Funny. The big box stores killed Main Street stores and everyone was upset. The replaced live able wage jobs with minimum. Now I guess we accept that as part of evolution. As long as the next great thing doesn't kill the big box stores etc etc.

Some fought against the industrial revolution. We are in another one..... Different name, different type but it's here

As for minimum wage hike you'll never hear me arguing for it, but the arguments against it are incoherent at best. If a robot can replace a human at a job the difference between 8/hour and 15/hour likely won't drive that decision at all. There is a calculation but the robot will likely be more expensive short term and cheaper long term. SAMs are testing sample machines now.

I'm not arguing anything at with anyone. Things are changing. Get on the bus.

teedubbya wrote:

Dude
Anything can be purchased online. The fact is that many people purchase online to avoid the state and local sales tax involved. I'm not even going to mention some of the online cigar retailers that turn over their clients for taxes to be collected by the states from which they buy from. Online purchases will change once the guberment insitututes taxes to be paid on all online purchases, which is already happening. It's the only reason I buy cigars (just one product) online. In CO there's over 40% sin tax placed on all toabacco products. That's what makes a Padron 2000 Maduro that used to cost me $4.00 in PA cost $10 in Colorado. When there's not a B&M or local business within 300 miles of your area you have no choice but to purchase online. From what I understand there are many States that institute even higher sin taxes

Can retailers (big or small) afford to pay people $15/hr to stand around and serve as "Sales Representatives" of their business. Say all you want about the politics and business practices of companies like Target and Walmart. But when they are a local business in your area and employ hundreds within your community, you have to consider the "big store" as a local business. When a business like Walmart or Sports Authority closes in your town, local people suffer. There's not only the loss of jobs, but the loss of taxes being collected by the local town. There's not only the lack of need to employee those folks who serve you, but also the lack of taxes and income in the community that results in the need to increase local taxes. My town has a local airport that serves the Vail Valley. But regardless of whether there was increase in the tourism and flights to our area, as a result of the drop in fuel prices and the reduction in taxes collected on that fuel, our town faced a 3% increase in Sales Tax. An increase of 3% in sales tax is huge in any respect and anywhere you live. We are facing almost an 11% Sales Tax. Is that what you support? After having to pay the federal gubermant almost 30% of my income in federal taxes, I sure as fuq don't want to pay another 11% in local sales tax. Do you get it now???

NO. I don't think the closures where only in States with minimum wage increases. Open your eyes. The trend to replace minimum wage workers is happening all over our Country and World. Drive into a fast food restaurant, have your order taken by a computer kiosk, then have it prepared by a robotic processing system to cook and wrap your food to go. Moving to an online system where all orders are proecessed by a "robotic" system does not create jobs.

I would rather have a Sears, Target, or Walmart in our town/community than a "fullfillment center" filled with employing illegal immigrants to process orders received through an online ordering system. Press 1 for English!

If you don't understand that raising the minimum wage, a minimum wage that was institued in in the late '30's by FDR to protect young adolescent workers from being tasked advantage of... then that's on you. Minimum wage was never intended to serve as a "living wage".

If you're not happy with your minimum wage job, earn a better one.

---

Hoping banderl forgives any misspellings or grammatical errors. Not looking forward to a semantical argument.
It is what it is. Without evening mentioning the cost of Obamacare to employees or their employers.

cacman wrote:

Holy crap?


I have to keep reminding myself that Liberalism is a mental disorder....

Carib1 wrote:

Funny. The big box stores killed Main Street stores and everyone was upset. The replaced live able wage jobs with minimum. Now I guess we accept that as part of evolution. As long as the next great thing doesn't kill the big box stores etc etc.

Some fought against the industrial revolution. We are in another one..... Different name, different type but it's here

As for minimum wage hike you'll never hear me arguing for it, but the arguments against it are incoherent at best. If a robot can replace a human at a job the difference between 8/hour and 15/hour likely won't drive that decision at all. There is a calculation but the robot will likely be more expensive short term and cheaper long term. SAMs are testing sample machines now.

I'm not arguing anything at with anyone. Things are changing. Get on the bus.

teedubbya wrote:

A coherent argument against minimum wage hikes is very simple. There are a number of menial jobs out there that no matter how proficiently performed cannot yield enough value added labor to justify these double-digit minimum wage hike suggestions. The effect of this is that those that fall below this threshold will no longer be employable because their labor cannot sustain the amount that their employment would cost their employer.

stogiefan wrote:

Holy crap?


I have to keep reminding myself that Liberalism is a mental disorder....

Carib1 wrote:

You've arbitrarily defined what a living wage is. That's not any different than stogie fans simplification.

Why is the wage rate you define the amount of money any person deserves to do any job?

victor809 wrote:

I think you've framed it very conveniently, but not necessarily accurately.
You assume all jobs must pay enough that a person doing the work won't require government assistance. But not all people are in the same situation. The young and the old, people who are dependents on other tax payers and just want to do some work.

Even when dealing with head of household, you try to phrase the argument that the government is subsidizing the corporation by providing assistance to people who are doing low paying work. But really we are subsidizing people who don't have the competency to do work worth that amount.

victor809 wrote:

Tail... Given how computers and robotics drop in price significantly once they have made it out into the marketplace, it seems likely that once the big box stores are able to afford automation assistance, it wouldn't be long before prices drop enough that smaller stores can. Sure, the prevailing wage will impact when the trigger is pulled, but it will still happen.

victor809 wrote:

The government is creating an artificial value. I have not been able to find a study about the actual cost increase of a minimum wage of $15/hour. Does this add 1% to poduct costs? If so this would have no noticeable effect on employment. Does it add %20 to product costs. If so the effect on employment would be catastrophic. I am not sure how one would figure this out. The only stories out there provide anecdotal information. So I find there is not enough information to make an informed decision on minimum wage.

Speyside wrote: