What are the chances of minimum wage being lowered or removed in the next 70 years?

[AshleyAshes]

7 hours ago, Acorn Eyes said:

That guy witnessed a kid get crushed by a tree

Oh my god... You're still falling for the con... o_____o

[shermantanker]

22 hours ago, Real_PhillBert said:

Sounds more like a states issue than a federal one to me.

I personally like a federal base, and then states can bump it up from there. $15 an hour would be troublesome in many central states, but a lot of the coasts can handle it.

[xentropa]

18 hours ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Funny you use McDonald's as an example. Their profit margin is only $0.25 per menu item.

 

If you increase the wages, even by $0.25, it'll increase prices since (as far as I'm aware) McDonald's is not a non-for-profit orginizaiton

Wut?

 

If you are correct that the profit margin per menu item is 25 cents (which I don't agree in the least), so long as they sell more items than the number of hours worked per employee, they would still be making a profit even with the increased wages.

 

I worked at Mcdonalds when I was 16 and based off some balance sheets I saw from the franchise owner and how much my register pulled in a single day,  I estimate the profit margin for burgers is close to 75% and the XL fountain drink's profit margin is more like 99%.

[Okjoek]

Minimum wage should definitely stay, and I'm not sure, but I kinda think they should keep it in one place and not move it around.

[RocketFarmer]

Answer to the OPs question: A Snowball's Chance in Hell.  Too may people married to the idea that the minimum wage is a good thing, and too may paranoid people who think the world will end if not for government.

 

TL;DR

 

Higher minimum wage requirements on businesses, the higher the unemployment rate.  So for many people, they'll just go on welfare.  Those who survive the ax will have to live with increased prices due to employers passing on the costs.

 

Predictions of disaster for no legal minimum wage are so far overstated it's funny.  About as funny as the paranoia that companies are out to screw people over.  There will be turbulence with any change.  Just as raising minimum wage with have impacts.

 

If you are currently dependent on a minimum wage now, then you really aren't in a good position.  For when the wage is increased, you are more likely to be the one to get let go.  The beneficiaries of these laws are actually unions, where they win by driving cheaper labor out of the work force.  Many union contacts also base their rates on minimum wage, so on top of lower skilled workers being driven from the market place, they get a raise.

 

In general, wages have not kept pace with the rest of the economy.  This is because businesses have been forced to expend more money/costs on regulator costs, hidden taxes and fees, and other such devices to prop up the leviathan government that has to pay for all that free stuff.  So when the next freebie gets handed out, it's the working people who bear the cost.  Each person that leaves the work force ends up adding more to the overall burden for everyone else to support.

 

My view:

• Eliminate the minimum wage.  Artificial limits don't work.  To me, your specific job category and the prevalent market wages drive the starting wage (each can be very different from the legal minimum wage).  Businesses who have a need for skilled workers can hire people at below market level wages, train them up to make them skilled workers, and then increase the wages accordingly.  Currently it's become far too difficult to get younger people who don't have the skill set developed into the productive, working class.  Part of this is due to artificial limits to starting wages.
• Eliminate protectionist policies and regulations on businesses (those that essentially give certain companies a monopoly over others).  So if a company attempts to "screw people over", they are not protected from other companies entering to compete against them and drive them from the market due to their bad behavior.  Or for that matter, a group of employees who'd rather work for themselves and drive the bad company from the market.
• Eliminate restrictions on collective bargaining.  Option to be in a union or not should be up to the individual, and said unions should not have special protections from government.  This makes it incumbent on the union to be responsive to the employees and the employer.  The union must provide a tangible benefit rather than just be an institution of corruption and control.
• Eliminate the "freebies", and thus the costs associated.  It's really hard for some people to let go of the idea that getting stuff for free is a good thing, especially when the "free" stuff costs society so much more.  The so-called free stuff benefits also tend to snowball out of control until what was meant to be free for those who really needed it becomes necessity for just about everyone.  Education, healthcare, retirement, etc., all started off as assistance to that small percent who couldn't afford to pay for what was at the time affordable to most, to grow into costs that only the rich can afford today.  Providers of these things just didn't decide to demand more or increase costs.  The free money thrown into these markets drove the costs, and in the process led to many totally unnecessary things - like many of the worthless degrees colleges offer these days (and the requirement that you must have a college degree for a job that doesn't really require one or even use it).  You can also throw in other government misadventures into this mix.  Unnecessary wars, huge government contracts for things we don't really need, financial and corporate bailouts, etc.  That's the "free" stuff we give to corporations, which in my opinion don't require or deserve a dime.

