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

Minimum Wage Clock

moonbase.lgbt

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 278 posts

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#191

Post by itishappy »

Shekelphile wrote: post #84
CrazyStat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation over the last 4 years has been about 20%, not 50-100% as your comment would imply. Source: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=201911...

Maybe for people who already owned assets and had a stable living situation before 2020. If you're renting and had to buy anything expensive like a car in the last few years then your costs have more than doubled.

My rental has gone up about 18%.

Cars have gone up about 25%.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/buying-a-car/people-spe...

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#192

Post by Vegenoid »

kyrra wrote: post #61

As a reminder, minimum wage is not what the government sets it at, it's zero ($0). If a company doesn't feel they get enough value out of hiring someone for a position for the government mandated minimum wage, they just won't hire that person. Thomas Sowell makes this point regularly in his books. Here's some related points on minimum wage laws: https://www.aei.org/economics/thomas-sowell-on-the-cruelty-o...

This definition is trivial, pedantic, and I would say incorrect. If someone isn't employed, their wage isn't $0 - they simply do not have a wage.

0 != null

There is an argument to made that minimum wage laws reduce employability of low-skill employees. While many people will already come into that argument with some disdain and hostility, starting the argument with "As a reminder, the minimum wage is actually $0" is a surefire way to raise hackles.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#193

Post by zogrodea »

dylan604 wrote: post #69
cedws wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not a cap, it's a minimum. misphrased, fixed. >This is so people can employ kids who have very little economic value and train them to have lots of it. But 18 year olds are not kids anymore and are capable of providing just as much economic value as a 25 year old. Especially if the employer is a coffee shop or restaurant. Minimum wage should be the same for all ages. It should be at the discretion of the employ…

I would argue a 25 year old is still a kid too. I know every 20 something would vehemently disagree which is kind of proof in and of itself. I don't mean it in a disrespectful manner.

I just don't think it's a good idea to infantilise people in their 20s further. It's not a super-fringe opinion that people generally tend to reach a certain level of maturity later than they did in the past.

Some of that is pleasant as it means people can enjoy child-like comfort for longer, but too much of it seems like it would have adverse effects.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#194

Post by kyrra »

xpressvideoz wrote: post #139
kyrra wrote: post #61

As a reminder, minimum wage is not what the government sets it at, it's zero ($0). If a company doesn't feel they get enough value out of hiring someone for a position for the government mandated minimum wage, they just won't hire that person. Thomas Sowell makes this point regularly in his books. Here's some related points on minimum wage laws: https://www.aei.org/economics/thomas-sowell-on-the-cruelty-o...

By that logic, every operating expense and capital expenditure is also zero, because if it doesn't make money, a company won't purchase anything.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I agree? Business ideas regularly don't happen because it's to expensive to operate in a given field.

Children's toys and equipment is an example. They have lots of regulation around requirements for recall procedures and product registration that add a lot of operational overhead for launching products in that space. Many businesses shy away from it because of those expenses, making it so certain ideas will never materialize there.

Sometimes these kinds of regulations are good, sometimes they are not, but they are always limiting and the regulation steers the decisions private businesses will make.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#195

Post by [deleted] »

npoc wrote: post #86
ziddoap wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is some "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" bullshit. There are many, many situations where it is simply not possible to just "find more valuable work to do" or to just "work harder" and have it result in more money.

That doesn't mean that enforcing a minimum wage is the correct way to fix the problem. It's not.

[deleted]

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#196

Post by digging »

gruez wrote: post #190
digging wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is only one side of the equation. Globalization also means the local economy is also "extracting" wealth from other economies. ... more than large corporations do? Nonsense > Yeah, like car dealerships using their "accountability to and involvement" to forcibly insert themselves in the value chain? I would suggest you reread the sentence you quoted and then go ahead and finish reading the rest of my comment, b…

>... more than large corporations do? Nonsense Corporations aren't some entities from another dimension. Their earnings must ultimately go to someone. For the global economy as a whole, all the "extraction" that's happening ultimately net out to zero. >I would suggest you reread the sentence you quoted and then go ahead and finish reading the rest of my comment, because this sounds like an argumentative retort but I…

> Corporations aren't some entities from another dimension. Their earnings must ultimately go to someone. For the global economy as a whole, all the "extraction" that's happening ultimately net out to zero.

