Your scenario is no possible. What happens is that there will be a sub-optimal balance between automation and jobs, and the cause of this will be idiot voters using government for things that does not make sense.
> The employer wouldn't be prosecuted based on their evidence so there would be no 5th amendment issues.
You are clearly talking out of your ass, so I'm not going to waste too much time here. Outside of explicit immunity for employing an illegal immigrant and defaulting on payroll taxes and other various responsibilities, it absolutely would be protected by the 5th amendment.
> If you can't provide evidence of legal employment, then you suffer the consequences of illegal employment.
Are you a complete moron? If I go to the Feds and tell them I worked for you and you paid me less than min wage, can you prove I didn't? Is your failure to produce documentation proof that you paid me less than min wage? I never worked for you, so obviously you can't produce documents showing that you paid me more than min wage.
> At least in my fantasy land:).
At least one part of your comment was correct and logical.
It's well-known representative example and is not meant to be the best example.
Your premise is pretty egocentric, though. We are living through a relatively quiet period with new innovation, compared to the industrial revolution and the 1990s. If the social order didn't collapse then, I'm pretty sure we'll be fine.
But if you want to slow down even more the automation of jobs currently filled with humans, then stop adding to the price of employing humans while the price of buying automation falls. That means: no min wage increases, no Affordable Care Act, no payroll tax increases, no gas tax increases, no new family leave benefits, no new mandated paid sick leave, etc.
I won't hold my breath. Most people who sigh over automating away human jobs are the same people accelerating the process through idiotic policy prescriptions.
Employers do not need to prove they are paying minimum wage with illegals. You cannot force an employer to produce documents that would incriminate themselves by saying they employed illegal workers and avoided payroll taxes. 5th Amendment protections. Furthermore, there would be no documents; they're illegally working! They are being paid under the table. If you insist on surprise inspections, all that will happen is construction companies, etc. will constantly rotate day laborers vs. having someone there for any length of time. That would limit their exposure to a single day, and perhaps eliminate it altogether if they are paying at the end of the day (thus after the inspection opportunity has passed).
The only way this would work is literally planting an investigator to pose as an illegal and observe the transaction. It's just not a big problem relative to hiring illegals in the first place.
> if you know what you're doing, the last thing that you need is the kind of condescending "help" that gets in the way of getting your freaking boarding pass.
Bingo! People have the choice to check in with a human now. They use the kiosk. Why do I need someone to press a couple buttons for me?
Sigh all you want. If people like you were willing to pay extra for the human touch, then there would be two tiers of tickets offered by airlines: self-checkin and human check-in. Human check-in would of course be an extra $100 or so. Still interested?
To underscore this even more, every airline I know (US) has a choice between kiosk and human. The human check-in has no incremental monetary cost. You just have to wait in a significant line. Very few people choose to pay this tiny cost just to have a person click a few buttons for them. The only time they wait in line is when the kiosk can't handle their case.
So, yes, lament the loss of the human touch and the replacement with mindless robots. This is how an economy advances. Buggy drivers had to lose their jobs, too.
That's because consumers do not want to pay for more people just so they can have 'human touch' during check-in. In fact, I personally actively avoid talking to humans for processes that can easily be performed by myself. Why do I need a person who may or may not have a high school diploma click some buttons that I can click myself? Only about 5% of cases require a human to deal with an exception to the basic check-in process, which means you only need 5% of the staff.
How does an illegal immigrant prove they are being paid below minimum wage, and how do you propose protecting employers from illegals fraudulently claiming they are being paid below minimum wage (which they absolutely will given the massive carrot you are waving in front of them)?
Raising the minimum wage mandate tells you absolutely nothing about whether any wages were increased. Nationally, only about 3% of people are paid the minimum wage.
Summary says: > The data shows that the 13 states that raised their minimum wages in January added jobs at a faster rate than those that didn't.
That's nice. This tells you exactly zero. This is like saying: after eating my own poop, my IQ was higher than John's. Comparing your post-state to others' post-state is pretty much the weakest approach to (trying to) suggest a causal link. You need to at least compare the pre-difference to the post-difference. In other words, prior to eating my own poop, I was 13 IQ points higher than John. After eating my own poop, I was 4 IQ points higher than John. I'm still smarter than John after eating my own poop, but looking at the initial state suggests a very different story.
