$15 minimum wage

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

The minimum wage thing is a little fucked up.  In Ontario, it is 14/hour ... no problem with that, except, a report was released that in my area 14/hour is considered a living wage.  How the fuck is 14 a living wage in Toronto?  I think the provinces need to allow large cities to decide minimum wage.

That's where the minimum wage concept is screwed up.  It doesn't take into account cost of living in differing areas.  There should also be exceptions for students who want a part-time job to get a little cash going or retired people who just want something to do and not be alone all the time.  We have both kinds of employees at my wife's bookstore and if minimum wages go to have, we will not be able to afford to keep them on.  Small business is a struggle as it is.  $15 minimum wage in many areas will hurt small businesses and would be unfair to those students and elderly. 

I think paying people differently like that would be a huge mistake. People doing the same work, but with some of them doing it for way less money??? Nope. That can't work. Companies would just totally fill their rosters with part time student workers then, leaving those who need a living wage without jobs.

I am only talking about the minimum wage.  I do not see the problem letting Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal or Vancouver as examples for setting a higher minimum wage. There is no way 14/15 an hour is sufficient for a single person in Toronto or Vancouver...and it's only getting less affordable...

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

The minimum wage thing is a little fucked up.  In Ontario, it is 14/hour ... no problem with that, except, a report was released that in my area 14/hour is considered a living wage.  How the fuck is 14 a living wage in Toronto?  I think the provinces need to allow large cities to decide minimum wage.

That's where the minimum wage concept is screwed up.  It doesn't take into account cost of living in differing areas.  There should also be exceptions for students who want a part-time job to get a little cash going or retired people who just want something to do and not be alone all the time.  We have both kinds of employees at my wife's bookstore and if minimum wages go to have, we will not be able to afford to keep them on.  Small business is a struggle as it is.  $15 minimum wage in many areas will hurt small businesses and would be unfair to those students and elderly. 

I think paying people differently like that would be a huge mistake. People doing the same work, but with some of them doing it for way less money??? Nope. That can't work. Companies would just totally fill their rosters with part time student workers then, leaving those who need a living wage without jobs.

That isn't uncommon in the private world. Many companies require you to keep your salary private from your coworkers, just for that reason. They don't want you to realize they paying someone else 10% more for the exact same job.
But I think there is a good point there. One of my biggest reasons against having a livable wage is not everyone needs a livable wage. The high school or college student doesn't need a livable wage, and honestly most don't deserve one. Working for $8 at your first job in fast food is perfectly fine. But on the other hand, like you said, if a company can just hire students for half the cost, then that might be all that some jobs hire. There could be a limit of student-adult-senior ratio but that sounds messy and could probably get complicated.

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

The minimum wage thing is a little fucked up.  In Ontario, it is 14/hour ... no problem with that, except, a report was released that in my area 14/hour is considered a living wage.  How the fuck is 14 a living wage in Toronto?  I think the provinces need to allow large cities to decide minimum wage.

That's where the minimum wage concept is screwed up.  It doesn't take into account cost of living in differing areas.  There should also be exceptions for students who want a part-time job to get a little cash going or retired people who just want something to do and not be alone all the time.  We have both kinds of employees at my wife's bookstore and if minimum wages go to have, we will not be able to afford to keep them on.  Small business is a struggle as it is.  $15 minimum wage in many areas will hurt small businesses and would be unfair to those students and elderly. 

I think paying people differently like that would be a huge mistake. People doing the same work, but with some of them doing it for way less money??? Nope. That can't work. Companies would just totally fill their rosters with part time student workers then, leaving those who need a living wage without jobs.

That isn't uncommon in the private world. Many companies require you to keep your salary private from your coworkers, just for that reason. They don't want you to realize they paying someone else 10% more for the exact same job.
But I think there is a good point there. One of my biggest reasons against having a livable wage is not everyone needs a livable wage. The high school or college student doesn't need a livable wage, and honestly most don't deserve one. Working for $8 at your first job in fast food is perfectly fine. But on the other hand, like you said, if a company can just hire students for half the cost, then that might be all that some jobs hire. There could be a limit of student-adult-senior ratio but that sounds messy and could probably get complicated.

How do you figure a college student doesn't need a livable wage?? They need to live AND pay tuition.... Do you think they should be forced to take out student loans because they can't get paid as much as anyone else their age not in college? And how would anyone doing the same work not deserve the same pay? I understand what you are saying here, but logically, it just doesn't make sense. You pay fairly for the work being done. Period. It is not the employers' business how their workers spend their money, be it on candy or books or concerts or booze or rent.

And FWIW, those fast food jobs look like they SUCK, and I think people should be paid reasonably well for work that SUCKS. Why do people think that people should be paid less when the job is so shitty, most people wouldn't be caught dead doing it? Like, why is "ditch digger" always used as a low paying job example? IMO, ditch diggers should get paid a lot. That is hard manual labour outside in the elements. That is way harder than sitting inside at a desk. Yes, extensive education requirements should increase salary, but those shitty labour jobs and those jobs where the poor workers have to deal with the fucking public all day should NOT be considered for bottom of the barrel wages. That just seems illogical to me... and immoral.

Being compared to a mom of 3 kids, no the college student doesn't need the same wage.
The bolded part goes against all reasoning for minimum wage I've heard, and honestly I completely agree with it. However, it is a right/conservative viewpoint. Someone who is skilled and educated enough to only mop floors at McDonald's, logically doesn't make sense to pay them more than a fair market for that job. Paying that person above what the skill requires doesn't make any sense, but minimum wage would say we have to (assuming we base minimum wage on what a person needs to earn in order to support a family).
That is the biggest hole in the "living wage" argument. Someone doing the same work does deserve the same pay. But a living wage for a college student is going to be completely different than what a living wage is from a high school  kid or single mom. So who's living wage do we base it on? If we base it on the mom then we are overpaying many others. If we don't, then she struggles more.

For your second bolded comment, it is because of level of skill and education required. It has nothing to do with how much a job sucks. Some very well paying jobs are also very fun and rewarding, but they also require a rare skill or talent. Mopping floors at fast food doesn't.  A well-disciplined 3rd grader could do that. And so the job pays accordingly. But you;re right, I wouldn't be caught dead working there.

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

The minimum wage thing is a little fucked up.  In Ontario, it is 14/hour ... no problem with that, except, a report was released that in my area 14/hour is considered a living wage.  How the fuck is 14 a living wage in Toronto?  I think the provinces need to allow large cities to decide minimum wage.

That's where the minimum wage concept is screwed up.  It doesn't take into account cost of living in differing areas.  There should also be exceptions for students who want a part-time job to get a little cash going or retired people who just want something to do and not be alone all the time.  We have both kinds of employees at my wife's bookstore and if minimum wages go to have, we will not be able to afford to keep them on.  Small business is a struggle as it is.  $15 minimum wage in many areas will hurt small businesses and would be unfair to those students and elderly. 

I think paying people differently like that would be a huge mistake. People doing the same work, but with some of them doing it for way less money??? Nope. That can't work. Companies would just totally fill their rosters with part time student workers then, leaving those who need a living wage without jobs.

No, I'm talking about small business- different work/ different money.  You're not going to see people cleaning books or sweeping floors getting paid the same as people handling accounts or researching rare books.  And your not going to get a bunch of people willing to work part-time doing the more difficult tasks at a lower wage.  I stand by my proposal. 

Lerxst1992 said:

flywallyfly said:

Who didnt see this coming? This is what happens when government intervenes in the market. I guess we can just pay them all a living wage until we run out of everyone's money.

"As minimum wage levels approach or surpass $15 nationwide, restaurant customers expecting to be greeted by a smiling face will instead be welcomed by a glowing LED screen.

As of 2020, self-service ordering kiosks will be implemented at all U.S. McDonald’s locations. Other chains, including fast-casual brands like Panera and casual-dining brands like Chili's, have already embraced this trend. Some restaurant concepts have even automated the food-preparation process; earlier this year, NBC News profiled "Flippy," a robot hamburger flipper. "

http://https//www.forbes.com/sites/edrensi/2018/07/11/mcdonalds-says-goodbye-cashiers-hello-kiosks/#14e24b436f14

My experiences at Panera, Chilies and McDs is the kiosks supplement, not replace workers. And in many cases they are absurdly unreliable.