I have no idea how this relates to what I was talking about. The reason I asked you that question is because the topic was "local business vs large corporations." What did you think I was talking about?

> I was simply pointing out the dark side of the dynamic you described.

You mean the dark side that I explicitly described in my original comment? Now it's my turn to stop reading, because this is not productive.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#197

Post by massysett »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #30
pylua wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

c) the minimum amount required to live peacefully and with dignity.

This is generally why I'm in favor of a UBI. It would solve so many employment problems if an employee in a bad situation could up and leave without a near-guarantee that they lose access to their home.

I disagree. Other people in society should not have to work hard so they can provide for others who would like to quit their jobs, sit around and do nothing, and live off the labor of others. Because the person who quits their job because of UBI is still eating, and that food isn't harvesting itself and transporting itself to market.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#198

Post by warner25 »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #181
warner25 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder a lot about what motivates people at that level, and about how these negotiations go. As someone who has always been a W-2 employee, and who has never had much individual negotiating power, it feels impossible to wrap my head around this. On one hand, if I could get compensation in the hundreds of millions per year, it's tempting to think that I'd "work" for six months and then retire with wealth beyond my w…

I'm assuming it's a selection bias. If the CEO can retire absurdly wealthy in six months, and the VP of whatever can "only" retire in a couple years, then the VP is probably going to retire before they reach the C-suite. The only people left to get promoted to the C-suite are the ones for whom it's a type A lifestyle or something. Likewise if Zuck had been content selling to google and retiring to an island or wherev…

I think you're right (regarding why nobody seems to retire after six months of CEO-level compensation).

I mentioned military flag officers because that's the world that I know best. Most career military officers have no interest in becoming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or whatever; they're perfectly content with a normal, middle-class retirement as a lieutenant colonel long before they would become any kind of powerful public figure. So the only people who remain on track competing to become generals or admirals are already kind of weird in this way.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#199

Post by dylan604 »

zogrodea wrote: post #193
dylan604 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue a 25 year old is still a kid too. I know every 20 something would vehemently disagree which is kind of proof in and of itself. I don't mean it in a disrespectful manner.

I just don't think it's a good idea to infantilise people in their 20s further. It's not a super-fringe opinion that people generally tend to reach a certain level of maturity later than they did in the past. Some of that is pleasant as it means people can enjoy child-like comfort for longer, but too much of it seems like it would have adverse effects.

Sure, let's compare the experience of someone in their 20s to someone that has more experience than that person has been alive and then convince us the 20-somethin has the same experience.

This sincere befuddlement that a 20-something has the same experience is just bizarre to me coming from anyone that's not a 20-something. Sure, there's some talented 20-somethings, but that's true of any generation. I was a 20-something at one point long ago myself, and I too fought these things and constantly had my "experience" and "opinions" qualified with someone that undeniably had experience. It was truly frustrating, but also a bit of "told ya" when they'd come back and say I was correct. It's an age old growing pain. Why is this being questioned I have no idea. Yes, you will meet qualified 20-somethings, but you will inevitably meet many many more of them faking it till they make it but ultimately prove their inexperience.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#200

Post by lumost »

iamthirsty wrote: post #140
lumost wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a question of extremes. With the exception of Zuckerburg, these are professional managers. If they stopped doing anything day to day, their companies would remain successful and they'd keep getting paid. If they delegated their entire workload to their staff - the same would be true. In both of the above situations, the company may see it's performance and value increase. While the above scenarios reflect the CE…

> If they stopped doing anything day to day, their companies would remain successful and they'd keep getting paid. Have you been close to these positions in a huge company? I really don't think that's the case at all. Ex: Look what happen to DIS after Iger left.

Yes, three or four times now. Although not with the ones mentioned in this clock.

Most senior managers can coast for protracted periods as it's rare to replace the CEO in an upswing, and the CEO mainly has to not piss off those they work with. It's tough for any senior manager to read the tea leaves reliably, and as such - they are often replaced after N months/years when some decision goes poorly. The actions/results/impact of decisions are spread so far between that it's often difficult to assess a senior leaders impact in an organization.

DIS has had some high profile troubles since Iger left - but he may simply have seen the writing on the wall that the time to go out on a high note had come. I can think of several firms with similarly well-timed exits.

Post reply on HN