Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity • Hacker News Board

Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity

#151

Post by orwin » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 10:32 PM UTC

megaman821 wrote: post #121

lmilcin wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is stopping companies is competition. If you own a supermarket and want to pay a decent wage, bad news for you. Over long time you are likely to loose against your competitor who doesn't share your sentiment. You may start with 100 companies of which 2 don't have any scruples and over time you will find out that these companies will take over the market along with other ones that will use this experience as lear…

Half the comments are suggesting that the investor class is just pocketing the extra wealth. How is that going to result in all their competitors going out of business? So I am guessing by no scruples you mean lowering the cost of goods to consumers. I am not sure how that qualifies as evil.

> Half the comments are suggesting that the investor class is just pocketing the extra wealth.

That's were most economists, orthodox or heterodox (Neo-keynesian, MMT) agree, the capitalist class captured all productivity gains since the 70s. They disagree on the "how". And imho, you are right, they are not stealing wages, they are capturing wealth creation, it's not the same thing, and its pernicious because most of them don't understand how it works (and those who are able to try hard to not understand).

I used to think people were idiot to go after the banks ten years ago, but in fact, they were intuitively way more intelligent than a "rational" me. I just did not understood "how money works".

Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity

#152

Post by ihumanable » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #138

ihumanable wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the heart of capitalism right, you bought the capital, the post hole digging machine, and so you get to (this next word is being used with its technical definition, make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource), not the emotionally charged one) exploit the value generated by labor using the capital. In your scenario you didn't say how much you charge the customer, but I'll assume that it's more than y…

Do any of the results change if instead of picking a quite high margin in postholes, you pick something more reasonable? What if it takes 15 years to pay off the hole digging machine, not 6 months?

15 years worth of postholes is 200 * 365 * 20 = 1,460,000 postholes, that would mean a profit of $0.0136 per posthole.

6 months worth of postholes is 200 * 30 * 6 = 36,000 postholes and a profit of $0.55 per posthole to pay down the capital investment.

In my original post I claim $5 per posthole profit can pay this off in 11 days.

Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity

#153

Post by midasuni » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 10:49 PM UTC

lmilcin wrote: post #116

QuarterReptile wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you own a supermarket and want to pay a decent wage, bad news for you. Over long time you are likely to loose against your competitor who doesn't share your sentiment. If you can market this "decent wage" to your customers successfully enough that they buy in, then you can continue along this trajectory. (As a side note, most people here probably wouldn't take you up on that "decent wage" retail job, in part beca…

That only works if your customers are willing to pay for employees to be paid better. As it is, it seems most people do not give a fuck about it and will still choose a store that is cheaper. Actually, everybody knows Walmart or Amazon employees are paid shit and they still choose cheap.

From what I’ve seen in the U.K., Amazon shelf stackers get paid more than salaries at local inefficient independent shops

Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity

#154

Post by omgwtfbyobbq » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 10:51 PM UTC

credit_guy wrote: post #23

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they don't have an alternative. If the supply of programmers was as large as the supply of minimum wage workers pay would drop significantly.

That is exactly what capitalism is about. Prices being driven by supply and demand. Companies certainly try to pay the minimum they can get away with, just like workers look for jobs that pay them the maximum they can find. Companies are not generous (although some claim they are), and workers aren't either. But the competition drives the prices and, in the case of jobs, the salaries. If you are productive, you'll be…

I think you're thinking of a Market Economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy

Capitalism is about the private ownership of the means of production and profits.

But yeah, competition for labor (and other things) via differences in wages are attributes of a market economy.

Capitalism can be a healthy part of this, but sometimes it isn't.

Crony capitalism for instance can provide companies the opportunity to collude so they can artificially suppress wages, which distorts the market economy for labor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity

#155

Post by varnaud » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 10:58 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #95

code_duck wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Owning any single family home (presumably with a yard) seems clearly more attractive than living in a public housing apartment complex.

That was not the question. One of the things people never factor in is all the government regulations around housing. A single family home from the 1930's would be illegal to build today because building codes have been expanded some for good reason, others less so. As such it make is hard to do a apples to apple comparison This is a good video where an economic professor explains some of that https://www.youtube.com…

From the wikipedia article:

>The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is an American conservative libertarian economic think tank.

>FEE, founded in 1946, is considered the oldest free-market think tank in the United States. An early aim was to roll back policies of the New Deal. FEE opposed the Marshall Plan, Social Security and minimum wages, among other American social and economic policies.

Points of the video:

- Mainstream media sells entertaining truth that are mostly negative

- People think gun violence is getting worse every single year over a span of 25 years, but it only got worse for 8 of those years! There is a 50% decrease from the 90s.

- Conveniently remove suicide from the gun violence data and ignore the current up trend in homicide

- We shouldn't look at wages, but look at total compensation and it's up by 45% for the median worker since 1979!

- We have more household that are rich according to this data despite what the media says

- You don't need a cellphone, just cancel it if you're poor, also don't get medical treatment that didn't exist in the 70s if you want to have the same cost of living than your grand parents

- Let's compare the average middle class American 100 years ago to one today and you'll see how much better you have it now! Especially if you are a racial minority (he don't mention this last part)

- omg, look at how much hours of work was required 100 years ago to purchase these products (stamp, bread, movie ticket, gas, coffee, eggs, butter, milk)

- only movie ticket are more expensive today, but we get much nicer movie like the Marvel movies! (But remember to cancel your 10$ Netflix subscription if you can't afford it) (a previous point he made)

- back in the days, it took 4 years to raise money to buy a car, but only 2.5 years now!