My experience is businesses are often willing to invest in automation or new technology, even if it is obvious (to me as an employee) the new technology is far from ready for commercial use.  

Minimum wage should have been linked to inflation for the last few decades. The federal $7.50 an hour is absurd. To assume minimum wage workers have a strong enough market strength to pressure wealthy industries to move "free" market pay is unrealistic.


Edit, 

And of course, if I walk into a business and there is no human to ask a question, I have the freedom to never return to that business again.

I am often offended by a business that expects me to do their job, entering my order into a computer. So good luck with that fortune 500.

jeffbr said:

cincybearcat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

flywallyfly said:

Who didnt see this coming? This is what happens when government intervenes in the market. I guess we can just pay them all a living wage until we run out of everyone's money.

"As minimum wage levels approach or surpass $15 nationwide, restaurant customers expecting to be greeted by a smiling face will instead be welcomed by a glowing LED screen.

As of 2020, self-service ordering kiosks will be implemented at all U.S. McDonald’s locations. Other chains, including fast-casual brands like Panera and casual-dining brands like Chili's, have already embraced this trend. Some restaurant concepts have even automated the food-preparation process; earlier this year, NBC News profiled "Flippy," a robot hamburger flipper. "

http://https//www.forbes.com/sites/edrensi/2018/07/11/mcdonalds-says-goodbye-cashiers-hello-kiosks/#14e24b436f14

My experiences at Panera, Chilies and McDs is the kiosks supplement, not replace workers. And in many cases they are absurdly unreliable.

My experience is businesses are often willing to invest in automation or new technology, even if it is obvious (to me as an employee) the new technology is far from ready for commercial use.  

Minimum wage should have been linked to inflation for the last few decades. The federal $7.50 an hour is absurd. To assume minimum wage workers have a strong enough market strength to pressure wealthy industries to move "free" market pay is unrealistic.


Edit, 

And of course, if I walk into a business and there is no human to ask a question, I have the freedom to never return to that business again.

I am often offended by a business that expects me to do their job, entering my order into a computer. So good luck with that fortune 500.

Hahahaha if you find kiosks unreliable how do you find the people working at those places? My order is always right on a screen...never right in the bag. Idiots.

Yup, I'll take a computer system which performs automated, repeatable tasks in exactly the same way each and every time vs a system reliant on human perfection (which doesn't exist). Humans make constant mistakes with repeating tasks, which is why automation is almost always preferable for those tasks. Now I understand people perhaps wanting some human interaction when they're shopping (I'm not one of them), but I don't understand the preference of having a pimply 16 year old kid trying to get my order right and often failing, vs personally punching some buttons on a kiosk and knowing that my order was entered properly. Now if they could automate the cooking and bagging of that order we'd be good to go.

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

cincybearcat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

flywallyfly said:

Who didnt see this coming? This is what happens when government intervenes in the market. I guess we can just pay them all a living wage until we run out of everyone's money.

"As minimum wage levels approach or surpass $15 nationwide, restaurant customers expecting to be greeted by a smiling face will instead be welcomed by a glowing LED screen.

As of 2020, self-service ordering kiosks will be implemented at all U.S. McDonald’s locations. Other chains, including fast-casual brands like Panera and casual-dining brands like Chili's, have already embraced this trend. Some restaurant concepts have even automated the food-preparation process; earlier this year, NBC News profiled "Flippy," a robot hamburger flipper. "

http://https//www.forbes.com/sites/edrensi/2018/07/11/mcdonalds-says-goodbye-cashiers-hello-kiosks/#14e24b436f14

My experiences at Panera, Chilies and McDs is the kiosks supplement, not replace workers. And in many cases they are absurdly unreliable.

My experience is businesses are often willing to invest in automation or new technology, even if it is obvious (to me as an employee) the new technology is far from ready for commercial use.  

Minimum wage should have been linked to inflation for the last few decades. The federal $7.50 an hour is absurd. To assume minimum wage workers have a strong enough market strength to pressure wealthy industries to move "free" market pay is unrealistic.


Edit, 

And of course, if I walk into a business and there is no human to ask a question, I have the freedom to never return to that business again.

