Yep. I agree these works should be able to feed their families, but the idea of a $15/min wage simply means less people are employed. McDs etc have finite budgets, and a finite labor cost they can swing. A lot of these people protesting will not have jobs later on because of the policies they're promoting and the people that don't get cut will keep their jobs most likely due to nepotism/favoritism.
UC Berkeley joins the parade: UC Berkeley Touts $15 Minimum Wage Law, Then Fires Hundreds Of Workers After It Passes http://www.investors.com/politics/e...en-fires-hundreds-of-workers-after-it-passes/
So when you actually read the article, it doesn't actually connect those dots. Nice headline, but poor reporting. Anyway, I'll say this. Back in the 80's, you know, when we got rid of manufacturing jobs and busted all the unions, we did it because service economy jobs were going to save us. I have a hard time damning people over wanting a decent wage given the fact that the average age of a fast food worker is now 29, as opposed to 19. when we decided manufacturing jobs sucked.
The issue with low wage jobs is that under a certain threshold, these employees receive public benefits to make up the gap. That means that McDonald's is using the taxpayer to subsidize paying it's employees shit I think that regardless of industry, full time work deserves enough money to live independently of family or government charity. I also think that the low wages are causing a bit more problems than economics. My dad and a few of his friends are legitimately concerned about the "next generation" of workers in trades like welding and construction. The average laborer doesn't make enough to stay afloat (rent, insurance, student loans, child support in some cases, etc.), so there's not really an incentive for them to work harder or make an impression. They perceive (correctly, in some cases) the gap between what they make now and what would give them a decent lifestyle as too wide. I have tons of friends in construction that can't bridge the gap between $12/hour "dude with a shovel" jobs and the skilled $20+/hour job of mason, welder, electrician, etc. because they can't stop to be trained or go back to school, and the company has no incentive to dedicate resources to train them because there's no guarantee they'll show up for the next job. So, as the older guys retire, the company and the labor are at an impasse. This started 15 or 20 years ago, and illegal/semi-legal immigrants made up the gap, but that pool of labor is drying up and has been for the past few years. Meanwhile, the president of the company cleared $4 million last year...which is great if it didn't come at the expense of fucking a bunch of people over. The game plan for most of these guys is work until the project is done, and then claim unemployment until the next project starts. So, one guy takes home $4 million, 2-50 guys can't scrape together $40,000, and there's a gap in skills that fucks over the entire industry over the next 15 years, meanwhile the costs for insurance and taxes (and rent) keep escalating, year by year making things like home ownership out of reach. It's a fucked up, bleak situation. I don't necessarily think manufacturing will save us, but unions and labor protection is certainly one element that's missing from our economy that makes Australia, Canada, and the rest of the developed world a more equitable job market. I do think that minimum wages pegged to a living index would do a lot better job of keeping the taxes low and the support systems we have intact and functioning. I'd rather Wal-Mart treat it's people better than their entire workforce need SNAP benefits, while 8 Waltons are some of the wealthiest people on Earth.
FiveThirtyEight just had an article saying the same thing: Americans Don't Miss Manufacturing - They Miss Unions.
I agree that something has to give but I don't think $15/hr minimum wage is the answer.....it just won't pencil out, the economy will scale-up and the low-skill end of the labor market will again be dirt poor making $15/hr. I don't know what the answer to this question is but I don't think this is it. I think there are other things we need to work toward correcting as well though: Banks cutting 25% or more of labor force to boost quarterly profits: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-deutsche-bank-restructuring-idUSKCN0RE1GD20150914 International Trade Agreements: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...tpp-text-reveals-a-very-bad-deal-for-america/ At some point the pendulum needs to swing in the other direction. This is not pointing fingers at a single party or politician but at the system in place. We continue to elect people that continue to be bought-off by foreign and large corporate interests that continue to accelerate the fleecing of the developed world. There are no protections for workers from corporate boards who decide to cut 50k people in one day to boost quarterly profits for shareholders. There are no protections for workers from companies deciding to move off-shore to locations without labor laws, unions, environmental controls, etc. In addition, there are no protections for companies that do the right thing, follow the rules and keep business in the developed world. The Governments do not penalize companies for taking advantage of these systems and literally force the remaining companies to follow the bad actors or perish. As someone who has a Libertarian/Capitalist bent, it's really hard to square this set of beliefs with the reality we are surrounded with. We have seen Socialism fail spectacularly around the world time and again....look at Venezuela today to see another socialistic implosion. Now though, we are seeing Capitalism or it's current bastardized uncontrolled form failing. So the interesting question becomes: What's next?
