I hear so many people cheering about the wage increase. But it seems they don’t consider the down side.
How many people will lose their jobs because companies can’t afford the huge pay hike? Have any of you seen how McDonalds is phasing out workers and putting machines in to take your order and pay for it?
Machines don’t call in sick, don’t ask for wages, don’t need health insurance or paid vacations.
Also, costs of making products will increase. Who do you think will end up paying for those cost increases? Yup, the public.
I’m not against pay increases, don’t misunderstand me. But doing it artificially has too many problems.
At least that’s how I see it.
What are your views?

---

I researched this awhile back when it was done somewhere in Washington. Employees were not happy. Some of them lost their job and others lost a lot of "perks" previously paid for by the company (free parking, cafe food, etc.). That left an impact on me that people who were at first ecstatic to get a raise were later upset.

It reminds me of people all hyped up over places like Germany offering free healthcare and education while not comprehending that the tax rate is much higher. If you understand that, and you are OK with it, sweet! But if you think those perks are not somehow paid for by the people, I feel you're mistaken.

And by the way, I think that is how it should be. Meaning, I think Healthcare and Education should be free and we should all pay more in taxes to pay for it. I believe that puts every individual in a vested interest in the Country they reside in.

As for raising the minimum wage to $15 in 2025, I feel that is a mistake. People in technology profession (Hello!) will prosper because it will be them (HI!) who are making the automated programs and machines that replace the menial jobs that people feel they need to support 3 kids with.

It will also damage our youth as well. Youth working those jobs helps prepare them for larger roles in life as they go job to job figuring out their niche.

We have a greed problem with executives in America who feel even though we have millions of homeless people and starving children that they need four houses, ten cars and 43 bathrooms in their "get-a-way" home.

---

The problem is that raising the minimum wage doesn't just raise the wage for the bottom end, it raises the cost of labor overall. Many union contracts are predicated on minimum wage as an accelerator or incremental bump. So as senior guys get more expensive, either they get bumped (or replace by automation) OR junior guys just aren't hired as they will farm the jobs out to Mexico.

Z said: With all due respect, just the opposite is true, you don't value something you don't have to pay for. I want to take care of my family's healthcare and have choices to do so. I don't want to pay for anyone else's (other than veterans), especially when they dis-incentived to make healthy choices.
I especially don't want to pay for someone else's college. I (and my family) paid for mine and my kids. If some kid want to get a sociology degree from pubic state, he can pay for it, or that state can vote to pay for it. I don't want to. If the education is such a great value, let the school lend them the money. I don't feel like paying for tenured professor who don't do jack other than indoctrinate kids.

---

I don't think anybody is under the impression that things like free healthcare are like, actually free.

I would challenge you to take a look at your W2 from last year, Box 12 and the figures marked D and DD. D is how much you paid for health insurance last year. DD is how much your employer paid for your health insurance last year.

What I don't think people understand is, employers already pay a LOT of money towards health insurance for their eligible employees. Between my employer and myself, for a crappy narrow network plan with a tiny network of providers for a 32 year old male and his wife, both nonsmokers, that's ~$29,000 a year going to health insurance. Assuming those rates never go up (lol), that'l be ~1.1 million dollars going just to health insurance for me over the course of my career. Take a look at countries with single payer national healthcare and the taxes associated with it - myself and my employer are paying MORE for a shitty plan than most of said countries.

On the oft-spouted argument of "Rationing healthcare! It takes forever to see someone!"... Emergency cases are dealt with accordingly. Less urgent cases are put in a backlog. Is that worse than me, a solidly middle class married couple that's renting half our house out to make ends meet rationing my own healthcare because I can't afford $9000 a year in health insurance premiums, plus $1500 for my wife to reach her deductible plus $1500 for me to reach my deductible plus everything else I need to pay for after that? I'm actively waiting until next year to do another round of specialist visits to figure out why I'm mildly sick 50% of the time and sick-sick 15% of the time.

But I digress. Minimum wage. I'm personally not a fan of a $15/hour minimum wage. I am however, a huge fan of typing minimum wage to a combination of real-world metrics (inflation, GDP, etc). The politically inconvenient fact there that if we did, chances are it would be close to or above $15/hour

I think back to all these lessons I was taught by fiscal conservatives (who no longer seem to exist) back in the day about marketplace efficiency and how businesses with poor efficiency will fail and be replaced by more efficient businesses and this was a good thing for businesses, the economy as a whole, and workers. First of all, absolutely hilarious in retrospect after spending 14 years in big boy jobs - companies are completely and utterly screwed up, inefficient, and just as political and petty as national politics. McDonalds has been in business for a long, long time. If their ability to pay employees has not kept up with inflation and cost of living - McDonalds is screwing something up. Why are they entitled to stay in business off the backs of workers if their business has not been able to keep up with the world?