I am often offended by a business that expects me to do their job, entering my order into a computer. So good luck with that fortune 500.

Hahahaha if you find kiosks unreliable how do you find the people working at those places? My order is always right on a screen...never right in the bag. Idiots.

Yup, I'll take a computer system which performs automated, repeatable tasks in exactly the same way each and every time vs a system reliant on human perfection (which doesn't exist). Humans make constant mistakes with repeating tasks, which is why automation is almost always preferable for those tasks. Now I understand people perhaps wanting some human interaction when they're shopping (I'm not one of them), but I don't understand the preference of having a pimply 16 year old kid trying to get my order right and often failing, vs personally punching some buttons on a kiosk and knowing that my order was entered properly. Now if they could automate the cooking and bagging of that order we'd be good to go.

If they set up an economy that properly supports people who can't find jobs, I will feel exactly the same as you. I would love it if everything that can be automated was automated. It is so much easier and more reliable and more efficient (man, especially if we're talking food preparation! Consistency with that is a hug problem) .... But we don't want to put the cart ahead of the horse.

I agree with you. My point is that automation - logic based with repeatable results, will always be superior to humans in doing repetitive tasks. As you mention, there are plenty of ethical and philisophical issues to work through, as well as real life impact on low-skill, entry-level workers that need to be considered. I was just reacting to the notion that automation should be eschewed as unreliable. If automation is unreliable, that is due to the unreliable human who created the logic for the machine, not the machine itself.

Lerxst1992 said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

cincybearcat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

flywallyfly said:

Who didnt see this coming? This is what happens when government intervenes in the market. I guess we can just pay them all a living wage until we run out of everyone's money.

"As minimum wage levels approach or surpass $15 nationwide, restaurant customers expecting to be greeted by a smiling face will instead be welcomed by a glowing LED screen.

As of 2020, self-service ordering kiosks will be implemented at all U.S. McDonald’s locations. Other chains, including fast-casual brands like Panera and casual-dining brands like Chili's, have already embraced this trend. Some restaurant concepts have even automated the food-preparation process; earlier this year, NBC News profiled "Flippy," a robot hamburger flipper. "

http://https//www.forbes.com/sites/edrensi/2018/07/11/mcdonalds-says-goodbye-cashiers-hello-kiosks/#14e24b436f14

My experiences at Panera, Chilies and McDs is the kiosks supplement, not replace workers. And in many cases they are absurdly unreliable.

My experience is businesses are often willing to invest in automation or new technology, even if it is obvious (to me as an employee) the new technology is far from ready for commercial use.  

Minimum wage should have been linked to inflation for the last few decades. The federal $7.50 an hour is absurd. To assume minimum wage workers have a strong enough market strength to pressure wealthy industries to move "free" market pay is unrealistic.


Edit, 

And of course, if I walk into a business and there is no human to ask a question, I have the freedom to never return to that business again.

I am often offended by a business that expects me to do their job, entering my order into a computer. So good luck with that fortune 500.

Hahahaha if you find kiosks unreliable how do you find the people working at those places? My order is always right on a screen...never right in the bag. Idiots.

Yup, I'll take a computer system which performs automated, repeatable tasks in exactly the same way each and every time vs a system reliant on human perfection (which doesn't exist). Humans make constant mistakes with repeating tasks, which is why automation is almost always preferable for those tasks. Now I understand people perhaps wanting some human interaction when they're shopping (I'm not one of them), but I don't understand the preference of having a pimply 16 year old kid trying to get my order right and often failing, vs personally punching some buttons on a kiosk and knowing that my order was entered properly. Now if they could automate the cooking and bagging of that order we'd be good to go.

If they set up an economy that properly supports people who can't find jobs, I will feel exactly the same as you. I would love it if everything that can be automated was automated. It is so much easier and more reliable and more efficient (man, especially if we're talking food preparation! Consistency with that is a hug problem) .... But we don't want to put the cart ahead of the horse.

I agree with you. My point is that automation - logic based with repeatable results, will always be superior to humans in doing repetitive tasks. As you mention, there are plenty of ethical and philisophical issues to work through, as well as real life impact on low-skill, entry-level workers that need to be considered. I was just reacting to the notion that automation should be eschewed as unreliable. If automation is unreliable, that is due to the unreliable human who created the logic for the machine, not the machine itself.

