California hikes minimum wage to $20/hr. Workers now make $0/hr

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tsing Tao, Apr 4, 2024.

  1. newwurldmn

    newwurldmn

    Wages are what the market will bear at all levels, whether it be a programmer making 500,000/year or a cashier making $15/hour.

    It has nothing to do with "a viable business" - unless you think the only businesses that should be in America are law firms, doctors offices, and big tech. I guess that 500,000 dollar guy can pay $470,000 in unemployment taxes to fund the 20 guys who no longer have jobs in your world.
     
    #11     Apr 4, 2024
  2. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark

    Government/tax payers are subsidizing businesses that pay low wages.
     
    #12     Apr 4, 2024
  3. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    I don't think the amount they get from unemployment matches what they get in salary, nor is it permanent. Maybe I'm wrong...
     
    #13     Apr 4, 2024
  4. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Hypothetical hogwash, but nothing I said was not correct. You can be all "social justice" if you want, but math won't care.
     
    #14     Apr 4, 2024
  5. UsualName

    UsualName

    Absurd. Throw this in the same pot as the half baked “why not $50 an hour” specious arguments. The minimum wage is established and these mass unemployment arguments get regurgitated all of the time. Everyone freaked out when states moved to $15 an hour minimum wage but what actually happened? Maximum employment.
     
    #15     Apr 4, 2024
  6. UsualName

    UsualName

    Buddy, we have states with comparatively higher minimum wages to the federal standard and there is no problem. The truth is you guys on the right cry wolf way too much and if this ever does actually get out of control people aren’t going to see you all as reasonable because you’re always wrong. Just chill out and see what happens instead of crying wolf.
     
    #16     Apr 4, 2024
  7. Ricter

    Ricter

    If you need 10 people on to fulfill sales at any given time, then you need 10 people. Your inputs cost more... SHRUG.

    If you're laying off people merely because an input price rose, or it turns out you didn't need that input in the first place (e.g. you only need 8 on to fulfill sales) you've been doing it wrong.

    Granted, your new cost/benefit may bring some form of automation into play. See my next post.
     
    #17     Apr 4, 2024
  8. Ricter

    Ricter

    A weak form of UBI, which is where we need to go. If we can't have UBI, what is the point of all these goddamn machines and toys and clutter and noise and pollution and junk in landfills? Like, wtf are we building them for?

    Anyway, automation and efficiency gains are what they are, they'll be employed at the moment their cost is worth it, regardless of whether your staff is getting paid more or not. That's what capitalism pursues, better margins, right?
     
    #18     Apr 4, 2024
    newwurldmn and Tony Stark like this.
  9. newwurldmn

    newwurldmn

    Maximum employment because prevailing market wages were already higher than $15 in most markets. Employers don't control wages. They are purely free market.
     
    #19     Apr 4, 2024
  10. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark


    Im all for it.Corporations /businesses would hate it as millions of their slaves, I mean employees, would tell them to go fuck themselves and do so constantly.
     
    #20     Apr 4, 2024
    Ricter likes this.