Bottom line.  I am not a politician and do not expect to ever be a politician.  My ideas in the grand scheme are irrelevant, and are most if not all of the opinions on this board.  I don't expect minimum wage laws to go away anytime soon because too many people believe in the myths surrounding minimum wage.  I think it's more likely that automation via robots and advanced intelligence will drive people from the workplace until everyone is either a business owner or on some form of welfare (i.e., a comfortable slave).  Maybe the question is will people demand a minimum wage for robots and AI in order to retain jobs for humans?  Already seeing some in Europe pushing for rights for robots/AI, so who knows what will happen in the next 20, 30, 50, 75 years?

[gcubed]

On 1/23/2017 at 1:21 PM, Acorn Eyes said:

Unless you pass a law to abolish all minimum wages.

Strict constructionists would likely be willing to repeal a Federal minimum wage but would balk at attempting to abolish any State instituted minimum wage, as they believe it to be a State matter.

 

Having said that, while they may be willing to abolish a Federal minimum wage, more likely tactic would be to simply not increase the Federal minimum wage and let it become irrelevant over time. They would sill take some heat for that course of action but it wouldn't be anything like the shit storm that they would have to weather by abolishing it.

[Misanthrope]

4 hours ago, Okjoek said:

Minimum wage should definitely stay, and I'm not sure, but I kinda think they should keep it in one place and not move it around.

Inflation moves everything else, usually up, so salaries can't be fixed. They could however be tied to go up (and down) according to inflation so that means a low income but livable wage would remain more or less the same whenever the economy grows or shrinks. 

[TheKDub]

I think that the minimum wage should stay at if not below $10.
Minimum wage jobs aren't there for you to raise a family on, or become a millionaire, or anything like that. Minimum wage jobs are there for people entering the workforce so they can still make some money while learning job skills, and depending on where the worker is located, they could possibly be able to afford a lower end house and such just fine.

 

Raising the minimum wage is going to kill small business, especially the ones that already struggle enough financially. It only makes it harder for small businesses to add new employees, and if they do, they're going to have to do a bit more work to make up for the extra cost.

 

I highly doubt that minimum wage will be removed or lowered, too many people would disapprove of it, and it would likely be abused by some businesses. (Though it's also likely that it wouldn't, since if they want people to work for them, they should offer higher pay to pull people in)

Unless the economy were to nosedive and crash, I doubt we'd be seeing anything in terms of a lower minimum wage.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, TheKDub said:

I think that the minimum wage should stay at if not below $10.
Minimum wage jobs aren't there for you to raise a family on, or become a millionaire, or anything like that. Minimum wage jobs are there for people entering the workforce so they can still make some money while learning job skills, and depending on where the worker is located, they could possibly be able to afford a lower end house and such just fine.

 

Raising the minimum wage is going to kill small business, especially the ones that already struggle enough financially. It only makes it harder for small businesses to add new employees, and if they do, they're going to have to do a bit more work to make up for the extra cost.

 

I highly doubt that minimum wage will be removed or lowered, too many people would disapprove of it, and it would likely be abused by some businesses. (Though it's also likely that it wouldn't, since if they want people to work for them, they should offer higher pay to pull people in)

Unless the economy were to nosedive and crash, I doubt we'd be seeing anything in terms of a lower minimum wage.

While I agree that in principle, minimum wage work is mostly for part timers and people just entering the job force. The problem is that there are not enough full time, better paying jobs at the moment. Lots of people have to work 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs. Even people that have qualifications for something else that isn't in demand.

 

It's not a simple problem. Minimum wage can help, sometimes, as a baseline. It can also hurt too. There's a balance to be had, in my opinion.

[lettuce head]

Personally, and this doesn't actually answer the question but it's playing devil's advocate a bit...

why should "minimum wage" mean "livable wage" if you're at the age where you have to pay your own bills and the best employment you can find is McDonald's, then make yourself desirable. make yourself stand out from the crowd.

on another note, UPS is literally ALWAYS hiring. package handling positions start at 10.50 USD an hour, includes full healthcare, dental, vision, paid days off, paid vacation, sick days, and is protected by a very strong union. and you get a raise after training, and after the first 6 months, and after every year. the union is so strong that production supervisors cant utter the words "go faster" without consequences. Plus UPS always promotes from within.