Of course, none of this allows you to establish anything causal, but summary is so bogus with basic logic that this is obviously a conclusion looking for supporting data.
You seem to be implying that the CBO is wrong when it says that raising to $10.10 will result in a net loss of 500k jobs. Do you think they are not using models based on what has happened before?
Raising the min wage or not raising the min wage is not some magical binary action. It matters what you raise it to. Raising it by 5 cents probably will affect nobody, because only 3% nationally actually get paid the min wage (which makes you wonder why we need one). Raising it by 40% will definitely cause many wages to increase measurably, which shifts the cost structure of many companies, and will absolutely make some number of jobs nonviable. Some will simply go away, because the company's previous optimal quantity sold will go down. Others will be replaced by automation. Others will be replaced by outsourcing.
People who refuse these basics are letting their ideology get in the way of their ability to think through rationally.
If these annoying ads did not work better than alternatives, they would not exist. "Working" means they have an effect on some portion of the target audience. Everyone does not hate and ignore ads (although I do not understand this mentality personally).
But, what you are seeing is desperation. Advertising rates are still too high. It is not nearly as effective as advertisers once thought, which is why you have seen rates plummet. And that's why you have seen ads become increasing annoying and obtrusive. The advertising industry is going through a process where they are slowly realizing the true value of internet advertising, and pricing is continuing to adjust accordingly. That said, think of how many sites you use have one business model, which is to rely almost entirely on advertising to cover costs and make a profit. Many of these sites and web applications are not viable and will go away. And people will bitch about that, too.
People pay for value relative to alternatives. When mediocre content is easily available for free, people pay less for good and great and excellent content.
Um, we are not an island who has no local petroleum resources. It always amazes me to watch you people blindly supporting dumping money to distort markets. Meanwhile, you have Tesla showing how much force the high cost of production has to encourage innovation. Tesla knows very few people can buy a $150k, so they spent every day getting innovating to get that down to $60k. And then they spent every day getting that down to what reportedly will be around $30k. And no doubt they will then spend every day getting that down to $20k. That is, unless there's a $20k subsidy, in which case there is no market reason for them to continue to innovate with very expensive R&D.
Occam's razor. No need for conspiracy theories. Drugs are illegal because the vast majority of voters want them illegal, except in very recent times marijuana. And, no shocker, as soon as public opinion on marijuana shifted, so did the laws start to shift. And, no shocker, where public opinion shifted first, the laws shifted first. And where they have not yet shifted sufficiently, the laws have not shifted.
They only benefit in a total vacuum. So what is the value of your point? Outside of your tiny narrow focus of consumers only and only at the very time of the transaction in which they consume and not considering at all the ability over time for them to consume, manipulation of market prices leads to waste, and it is not just one sided.
I am all for energy independence. But energy independence and fossil fuel reduction are not the same thing and have very different cost profiles. So if the path is: (1) do nothing --> (2) energy independence with fossil fuels --> (3) energy independence with less/no fossil fuels at much higher cost, your argument doesn't get me to #3. I love a lot of "green" technologies like PV due to their decentralization of power generation, so I will probably go that route anyway. But most people don't care about decentralization, so there would need to be a justification for why they need to invest in PV that takes 15-30 years to pay for itself (minus subsidies), especially since americans live in a given house for an avg of 7 years.
Good lord you clowns are dense. It's not protectionism to counteract a producer subsidy. The subsidy is protectionism. A tariff is only protectionism if it causes the price of the good to be ABOVE MARKET.
Let me try algebra. And I will even use the letters earlier on in the alphabet in case you haven't come across the latter ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for talking about temporary welfare. I asked how much does an unemployed person make. The correct answer is $0.
Your scenario is no possible. What happens is that there will be a sub-optimal balance between automation and jobs, and the cause of this will be idiot voters using government for things that does not make sense.
Oh, right. I forgot that the main reason people buy biz class tickets is so they can check in with a human and not have a line.