- He mention that the minimum wage worker has to pay more for housing today, but it's because they are much more technologically advanced!

- house 100 years ago: no electricity, no running water, no indoor toilet, no AC

- Houses like that are now illegal to buy!

- Thus, the minimum wage worker can't buy house like that anymore! (he also can't buy a modern house, but nevermind that)

- So poor people today have a better living standard than the middle class had 100 years ago and in a 100 years the next generation will be even better off with private jets and yachts to travel around!

- There is less child labor in the world, less wars and stuff!

- So in summary, be humble! Appreciate, be thankful for the fact that the world has become a better place. (i.e. stop complaining about society because the iphone exists type of arguments)

Yikes.

Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity

#156

Post by jkhdigital » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 11:00 PM UTC

Hermitian909 wrote: post #89

bitexploder wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the comparative quality of life like or those two examples?

Adjusting the time frame a bit: Many people I know from my parent's generations bought their home in the 70s while working low-skill jobs like retail. They describe that period of life as fun and generally enjoyable. Many started families during that time. Conversely everyone I grew up with who slotted into low skilled labor living in those small apartments self-describes as miserable. They describe the long hours ne…

This is a normal, expected phenomenon in an economy characterized by continuous technological advancement. Low-value jobs eventually disappear as technology makes them obsolete, and as this process unfolds the people who are employed in those jobs will experience a declining standard of living.

Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity

#157

Post by syshum » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 11:06 PM UTC

varnaud wrote: post #155

syshum wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was not the question. One of the things people never factor in is all the government regulations around housing. A single family home from the 1930's would be illegal to build today because building codes have been expanded some for good reason, others less so. As such it make is hard to do a apples to apple comparison This is a good video where an economic professor explains some of that https://www.youtube.com…

From the wikipedia article: >The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is an American conservative libertarian economic think tank. >FEE, founded in 1946, is considered the oldest free-market think tank in the United States. An early aim was to roll back policies of the New Deal. FEE opposed the Marshall Plan, Social Security and minimum wages, among other American social and economic policies. Points of the video:…

>> FEE opposed the Marshall Plan, Social Security and minimum wages, among other American social and economic policies.

AS do I, in a sane world, with a sane court none of those would be constitutional as they are completely outside the scope of the powers granted to the federal government. FDR had to literally extort the court to get them stop striking them down

>>Yikes.

Good rebuttal to all the points, you have convinced me that everything is terrible and we all should embrace socialism as our one true economic model /s

Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity

#158

Post by jkhdigital » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 11:14 PM UTC

varnaud wrote: post #155

syshum wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was not the question. One of the things people never factor in is all the government regulations around housing. A single family home from the 1930's would be illegal to build today because building codes have been expanded some for good reason, others less so. As such it make is hard to do a apples to apple comparison This is a good video where an economic professor explains some of that https://www.youtube.com…

From the wikipedia article: >The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is an American conservative libertarian economic think tank. >FEE, founded in 1946, is considered the oldest free-market think tank in the United States. An early aim was to roll back policies of the New Deal. FEE opposed the Marshall Plan, Social Security and minimum wages, among other American social and economic policies. Points of the video:…

Thanks for the tl;dr! The one-word refutation was a nice touch. Very persuasive and compelling argument.

Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity

#159

Post by dmatech » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 11:20 PM UTC

agitator wrote: post #44

I'm struggling to understand how productivity has anything to do with salary. Productivity increases are inevitable for everything as automation keeps improving. Salaries go up with demand for skills. If its more difficult to hire for a critical role (a skilled job or competitive), or the role generates a lot of value for a company, salaries go up. Simple economics. Low skill jobs and physical labor jobs actually req…

Productivity is a function of both labor and capital. The owners of a factory might invest in machines that are 10x more efficient, but if they're no more difficult to operate, then the labor won't be any more scarce (and therefore won't command a higher wage). In fact, it might actually reduce demand for labor, because companies won't need as many people to maintain the same level of output.

Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity

#160

Post by danaris » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 11:22 PM UTC

jrsj wrote: post #99

tuatoru wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the lump of labour fallacy. Edit: in the form, the set of jobs we have right now is fixed and will be the same for all time. The flow of money is circular. If lower-paid people had more disposable income, they would spend more on things that employ other people. Services like restaurants or haircuts or yoga classes or personal trainers or personal shoppers or life coaches, the last three of which are pretty n…

It’s absurd to assume that the opposite of this fallacy is true indefinitely though. There is a point where someone is simply not worth employing to do anything at all. There is a finite number of valuable things that can be done with little to no skill/education/training. It would take a much greater level of investment in our domestic workforce to get around this than we currently provide. And at the moment it’s si…

> It’s absurd to assume that the opposite of this fallacy is true indefinitely though.

But no one is suggesting we push the opposite indefinitely. We're suggesting to push it an amount commensurate with the rise in productivity.