I started as a package handler and was promoted 4 times in 5 years to the Plant Engineer... I don't even have a degree. Im not even in college.

 

what I'm trying to get at here is, there's an argument to be made that minimum wage jobs are for high school kids to make some spare change, learn the value of a dollar, and learn that there are much better and easier ways to make a buck in this world than by folding clothes or flipping burgers... and there are always places that are hiring.

 

[AlTech]

Lol. RIP America then.

 

Hong Kong would die if minimum wage disappeared. Minimum wage saves so many people from not being at all or being paid practically nothing.

[dalekphalm]

14 hours ago, lettuce head said:

Personally, and this doesn't actually answer the question but it's playing devil's advocate a bit...

why should "minimum wage" mean "livable wage" if you're at the age where you have to pay your own bills and the best employment you can find is McDonald's, then make yourself desirable. make yourself stand out from the crowd.

on another note, UPS is literally ALWAYS hiring. package handling positions start at 10.50 USD an hour, includes full healthcare, dental, vision, paid days off, paid vacation, sick days, and is protected by a very strong union. and you get a raise after training, and after the first 6 months, and after every year. the union is so strong that production supervisors cant utter the words "go faster" without consequences. Plus UPS always promotes from within.

I started as a package handler and was promoted 4 times in 5 years to the Plant Engineer... I don't even have a degree. Im not even in college.

 

what I'm trying to get at here is, there's an argument to be made that minimum wage jobs are for high school kids to make some spare change, learn the value of a dollar, and learn that there are much better and easier ways to make a buck in this world than by folding clothes or flipping burgers... and there are always places that are hiring.

 

That's all well and good, but UPS can't employ everyone. There are simply not enough jobs that pay better than minimum wage to go around - at least, not right now.

 

Lots of cities and towns rely on minimum wage jobs to employ a large amount of their workforce. It's unfortunate, but if you apply to everything, and only can get into minimum wage jobs, sometimes saying "Well, try harder you lazy fuck!" isn't helpful anymore.

[lettuce head]

10 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

That's all well and good, but UPS can't employ everyone. There are simply not enough jobs that pay better than minimum wage to go around - at least, not right now.

-snip-

sometimes saying "Well, try harder you lazy fuck!" isn't helpful anymore.

I absolutely agree. what I was more trying to get at is that there are positions open that offer a lot more than minimum wage. The fact is, at my facility we have a 60% turnover rate in the first month, not because the work is ridiculously hard (it's about as fun as manual labor can be...) but because of lot of the people that get hired either don't show up or aren't willing to put in the effort.

UPS obviously cant give everyone a job but its an excellent place to start a career, earn a livable wage to grow in the company and become a marketable asset to another company. employers look at UPS on a resume and understand that its hard work and recognize that.

Sometimes "try harder you lazy fuck" does work. Not nearly all or even half the time. but some people just don't know where to look or aren't willing to put in the time or effort.

[Dredgy]

On 24/01/2017 at 4:20 AM, Acorn Eyes said:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080515/5-developed-countries-without-minimum-wages.asp

 

While they do not have a true free market, they do not have minimum wages and succeed well.

These countries have effective minimum wages by way mass bargaining. They all have higher effective minimum wages than the United States. The United States does not have a system set up to deal with that as unions have relatively small amounts of power. If Unions went away, the political environment in all of these countries would all but guarantee a minimum wage.

 

As for the question - it's entirely possible that an individual president may reduce or remove the minimum wage in the short term, but it will be reinstated or re-raised with subsequent administrations and long term trends should see a rise in minimum wage. A decent living wage for the lowest earning members of society is essential to a strong economy and most people recognize that. Countries that do have a strong wage weather extreme financial events pretty well - see Belgium, Luxembourg, Australia and New Zealand in the 2008 crisis.

[Dredgy]

On 25/01/2017 at 4:37 PM, lettuce head said:

why should "minimum wage" mean "livable wage" if you're at the age where you have to pay your own bills and the best employment you can find is McDonald's, then make yourself desirable. make yourself stand out from the crowd.

1. Because people of all income levels having disposable income is crucial to a capitalist economy. These people can buy products they like, which means people can create businesses to fill their needs. Also means more tax revenue for the government.