> The employer wouldn't be prosecuted based on their evidence so there would be no 5th amendment issues.
You are clearly talking out of your ass, so I'm not going to waste too much time here. Outside of explicit immunity for employing an illegal immigrant and defaulting on payroll taxes and other various responsibilities, it absolutely would be protected by the 5th amendment.
> If you can't provide evidence of legal employment, then you suffer the consequences of illegal employment.
Are you a complete moron? If I go to the Feds and tell them I worked for you and you paid me less than min wage, can you prove I didn't? Is your failure to produce documentation proof that you paid me less than min wage? I never worked for you, so obviously you can't produce documents showing that you paid me more than min wage.
> At least in my fantasy land :).
At least one part of your comment was correct and logical.
It's well-known representative example and is not meant to be the best example.
Your premise is pretty egocentric, though. We are living through a relatively quiet period with new innovation, compared to the industrial revolution and the 1990s. If the social order didn't collapse then, I'm pretty sure we'll be fine.
But if you want to slow down even more the automation of jobs currently filled with humans, then stop adding to the price of employing humans while the price of buying automation falls. That means: no min wage increases, no Affordable Care Act, no payroll tax increases, no gas tax increases, no new family leave benefits, no new mandated paid sick leave, etc.
I won't hold my breath. Most people who sigh over automating away human jobs are the same people accelerating the process through idiotic policy prescriptions.
Employers do not need to prove they are paying minimum wage with illegals. You cannot force an employer to produce documents that would incriminate themselves by saying they employed illegal workers and avoided payroll taxes. 5th Amendment protections. Furthermore, there would be no documents; they're illegally working! They are being paid under the table. If you insist on surprise inspections, all that will happen is construction companies, etc. will constantly rotate day laborers vs. having someone there for any length of time. That would limit their exposure to a single day, and perhaps eliminate it altogether if they are paying at the end of the day (thus after the inspection opportunity has passed).
The only way this would work is literally planting an investigator to pose as an illegal and observe the transaction. It's just not a big problem relative to hiring illegals in the first place.
> if you know what you're doing, the last thing that you need is the kind of condescending "help" that gets in the way of getting your freaking boarding pass.
Bingo! People have the choice to check in with a human now. They use the kiosk. Why do I need someone to press a couple buttons for me?
Sigh all you want. If people like you were willing to pay extra for the human touch, then there would be two tiers of tickets offered by airlines: self-checkin and human check-in. Human check-in would of course be an extra $100 or so. Still interested?
To underscore this even more, every airline I know (US) has a choice between kiosk and human. The human check-in has no incremental monetary cost. You just have to wait in a significant line. Very few people choose to pay this tiny cost just to have a person click a few buttons for them. The only time they wait in line is when the kiosk can't handle their case.
So, yes, lament the loss of the human touch and the replacement with mindless robots. This is how an economy advances. Buggy drivers had to lose their jobs, too.
That's because consumers do not want to pay for more people just so they can have 'human touch' during check-in. In fact, I personally actively avoid talking to humans for processes that can easily be performed by myself. Why do I need a person who may or may not have a high school diploma click some buttons that I can click myself? Only about 5% of cases require a human to deal with an exception to the basic check-in process, which means you only need 5% of the staff.
Please explain technologies like this to these clowns: http://politics.slashdot.org/s...
The case you describe doesn't exist outside of your contrived fantasy world.
How does an illegal immigrant prove they are being paid below minimum wage, and how do you propose protecting employers from illegals fraudulently claiming they are being paid below minimum wage (which they absolutely will given the massive carrot you are waving in front of them)?
How much does an unemployed person make?
Good points. Also, raising to account for inflation is not a raise at all.
Try to keep up.
Raising the minimum wage mandate tells you absolutely nothing about whether any wages were increased. Nationally, only about 3% of people are paid the minimum wage.
Summary says:
> The data shows that the 13 states that raised their minimum wages in January added jobs at a faster rate than those that didn't.