Self service kiosks at fast food  restaurants break all the time, and repairs don't get made timely. Execs at my company "could think of no reason" why we shouldn't upgrade to office 365, except they didn't know  Microsoft made the new software so advanced with so many new features none of us use, it crashes all the time because our network is unreliable in many regions

Execs above the glass ceiling make decisions every day to go all in on new tech, without practical experience or putting in place the proper controls to ensure it works at least as well as the old processes, or having a plan to fix one the inevitable problems occur

jeffbr said:

Lerxst1992 said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

cincybearcat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

flywallyfly said:

Who didnt see this coming? This is what happens when government intervenes in the market. I guess we can just pay them all a living wage until we run out of everyone's money.

"As minimum wage levels approach or surpass $15 nationwide, restaurant customers expecting to be greeted by a smiling face will instead be welcomed by a glowing LED screen.

As of 2020, self-service ordering kiosks will be implemented at all U.S. McDonald’s locations. Other chains, including fast-casual brands like Panera and casual-dining brands like Chili's, have already embraced this trend. Some restaurant concepts have even automated the food-preparation process; earlier this year, NBC News profiled "Flippy," a robot hamburger flipper. "

http://https//www.forbes.com/sites/edrensi/2018/07/11/mcdonalds-says-goodbye-cashiers-hello-kiosks/#14e24b436f14

My experiences at Panera, Chilies and McDs is the kiosks supplement, not replace workers. And in many cases they are absurdly unreliable.

My experience is businesses are often willing to invest in automation or new technology, even if it is obvious (to me as an employee) the new technology is far from ready for commercial use.  

Minimum wage should have been linked to inflation for the last few decades. The federal $7.50 an hour is absurd. To assume minimum wage workers have a strong enough market strength to pressure wealthy industries to move "free" market pay is unrealistic.


Edit, 

And of course, if I walk into a business and there is no human to ask a question, I have the freedom to never return to that business again.

I am often offended by a business that expects me to do their job, entering my order into a computer. So good luck with that fortune 500.

Hahahaha if you find kiosks unreliable how do you find the people working at those places? My order is always right on a screen...never right in the bag. Idiots.

Yup, I'll take a computer system which performs automated, repeatable tasks in exactly the same way each and every time vs a system reliant on human perfection (which doesn't exist). Humans make constant mistakes with repeating tasks, which is why automation is almost always preferable for those tasks. Now I understand people perhaps wanting some human interaction when they're shopping (I'm not one of them), but I don't understand the preference of having a pimply 16 year old kid trying to get my order right and often failing, vs personally punching some buttons on a kiosk and knowing that my order was entered properly. Now if they could automate the cooking and bagging of that order we'd be good to go.

If they set up an economy that properly supports people who can't find jobs, I will feel exactly the same as you. I would love it if everything that can be automated was automated. It is so much easier and more reliable and more efficient (man, especially if we're talking food preparation! Consistency with that is a hug problem) .... But we don't want to put the cart ahead of the horse.

I agree with you. My point is that automation - logic based with repeatable results, will always be superior to humans in doing repetitive tasks. As you mention, there are plenty of ethical and philisophical issues to work through, as well as real life impact on low-skill, entry-level workers that need to be considered. I was just reacting to the notion that automation should be eschewed as unreliable. If automation is unreliable, that is due to the unreliable human who created the logic for the machine, not the machine itself.

Self service kiosks at fast food  restaurants break all the time, and repairs don't get made timely. Execs at my company "could think of no reason" why we shouldn't upgrade to office 365, except they didn't know  Microsoft made the new software so advanced with so many new features none of us use, it crashes all the time because our network is unreliable in many regions

Execs above the glass ceiling make decisions every day to go all in on new tech, without practical experience or putting in place the proper controls to ensure it works at least as well as the old processes, or having a plan to fix one the inevitable problems occur

Ah, ok. Well I won't argue any of that, since we're back to human fallibility. Improper planning, funding, training, design, execution, roll-out, adoption, maintenance will all result in a poorly automated system. All of those things reflect badly on the human element involved, rather than the automation itself.