2. Because you simply can't always "make yourself desirable and stand out from the crowd" - if everyone was doing that, then no one would stand out. And what makes you stand out in employment opportunities? Experience. If you can't get experience, and working at McDonalds is your only option, and its not going to pay the bills - then you have to turn to social welfare, which creates a drag on the treasury, which causes national debt to go up etc.

 

I'm saying this as a small business owner (and former executive of a medium-large business; and former minimum-wage worker) in a country with the highest minimum wage laws - my entry level employees are paid the equivalent of $16USD/hour or $515/week. It's easy enough to work around because it creates an environment where you have more consumer confidence and disposable income.

[TetraSky]

On 1/23/2017 at 1:38 PM, Acorn Eyes said:

I can't find any evidence for or against my claim. But I do not think a living wage is even possible in the first place. As the wage increases, so does the cost of goods and services.

But with full automation, there's no wage to pay, meaning goods and services "should" go down in price. Meaning a living wage should be possible. Otherwise we're all just going to be welfare receivers in a few years after we lose our jobs to machines who don't need sleep or rest and can work 24/7 without complaining.

[RocketFarmer]

We're going to run into the same kind of issues Andrew Carnegie ran into.  Carnegie, despite the "robber baron" propaganda which was started by JP Morgan and company, voluntarily set up a minimum wage and wasn't as antiunion as the situation with Frick and the Pinkertons later on would have you believe.  But he had to adjust these policies as the share of manual labor over automation decreased due to the explosion of industrialization. That's where he started to run into problems. 

 

As robotics and AI come more and more into reality, human labor, and not just manual human labor, will deserve less of a share of the reward for less of a share of the labor.  In many cases people will just be let go.

 

We're already at the point where some people think they ought to be paid over $10 just for showing up.  I think many are in for a rude awakening.  Huge percentages of the population will probably lead to social unrest, and many of the rich are already preparing for that reality.  We'll have to see what sort of policies are put into place that counter that.  It may just mean the opportunity to work and make a decent wage is over and you are now just a ward of the state.  

[Acorn Eyes]

On 1/26/2017 at 4:00 AM, RocketFarmer said:

We're going to run into the same kind of issues Andrew Carnegie ran into.  Carnegie, despite the "robber baron" propaganda which was started by JP Morgan and company, voluntarily set up a minimum wage and wasn't as antiunion as the situation with Frick and the Pinkertons later on would have you believe.  But he had to adjust these policies as the share of manual labor over automation decreased due to the explosion of industrialization. That's where he started to run into problems. 

 

As robotics and AI come more and more into reality, human labor, and not just manual human labor, will deserve less of a share of the reward for less of a share of the labor.  In many cases people will just be let go.

 

We're already at the point where some people think they ought to be paid over $10 just for showing up.  I think many are in for a rude awakening.  Huge percentages of the population will probably lead to social unrest, and many of the rich are already preparing for that reality.  We'll have to see what sort of policies are put into place that counter that.  It may just mean the opportunity to work and make a decent wage is over and you are now just a ward of the state.  

Put simply, the value of robots/AI's work is equal to humans, but their "pay" (maintenance/electricity) is equal/less to their work unlike humans who have it artificially increased to be more than their work.

 

You CAN have humans be cheaper than robots, but when your looking at paying $50 a month for robots vs $15/hour for humans it isn't likely.

[AlTech]

Also, I forgot to mention something.

 

In Asia, there's a lot of people who are given low level and low skill jobs to ensure that they do not end up in the streets.

 

Security guards are a good example. Some security guards have probably never had to deal with a criminal in their life. They are paid a basic wage to protect people.

[Scruffy90]

I live in NYC, where certain industries are allowed to pay their employees below federal minimum wage (usually food service). Ive seen this go as low as $2/hr. Companies, especially those in major cities will take advantage of a lowered/nonexistant minimum wage.

[Acorn Eyes]

11 hours ago, Scruffy90 said:

I live in NYC, where certain industries are allowed to pay their employees below federal minimum wage (usually food service). Ive seen this go as low as $2/hr. Companies, especially those in major cities will take advantage of a lowered/nonexistant minimum wage.

That's because that's what the workers value that work at, and what those industries value that work at. 

 

If the worker doesn't value the work at $2, and the industry doesn't value the work at $2; the worker gets a raise.

 

If the worker doesn't value the work at $2, but the industry does, the worker leaves.

 

If the worker values the work at $2, but the industry doesn't, there are other cut backs.