That's nice. This tells you exactly zero. This is like saying: after eating my own poop, my IQ was higher than John's. Comparing your post-state to others' post-state is pretty much the weakest approach to (trying to) suggest a causal link. You need to at least compare the pre-difference to the post-difference. In other words, prior to eating my own poop, I was 13 IQ points higher than John. After eating my own poop, I was 4 IQ points higher than John. I'm still smarter than John after eating my own poop, but looking at the initial state suggests a very different story.
Of course, none of this allows you to establish anything causal, but summary is so bogus with basic logic that this is obviously a conclusion looking for supporting data.
You seem to be implying that the CBO is wrong when it says that raising to $10.10 will result in a net loss of 500k jobs. Do you think they are not using models based on what has happened before?
Raising the min wage or not raising the min wage is not some magical binary action. It matters what you raise it to. Raising it by 5 cents probably will affect nobody, because only 3% nationally actually get paid the min wage (which makes you wonder why we need one). Raising it by 40% will definitely cause many wages to increase measurably, which shifts the cost structure of many companies, and will absolutely make some number of jobs nonviable. Some will simply go away, because the company's previous optimal quantity sold will go down. Others will be replaced by automation. Others will be replaced by outsourcing.
People who refuse these basics are letting their ideology get in the way of their ability to think through rationally.
If these annoying ads did not work better than alternatives, they would not exist. "Working" means they have an effect on some portion of the target audience. Everyone does not hate and ignore ads (although I do not understand this mentality personally).
But, what you are seeing is desperation. Advertising rates are still too high. It is not nearly as effective as advertisers once thought, which is why you have seen rates plummet. And that's why you have seen ads become increasing annoying and obtrusive. The advertising industry is going through a process where they are slowly realizing the true value of internet advertising, and pricing is continuing to adjust accordingly. That said, think of how many sites you use have one business model, which is to rely almost entirely on advertising to cover costs and make a profit. Many of these sites and web applications are not viable and will go away. And people will bitch about that, too.
People pay for value relative to alternatives. When mediocre content is easily available for free, people pay less for good and great and excellent content.
Um, we are not an island who has no local petroleum resources. It always amazes me to watch you people blindly supporting dumping money to distort markets. Meanwhile, you have Tesla showing how much force the high cost of production has to encourage innovation. Tesla knows very few people can buy a $150k, so they spent every day getting innovating to get that down to $60k. And then they spent every day getting that down to what reportedly will be around $30k. And no doubt they will then spend every day getting that down to $20k. That is, unless there's a $20k subsidy, in which case there is no market reason for them to continue to innovate with very expensive R&D.
Occam's razor. No need for conspiracy theories. Drugs are illegal because the vast majority of voters want them illegal, except in very recent times marijuana. And, no shocker, as soon as public opinion on marijuana shifted, so did the laws start to shift. And, no shocker, where public opinion shifted first, the laws shifted first. And where they have not yet shifted sufficiently, the laws have not shifted.
No need for conspiracy theories.
Are you suggesting that companies should voluntarily pay more for the same work?
So, a heavily indebted city has a rogue revenue generation mechanism that would take time and effort to fix? Yeah, we'll get right on that.
They only benefit in a total vacuum. So what is the value of your point? Outside of your tiny narrow focus of consumers only and only at the very time of the transaction in which they consume and not considering at all the ability over time for them to consume, manipulation of market prices leads to waste, and it is not just one sided.
I am all for energy independence. But energy independence and fossil fuel reduction are not the same thing and have very different cost profiles. So if the path is: (1) do nothing --> (2) energy independence with fossil fuels --> (3) energy independence with less/no fossil fuels at much higher cost, your argument doesn't get me to #3. I love a lot of "green" technologies like PV due to their decentralization of power generation, so I will probably go that route anyway. But most people don't care about decentralization, so there would need to be a justification for why they need to invest in PV that takes 15-30 years to pay for itself (minus subsidies), especially since americans live in a given house for an avg of 7 years.
Good lord you clowns are dense. It's not protectionism to counteract a producer subsidy. The subsidy is protectionism. A tariff is only protectionism if it causes the price of the good to be ABOVE MARKET.
Let me try algebra. And I will even use the letters earlier on in the alphabet in case you haven't come across the latter ones.
Price - subsidy of $A + tariff of $A = Price
No change. No protectionism.