The political fireworks are starting. They had the Nevada Democratic Convention here in Las Vegas last night. Bernie supporters got upset and Metro was called in to take control of the situation.
I generally agree with you. The raise in the minimum wage will not actually fix the problem. I'm not against it per se, but I'm not optimistic that it will do more than temporarily offer a reprieve to the working class. I'll address your last paragraph. Capitalism isn't an answer, it's a means to achieve an economic policy end. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. However, it requires certain conditions precedent before it actually explains anything economically. What Smith did not address is what is the end result of successful capitalism? You're seeing it right now. Basically, a successful capitalistic industry will eventually result in an oligopoly, which is what you have in many industries. For food there's basically 4 companies, cell phones, 4, Banks 4, Construction 5, Defense contractors 4, Entertainment/broadcast news 4, etc. Once an industry has become an oligopoly it becomes much easier to collude and set prices (which is what capitalism says should not happen). There are such huge barriers to entry at this point, both from a regulatory and infrastructure/capital start up cost point that no one can really enter those markets in order to force the oligopolies to compete. If only we had a historical analogue. Oh, wait, we do. Post Industrial Revolution. (1870's-1900) we had very similar issues. Vast amounts of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few whom had very close ties to government that made laws favorable to those few wealthy folks. Sound familiar? So what changed? McClure's magazine and the rise of Teddy Roosevelt and Progressivism. He busted the oligopolies by splitting them up (a reboot, if you will). He instituted protections for workers. He invested in infrastructure. Then what happened? Well, Taft (to a lesser degree) and Harding and Hoover tried to roll back those changes and BAM - economic meltdown caused by wild speculation in the stock market. Sound familiar? We've been here before, and there are some fairly easy conceptual ways to improve things for the working class. Thus far, the political will isn't there. A big part of the problem is there is no independent journalism that has mass access like McClure's magazine did. The current version of the news is for profit and so closely tied to corporations and the government that you don't really get an independent voice with resources to examine how dirty things are, because that would hurt their profits. As a final say to your 'what's next?' I again say: publicly fund state and federal elections and you can get the money out of politics which in turn makes it far easier to get reform. I think it should be a Constitutional Amendment whereas others believe that overturning Citizens United is enough. However, they are wrong, and I'm right.
What about a universal basic income? There has been a long held belief that eventually automation would take over everything. A lot of people believe that the jobs that they're in are bullshit dead end job, but it keeps their heads just above water. Imagine not having to spend every second worrying about living expenses. If a bunch of people aren't worrying about day to day expenses and allows them to actually think and work on real problems, isn't that a net positive for society? If that doesn't grab you, what about the fact that the government's size is substantially lowered since there isn't a welfare program anymore? It allows people the choice to either stay at home with their kids while the other parent works, or get training or an education and a better shot at a good paying job. If giving money to people means that there are less workers in the workforce, that means that those who are working are in a better position to demand better pay and benefits. I don't know about you guys, but I'd do a fucking backflip if it meant my wife could stay home with our kid. As it is now, she's on unpaid leave from her current job while working two part time jobs (one of which allows her to stay home). She needs to weigh going back to a job she hates but gives us more financial security, but increases the cost of child care almost to the point that it's a wash. And she gets to see our daughter significantly less. Or, she quits and finds another part time job since the one she can stay at home for ends in June. In this day and age, a mother shouldn't have to choose between being a good parent and literally anything else.