Just to give you an idea of just how screwed up things have gotten over the last 30 years - My parents bought their second house when they were my age, having children of 1, 4, and 8 years old. My dad was working full time as a janitorial supply salesman and my mother was working part time as an interior designer. My mother also got her bachelors and masters while I was growing up. The house they bought, with today's price for that exact house and the interest rates, insurance rates, and property taxes they had at the time, would cost $2300 a month. Even with today's interest rates, you'd be looking at ~$1650/month. My dad also went through almost-new cars every 5 years due to his heavy business travel, and they had enough money left over to pay for like 20% of each of their children's college education and for us to take a couple 4 day road trips twice a year.

Granted, they didn't waste much money on things however I'm trying to imagine surviving even without kids, myself getting above industry average for a management position in IT and my wife working two part time jobs, with a house that cost us $2300 a month. We wouldn't even qualify. The only way we could make ends meet just between the two of us would be to continue to rent out half our house, drop everything but internet and our 2GB data plans on our phone, and never buy anything else. And then hope we didn't get sick or you know... have anything in this house that broke that we'd need to replace.

But, whatever. People are stuck to their political lines of thinking and I'm not going to convince anybody of anything. I just feel particularly insulted when people of a much older age category don't acknowledge how they were making comparatively more, with a much lower cost of living when they were starting out in adulthood. I wouldn't take those benefits away from them, I'd just ask they not look at me like I'm crazy or "asking for handouts" or "don't understand the real world" if I suggest that maybe we deserve a similar amount of money adjusted for inflation and cost as living as they did when they were starting out.

Porforis pointed out Dear Youngins, [list=1][*] My wife and I had a 8% mortgage rate on our first house. We were both working and barely could make ends meet. So the good old days of everything being cheap, may not exactly be the case. Additionally since we couldn't afford the down payment so we had to pay PMI. [*] Nevertheless big P, you make a great point. My generation, and more specifically the more recent retirees, are pulling out more than they put in. Many are double dipping pensions. Far from social security being the safety net is was designed to be. People view it as an belittlement. The program was designed when life expectancy was 65, and benefits kicked in at....65. The program is broke. I know guys that have 3 pensions and still draw social security. It is sickening. There needs to be means testing for all benefits.[/list]

---

This thread has turned out even better then I hoped it would.
Every response has been well thought out and well stated.
My parents had a 2 story 4 bedroom house built in 1960 (with a 2 1/2 car garage) on a corner lot for $20 thousand dollars. I can’t imagine what a house like that would cost brand new today.
I had my first job at age 15 and 10
Months in 1973 with a starting minimum wage of $1.45 an hour.
I left that job after a month for one that paid $1.60 an hour!
Beginning jobs(such as McDonalds) are not usually jobs that you have for life. If that IS your plan, you work your way up to management.
But $15 an hour for that kind of job? Wow. And my experience with workers in many low level jobs is, most don’t appreciate their jobs, show up when they feel like it, and treat customers like they are interrupting their day.
On the rare occasion when I see workers that go the extra mile, I make it a point to let their bosses know.
Most of the time, they only hear complaints.
You should see a young worker glow when they hear you tell their boss they did an extra good job.
A little thing like that can make a young workers day.

---

KRK your comment puzzles me a little bit. Why would people not be entitled to SS benefits? It's their money that the Feds have been able to use interest free for decades. They then dole it out with an eye dropper. If people took the money that they and their employers sink into SS they would have 3 or 4 times the money available (an exaggeration) when they get to retirement age. My employer lists me as an independent contractor (even though I would never pass the IRS test for an I.C.) so he doesn't pay anything into SS. I in turn have to pay both parts, the employee and employer's portions.

As for $15 /hr. Illinois is one of the bluest states and running as fast as it can to get to top of blueness. It already been approved here. Several small town business owners in my town sold and moved away. Others are already down sizing long before the rate kicks in.

---

Will comment more in depth next week as I’m out of town and on mobile.

Retirees absolutely deserve their social security. The fact that there’s more money going out than in is a simple matter of population distribution - the government’s had decades to fix this and hasn’t because it’s not politically convenient. They still deserve what was promised to them for the money they’ve put in.

On the interest rates - the point of the exercise was to highlight cost of living differences now versus 30 years ago. As stated, with today’s interest rates you’d be looking at 1650ish for my parents old house nowadays. Still wouldn’t be able to afford that with three kids and one parent in school. I too had to deal with PMI. But again, it’s more to point out cost of living differences. Look at rent if you’d prefer - think back to how much you paid for your first apartment then go look at padmapper for a similar place in a similar area. Compare to inflation and compare to wage increases.

