Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour

gen.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 93 posts

Re: You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour

#51

Post by refurb »

janandonly wrote: post #8

The reality is that if the minimum wage had stayed consistent with productivity and inflation since 1968, America’s lowest earners would be making around $24 an hour by now, an analysis by Jacobin found last year. Fifteen dollars is not asking for a lot. In fact, it’s asking for less than the bare minimum of what we should be providing our workers.

That’s seems like an unreasonable conclusion.

If productivity is driven by industries with no minimum wage workers, why would the benefit of that productivity pass to them?

Re: You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour

#52

Post by refurb »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #16
ffggvv wrote: post #3

why would minimum wage keep pace with productivity if those workers aren’t the ones being more productive? overall productivity increase because of tech and globalization, of course a work whose productivity has stayed the same shouldn’t expect to make more just because other parts of the economy do well

>productivity The productivity is only a matter of local purchasing power. If it were any other, why would third world barber be extremely less productive than Manhattan one? So, when higher middle and higher classes increase their productivity by tracking global population and selling ads, the productivity of people servicing them has to increase.

Productivity doesn’t determine wages. Supply and demand does.

Re: You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour

#53

Post by renewiltord »

mannykannot wrote: post #45
labcomputer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that 1968 had the highest inflation-adjusted minimum wage ever in the united states. I'm not sure it makes sense to compare to an outlier.

A maximum is not necessarily - or even normally - an outlier.

Sure, but we’re not making general statements. This one is.

Re: You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour

#54

Post by phendrenad2 »

Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. The author relates his story of working for minimum-wage. When minimum-wage was raised, his manager cut everyone's hours. He then concludes that this was the strategy of the corporation (malice), but I don't think that's necessarily the case. It's also possible that management just didn't say anything, and perhaps didn't have any strategy in place (incompetence), and until they did, local managers were forced to do the only thing they could do: cut hours.

Unless you're Lex Luthor, you can't extrapolate the inner workings of the universe from a candy wrapper.

Re: You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour

#55

Post by randyrand »

neilwilson wrote: post #35
randyrand wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate this argument. It is so flawed. When productivity increased, minimum wage earners do make more. Overall productivity increases don't increase profits. They reduce prices! Workers make more because everything costs less. If you increased minimum wage with productivity, it would eclipse the highest earners in a matter of decades. It makes no sense to do that.

"Overall productivity increases don't increase profits. They reduce prices! Workers make more because everything costs less." That only applies in an economy without credit and where sales are constrained by the spending of the wage share. In an economy with credit you can use financialisation to give people spending power their wages don't permit, which keeps prices higher than they would otherwise be and allows mor…

Short term sure, but the overall big picture is the same.

Re: You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour

#56

Post by throwawaysea »

ActorNightly wrote: post #17

Federal minimum wage debate is silly. Places have varying cost of living. Just give people income tax relief/credits based on their living situation (including credits that are paid out as cash) and let companies fight for workers with whatever wage they want.

Should people in higher cost places by given greater subsidy? Isn't a better approach to hold the tax relief/credits steady so that populations are incentivized to move and occupy less populated areas that are in lower demand and have lower costs? There is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem with what moves first - people or economic opportunity. But I do think having a more distributed economy would resolve a lot of tensions American society experiences today.

Re: You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour

#57

Post by throwawaysea »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #18

"It's not how much you make. It's how much you keep." One of the things that tends to not enter these discussions is that the US has torn down about a million SROs[1] and largely zoned out of existence the ability to build other small scale homes currently being called Missing Middle Housing. When walkable neighborhoods were more the norm and you could get just a room or small place as market rate housing without hav…

I'm not sure why so many people in this comment section dislike cars. To most people they are a benefit, not a burden. Cars let you have fast point to point travel on your own terms, with no waiting times, no dealing with crimes/harassment, protection from weather, the ability to transport cargo/other people, and the freedom to go where you want. I personally love parking minimums and the availability of street parking spaces because they enable this system of direct travel from door to door. It means I am able to lose less time to transit and live a richer life as a result of having fast access to all those destinations. Not all cities have to be the same or follow the same urbanist dictate. People are varied, and carry different preferences. It's OK for some places to elect to have parking minimums and build infrastructure, community, and lifestyle that is car-centric.

And as for costs of living - I don't think it is fair to say that zoning is to blame. Zoning is a choice by a community to preserve the lifestyle and neighborhood character they have built, and there's nothing wrong with that. Yes it may be inconvenient for potential new residents, but so what - local government logically should serve its current residents. I don't think that's particularly selfish, since we could just as well ask those seeking out low cost living to be realistic about their options and live within their means. Why is anyone entitled to live wherever they want at whatever cost they want? If someone can't afford to live in San Francisco or other such high demand high cost location, they are just as free to seek out a lower-cost life elsewhere. America has no shortage of places where one can make a living and thrive. Sure those locations may not have the exact job someone wants or the amenities they want or whatever else - but that's life - you don't get everything you want, and expecting otherwise feels like the dictionary definition of entitlement.

Re: You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour

#58

Post by throwawaysea »

dehrmann wrote: post #50
albatruss wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walmart makes over 200k in revenue per employee. Using profit to make your point is not applicable if honest. Otherwise you would advise Amazon to cease hiring altogether in all those years they were seemingly losing money per employee.

Walmart's profit margin is 2.20% (that's a very low number). That's an extra $4,400 per employ at most .

How can we know that? The profit margin that is publicly known is after spending that might be optional. For instance, Walmart could forego some investment like building a new store, or expand more slowly, and be able to pay higher wages that go beyond the buffer of their current profit margin as a result.

Re: You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour

#59

Post by tonyedgecombe »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #47
Analemma_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I literally just drove southbound on Aurora about an hour ago and saw three street walkers between 160th and 80th so I think it’s safe to say that effort was a total failure.

The idea that reducing low quality housing raises quality of life is the same fallacy that's behind minimum wage prohibition. When you prohibit micro-units and other low-income/low-quality housing, you don't get more high quality housing. You get more homelessness. When you prohibit low-wage work, you don't get more high-paying jobs. You get more unemployment. The only process that actually increases the quantity of…

>When you prohibit low-wage work, you don't get more high-paying jobs. You get more unemployment.

That wasn't the experience of the UK when we introduced a minimum wage.

Re: You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour

#60

Post by CryptoPunk »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #59
CryptoPunk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that reducing low quality housing raises quality of life is the same fallacy that's behind minimum wage prohibition. When you prohibit micro-units and other low-income/low-quality housing, you don't get more high quality housing. You get more homelessness. When you prohibit low-wage work, you don't get more high-paying jobs. You get more unemployment. The only process that actually increases the quantity of…

>When you prohibit low-wage work, you don't get more high-paying jobs. You get more unemployment. That wasn't the experience of the UK when we introduced a minimum wage.

I mean ceteris paribus. There are numerous other factors that can counter-act the negative impact of price floors, so introducing a price floor, especially one that only affects on the order of 4% of the merchandise, as in the case of minimum wage, does not always correspond with a rise in un-used capacity (unemployment), let alone one that is profound.
Post reply on HN