattle isn’t exactly a wasteland right now.
2015, i.e. the year Seattle housing prices rebounded to their already insane pre-recession levels and then kept climbing. Low wage workers are moving elsewhere.
T
Theo520
Guest
You are deflecting from the facts. Seattle has been expensive for a very long time. Economic measurements pre and post wage increase are not attributable to housing prices, but there is a strong argument for a distinct wage change to have such a measurable impact.
S
Socrates92
Guest
Have you heard of this guy? He beats the overrated Dave Ramsey any day in my not-so-humble opinion. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/
Last edited:
S
Socrates92
Guest
There probably isn’t a scriptural standard work week, at least as far as I’m aware. By the same token though, the 40hr week is equally arbitrary. It’s crazy to think that someone working 40hrs could hypothetically (assuming no regulatory or company policy obstacles) could increase their compensation by 12.5% simply by working a measly extra 5hrs/week. The problems of many families living paycheck-to-paycheck could be instantly cleared up if we stopped frowning on overtime as much. (This assumes that you buy the argument that most financial issues are the result of a lack of cash)
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Frowning on overtime? It depends on who is pushing for the overtime. If the employee volunteers to work overtime for reasons of his own (needs more cash, has nothing else to do, or really likes his work) then there may be nothing wrong with it. But if the overtime is required by the employer, or otherwise coerced by the employer in an effort to avoid employing more workers and avoid paying more of the fixed costs of having an employee, like medical benefits, etc., then I think there is good reason to frown on it.
Last edited:
S
Socrates92
Guest
I might or might not agree with that, depending on the way in which it was “forced”. If it’s just a normal condition of employment in the workplace where people are regularly expected to work 45-60hrs a week and it’s completely out in the open, then I would see no problem with it. Medical benefits are an inefficient means of compensation. Nothing wrong with wanting to reduce the percentage of labour costs paid out in benefits. That’s just a smart way of running a business imo. If the employer is underhanded or dishonest/manipulating in the manner of getting extra hours out of employees, then yes, of course that would be a problem.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The problem I see is that it exacerbates unemployment, making some people sit home doing nothing (not good) while others work 60 hrs a week, don’t see their kids very much, can’t enjoy life as much (also not good). The only only who really benefits is the employer.LeafByNiggle:
I might or might not agree with that, depending on the way in which it was “forced”. If it’s just a normal condition of employment in the workplace where people are regularly expected to work 45-60hrs a week and it’s completely out in the open, then I would see no problem with it.
Those people sitting home doing nothing will be paid for one way or another by those that are working, either by increased taxes and welfare programs, or by crime that some of the unemployed will turn to. So the “lucky” ones with 60 hr/week jobs won’t even get to fully benefit from all their extra work. It is better to spread the work around evenly.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
The employer should always be benefiting, albeit while following the law.
OT pay is a good incentive to bring on and train more staff, unless the extra hrs are not reliable enough to justify a full time hire.
Also many people make their real money with the OT pay, they really don’t want to lose it, even if it can be inconvenient.
Our record low unemployment rate is nicely taking care of those problems.
I’m excited about our record employment levels for teens and minorities, I’d love to see a longitudinal study comparing teens post recession (no jobs for them) with present day teens. learning basic work skills young can have a huge payoff in creating the next step up the ladder to a living wage job/career.
Last edited:
- Status