On minimum wage - at the end of the day, what do you think someone that puts in 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job should be able to afford? Basically, what should the function of minimum wage be and by what metric should you determine the minimum amount someone should be paid for their labor?

I really don’t know where you people find all these minimum wage workers that treat you like dirt. I’ve heard from multiple sources that Milwaukee has one of the crappiest service industry worker pool in the Midwest and yet with like two exceptions over two years the worst I ever get is a purely robotic employee that is just going through the motions but still doing their job. Had one last at Michaels of all places get shitty with my wife once and beyond that, nada. And it’s not like I live in a particularly great area either. Then again I don’t have any expectation that service industry workers convince me that they love their jobs or are personally excited to see me. I sure as hell wouldn’t be, I expect the relationship to be transactional and at a minimum, not unkind.

Porforis opined: Partially agree. If this is a government fund to help the fatherless, motherless kids, and destitute in retirement. I agree. But if I have 10mm in trust fund, and have put $50k into the system, I shouldn't receive $2k/month for as long as I live after i reach 65. Its moronic. It can't mathematically function. And it is not fair to ask me or you to pay for such a person.
When I compare current rent of the place I rented, assuming it has been maintained, it is actually less, as percentage of income relative to the starting salaries of kids coming out of undergraduate programs with business degrees. Further, when I look at how technology has improved the overall economy, from transportation to entertainment, it is hard for me to agree that people have a lower standard of living.
AWESOME points. This, however has less to do with the minimum wage, and has more to do with supply and demand, good and bad management, and an evolving market.
[list][*]Why do you think retail is dying? A primary reason is crappy service. Your experience with Michaels, my wife experience yesterday at a bank...business owners get what they pay for. In your example of Michael, ownership pays through the ass for a lease, invests in inventory and then scrimps on labor. Customers get dissatisfied and buy on Amazon. The store goes broke, and management and ownership lose. Most business owners are penny wise and pound foolish. But that their issue, not my issue. Nor should the government involved.[*] Contrast that with the service you get at Chic-fil-a (sp?) Let's stay off the religious aspect....They pay minimum wage, but have college tuition help, meals, and other benefits. The give raises for good performance, etc. But if an employee has a crappy attitude, they are gone. Contrast their level of service with most Burger Kings. Chic-fil-a ownership and management is smart.[*]After paying for and earning a 4 year undergraduate degree, I had a minimum wage opportunity after an on campus interview. I derisively asked the interviewer why in the world I would take the job, to which he replied "Because I can get people at that price, and if you are any good, you will be making far more than that in the near future".[/list]Also, let's be intellectually honest about who is paying. When anyone says "the goverment should pay" that should mean to all of us "YOU SHOULD PAY" (unless of course, you don't or don't play to pay taxes which is what people who have already made their money can do) I find it offensive and confiscatory when the answer to every societal problem is to tax the person who wants to get rich at a rate higher than everyone else pays. If I work hard, take changes and make money, then I should enjoy the fruits of my labor. The federal government, other than the powers enumerated in the Constitution, should not ask me to pay a higher percentage of what I earn than anybody else. Now if I choose to live in a state that want to pay for everyone education, healthcare, cars, food, phone, and living quarters.....and I choose to have my ass taxed off by living there....great.

---

WPR waxed:
First, I start with the idea that social security, flawed from inception, at this point, for the most part a Ponzi scheme. The elements of the program which take care of motherless/fatherless and destitute poor are great. IMO it should not be a government program, but nevertheless.[list]

The program was initially conceived to take care of the destitute....great.

Now it is a gamed ponzi scheme. They young are paying for the old. By the time the young get there, it will be gone.[*]Congress, you can guess which party lead the charge, put the funds OUT of the trust fund into the general budget...so there IS NO TRUST FUND. Your contributions went to pay for wars, bridges, planned parenthood and whatever else was politically expedient.[*]Now, to my position in your case...I believe that if you are below a certain level of wealth and income, you should receive SS. But, above a certain point, no. It was/is an insurance program. Accordingly, mathematically everyone CAN'T pay for the benefits of those who can't contribute AND still get all their money out.[/list]

Ah Illinois, a cess-pool and the most corrupt state in the Union. Get ready, you Badgers will be paying their state and local pensions very soon. I know a guy who has 3 state pension....thats right 3. And did you know an Illinois teacher any many administrator can work for 10-20 years and then retire at 80% HIS LAST YEARS PAY. BOHICA baby because when they declare themselves insolvent and a certain party controls the Congress and the White House, you and I will be paying for all of those pensions.

---