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

61–70 of 93 posts

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

#61

Post by tacitusarc »

throwawaysea wrote: post #57
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 parki…

Municipal government rarely serves its citizens. Instead, it bows to the will of an entrenched bureaucracy which optimizes, above all else, the form of self-continuation requiring the lowest amount of effort possible. If you have ever dealt with city government in any capacity, you know how little power the elected representatives have when compared with the lifelong bureaucrats.

Also, if you don’t think it’s a travesty when someone is forced out of their ancestral home because gentrification raises property taxes and they have a low income, you’re kind of heartless.

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

#62

Post by asteroidbelt »

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.

What was the experience in the UK?

I googled it, and seems like full time unemployment didn’t fall, but part time employment felt a little.

Additionally I don’t know (didn’t find) what was the effective minimum wage before the min wage act. If it was already almost equal to min wage, the law was effectively no op. I.e. wages didn’t went up.

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

#63

Post by dehrmann »

throwawaysea wrote: post #58
dehrmann wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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...

You can see cap ex on their cash flow statement and create all sorts of hypothetical profit margins for them. Walmart can't actually take a hit like that because their monopoly power isn't strong enough. Their game is low prices. If they grow slower, they'll start losing market share to the dollar stores, Target, etc. If they raise their prices, the same thing happens. It's different when labor is in short supply or you want more skilled labor. Starbucks pays more and hires somewhat overqualified baristas because they see value in it and offering a premium experience.

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

#64

Post by MarkSweep »

throwawaysea wrote: post #57
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 parki…

I think many American cities are in a sort of local optima with regard to cars. Any change that makes walking more viable will reduce the utility of everyone using cars. Converting the freeway right-of-way to rail would take a long time and make lots of people mad in the meantime.

A car can get you places, yes. But it also requires money to purchase, maintain, insure, and fuel. Many people are not great at driving them, killing people in the process. People get fat because they never have to walk anywhere. There is a cost for this convenience.

> Zoning is a choice by a community to preserve the lifestyle and neighborhood character they have built, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Sure, in isolation it makes sense. But then almost every city says the same thing. Then sprawl is the only choice for new people. And the “neighbor character” you have preserved is “only rich people are allowed to move in here”.

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

#65

Post by xupybd »

FactoryReboot wrote: post #28

Walmart employees make so little they are often eligible for food stamps. Walmart knows and teaches employees how to apply. What kind of free market is that? You shouldn’t be allowed to pay your employees so little that they are eligible for government benefits. To me this issue seems like something that both political parties would take issue with.

Why not boycott Walmart?

If low pay is an ethical concern shouldn't people take aim with their own purchasing power?

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

#66

Post by stevenicr »

erentz wrote: post #37
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…

Plug a good channel related to this called Not Just Bikes on YouTube. He does a great job tearing apart North American urban planning and housing and compares it to examples where the author currently lives in Europe. I want to be able to live in places like that but I’m stuck in the US. Here is an example where he also compares new planning to how we used to do it. These old compact suburbs that have become expensiv…

Any idea what the historical price of sidewalks was? My search engine foo isn't turning up much before 2007.

I've been wondering how the nice sidewalk / walking / biking places I've enjoyed were built.. was it super cheap in the 80s and skyrocketed since?

I've gone down the rabbit hole of semi-current pricing for sidewalks being built and road expansion in this mid-size city - and it's just dumb that a sidewalk install can easily cost a million dollars for a block or two for example.

I can't imagine building neighborhoods today that mimic what I miss from the past in another state - but there's no way it cost that much to build back then either I'm fairly certain.

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

#67

Post by thundergolfer »

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

A software engineer can’t produce any productive work unless a slave-labourer digs out the rare metals for the chip and a whole host of people work to keep the electricity grid running.

Who is more productive? Everyone is, even the people who use shovels to dig the earth, because the effect of their labour is magnified downstream.

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

#68

Post by dotandgtfo »

stevenicr wrote: post #66
erentz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plug a good channel related to this called Not Just Bikes on YouTube. He does a great job tearing apart North American urban planning and housing and compares it to examples where the author currently lives in Europe. I want to be able to live in places like that but I’m stuck in the US. Here is an example where he also compares new planning to how we used to do it. These old compact suburbs that have become expensiv…

Any idea what the historical price of sidewalks was? My search engine foo isn't turning up much before 2007. I've been wondering how the nice sidewalk / walking / biking places I've enjoyed were built.. was it super cheap in the 80s and skyrocketed since? I've gone down the rabbit hole of semi-current pricing for sidewalks being built and road expansion in this mid-size city - and it's just dumb that a sidewalk insta…

On my phone so can't check but this may be covered by the aforementioned Not just bikes youtube series on Strong Towns, I strongly recommend checking it out. IIRC the initial price of building roads and sidewalks was invested by the federal government at favorable terms on the condition that maintenance was covered by the municipal government. This worked great for the first 20-30 years until maintenance costs started to increase greatly towards the end of life of the infrastructure. The central theme of this series is that municipalities and towns have entered a debt trap and are relying on future growth to cover historical infrastructure debt. My explanation may be wrong, inaccurate, or not relevant for your question so I'd recommend checking out his videos if this seems interesting.

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

#69

Post by guerrilla »

randyrand wrote: post #31
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.

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.

All of these calculations are inflation-adjusted, so, no, not at all.

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

#70

Post by guerrilla »

macspoofing wrote: post #19

The only argument in favour of minimum wage is that if set at a low enough level it does not seem to have a detrimental effect on core prosperity metrics like employment rate. Proponents never attempt to claim any positive effect or show evidence of it. It doesn't reduce unemployment. It doesn't reduce poverty. In many situations it hurts young people who are trying to break into an industry, low income workers and s…

The only argument except all the ethical ones.

> Proponents never attempt to claim any positive effect or show evidence of it

Like workers being able to afford food?

Post reply on HN