The problem with a basic income is that it assumes each person will act in their rational own self-interest* and economic application (in general) shows that many people won't. *Rational self-interest in this case meaning that they will make the best possible choice based on available information.
I'm not sure I understand your reply. Are you saying that many people will just sit on their asses and do nothing?
The bolded part is completely unrealistic. Think about what you do with your spare time. When you're watching TV or surfing the web or playing a video game, are you worrying about your bills? Nope, and if given more free time away from worry, most people are going to fuck it away on useless shit. They're not going to solve any problems. The thinkers and problem solvers are already getting shit done, and we don't need any "help" from people who can't figure out how to get a more-than-minimum-wage job.
Some probably will, but no, that's not quite what I'm saying. Early economists like Adam Smith suggested that people will always act in accordance with their own (best) self-interest. There are a lot of economists who still echo that when referring to the invisible hand, but I think that in reality, that's not exactly true. People just being "lazy" is one of many reasons why. For instance, people gamble. Most people who gamble know the odds are against them. They do it anyway for a variety of flawed rationalizations: fallacies of success, lack of education, emotionalism, etc. Its actual a fundamental flaw of capitalism, not economic socialism. Not to mention, the the math doesn't support it. There is about 321,400,000 people in the U.S. as of 2015 estimates. Of those, approximately 77% are adults (over 18), which works out to 247,478,000 adults of working age. (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/). A few scenarios of providing a basic income at varying levels to each adult of working age: 1) $15/hour minimum wage: 15 x 40 (hours per week) x 52 (weeks per year) = $31,200 (far below the average income of $51K). 31,200 x 247,478,000 = $7.7 Trillion/year. The total U.S. federal tax revenue in 2015 was $3.3 Trillion. (Source) A basic income would cost more than double the U.S. tax revenue alone without factoring everything else federal funding is spent on. It's also about 42.5% of total U.S. GDP, which is enormous. (For reference, total military expenditures are 3.3% of GDP (Source)). Now the current average tax rate is 38% (Source). Let's kick that up to 50%. The current household (that is, every working American. For our sake, it's that 247,478,000 number) income in the U.S. is $53,647 (Source). So the equation becomes: (53,647 x 0.50) x 247,478,000 = $6.6 Trillion. Still far less than the $31,200 per person, per year basic income cost of $7.7 Trillion. With those numbers, you couldn't hit the cost unless the average tax rate was 58%, and that's just to pay for the basic income of $31,200. If you kick that income up to $40,000 a year, the cost becomes $9.9 Trillion. The income tax rate would have to be just shy of 75%. 2) Now the above only counts household income. Let's add in corporations. They pay approximately $3.3 Trillion (Source) in taxes at an average rate of 35.5% (Full disclosure: this is average, it doesn't account for massive companies taking advantage of loopholes). Kicking the rate up to 50%, you end up with approximately: $4.7 Trillion. So if everyone (households and corporations) across the board pays a 50% rate, you end up with: $6.6 Trillion + $4.7 Trillion = $11.31 Trillion. So, 11.31 - 7.7 = $3.61 Trillion for every other federally funded service and expense, including healthcare, military, infrastructure, etc. 3) So if people have a basic income, we can probably assume we can cut off welfare and some other entitlements. Those come out to about $0.361 Trillion as of 2015 (Source). Total U.S. expenditures last year were: $6.4 Trillion. 6.4 - 0.361 = $6.04 Trillion without welfare. $3.61 Trillion - $6.04 Trillion = -$2.34 Trillion / year and that's at an approximate 15% hike in all taxes and assumes the government operates consistently and doesn't fuck anything else up. Note 1: I know there are many factors that are not included, this was just a basic crunch. Note 2: My intention wasn't to go overboard in trying to disprove Jimmy James, I was genuinely curious with how the numbers might work out.
From that same website, they estimate a roughly $1 trillion cost. Regardless, a $30,000 a year income would be high for the purposes of this discussion. After thinking about it some more, it makes way more sense to base an income number on the actual amount of dollars a person receives. Meaning, whatever pittance they get now, in addition to Medicaid, food stamps, etc. I would guess it's closer to $20-22,000 a year, which would be subsidized with a part time job of some kind. Anyway, I'm of the belief that sooner or later, a majority of people aren't going to have jobs to go to.
Jimmy/Juice - I agree with both of you here: 1. The economics of reality are against us. 2. The unemployment/employment situation is bad and won't improve. A basic income structure won't work as Juice's ROM math points to but Jimmy you are also right, the economic climate in this country isn't good and isn't going to improve either. I hate to be doom and gloom but between offshoring and eventually automation of larger swaths of jobs, the employment situation will continue to deteriorate. I've mentioned this before and when I say this, I don't believe it will happen tomorrow, next month or even next year but it is on the horizon. I believe that we are headed toward a world where the vast majority of people won't work and that we will need to radically redefine the inputs from people to society and societies outputs to the individual.
The number I've heard bandied about as far as basic income is much lower then Jimmy and Juice have suggested. The plan I've seen people talking about is modeled on some European country's program (Denmark?). It's about $750 a month, if you're over 18 you get a check/deposit of $750 each month. The trade off would be no gov't housing, no food stamps, no welfare, no social security. Personally, I kind of like the plan even though I would pay for it on the back end with a much smaller income at retirement. However...Can you imagine what would happen if people lost their $1200 a month housing voucher, their $500 a month EBT, their $? a month welfare, and their $2500-$10K stipend earned income credit depending on how many kids they have?
People have been saying that automation is going to put everyone out of work for decades now because they don't understand automation. I do automation and controls engineering and believe me, I'm working my ass off to make it so I control everything from my desk, but nobody's job is in danger because of me. Instead of running one machine and deburring thousands of parts a day on a belt sander, our operators now run two machines and a robot deburrs the parts. Which job do you want - sanding parts by hand or running a robot? Automation didn't put anyone out of work here; it allowed us to double our capacity and greatly reduced the risk of injury to the operator. This automation made an automotive part cheaper so that more people can buy it on their cars. If you don't want our society to improve, our manufacturing efficiencies to improve, then by all means let's go back to fabricating everything by hand so that everyone has a menial, low-output job to do.
Dartmouth caves in to BLM: A Republican student group sought, and were approved, to put up flyers on a campus bulletin board honoring fallen police officers and 9/11 responders during National Police Week. Within hours BLM protestors had turned it into this: The BLM protesters then stood guard to make sure no one messed with their unauthorized display. The school response? "Once again, Ms. Hall met with the College Republicans to discuss a resolution to the situation. Ms. Hall and an unidentified staff member spoke to the Black Lives Matter protesters, strongly informing them that they were in clear violation of College policy as the College Republicans had the bulletin board reserved and were in the right. The students responded that they were aware of the violation but were unwilling to remove their flyers. After conferring with Safety and Security and Mr. Ramsey, Ms. Hall informed the College Republicans that the College wanted to avoid confrontation and recommended that the flyers not be removed that day." Apparently the first amendment is dead at Dartmouth. So is obeying policy. How about as soon as these assholes refused to clean up their mess they got booted out of the institution permanently? http://www.dartreview.com/an-assault-on-dialogue-and-free-speech-a-timeline-of-events/
The first amendment applies to the government censoring your speech, not a college, or BLM. This has nothing to do with the first amendment. That said this whole thing is stupid. If you want to give legitimacy to your group, you should start by doing legitimate things. Bullying and disrespecting officers that have been killed will never add legitimacy to your group. I also understand why the administration didn't do anything about it. They weren't looking for a fight.
Let's be honest - putting up "Blue Lives Matter" is an incendiary response to the BLM movement. Nobody ever used the phrase "Blue Lives Matter" about police officers until the BLM movement started. Had they just put up a display honoring fallen officers it would have been a lot easier to defend.