Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |  [ show all ]
Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage
    #21231424 -

Auto-Summary
Mike Rowe discusses the minimum wage issue in a Facebook post, expressing concern over the potential impact of raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour. Rowe argues that such a drastic increase could lead to the elimination of entry-level jobs and worsen the skills gap, as many positions requiring specific training would become unaffordable. He emphasizes that work is not the enemy and that people need opportunities to learn and grow in their careers. Rowe also mentions his own experiences working in various positions, highlighting the importance of learning "soft skills" and the value of hard work.

Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs) just posted this on his Facebook page and i thought it was a very well thought out piece on the subject of the minimum wage. I can't really argue with anything he says here. And it bears repeating, work is not the enemy.


https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe/posts/938382126171931:0
Quote:
Hi Mike,
The federal minimum wage is $7.25 and hour. A lot of people think it should be raised to $10.10. Seattle now pays $15 an hour, and the The Freedom Socialist Party is demanding a $20 living wage for every working person. What do you think about the minimum wage? How much do you think a Big Mac will cost if McDonald’s had to pay all their employees $20 an hour?
Darrell Paul
Hi Darrell
Back in 1979, I was working as an usher for United Artists at a multiplex in Baltimore. The minimum wage was $2.90, and I earned every penny.
When I wasn’t tearing tickets in half and stopping kids from theater hopping, I was cleaning out the bathrooms, emptying the trash, and scrapping dubious substances off the theater floor with a putty knife. I wore a silly outfit and smiled unnaturally, usually for the entirety of my shift. I worked 18 hours my first week, mostly after school, and earned $62.20. Before taxes. But I was also learning the importance of “soft skills.” I learned to show up on time and tuck my shirt in. I embraced the many virtues of proper hygiene. Most of all, I learned how to take shit from the public, and suck up to my boss.
After three months, I got a raise, and wound up behind the concession stand. Once it was determined I wasn’t a thief, I was promoted to cashier. Three months later, I got another raise. Eventually, they taught me how to operate a projector, which was the job I wanted in the first place.
The films would arrive from Hollywood in giant boxes, thin and square, like the top of a card table, but heavy. I’d open each one with care, and place each spool on a separate platter. Then, I’d thread them into the giant projector, looping the leader through 22 separate gates, careful to touch only the sides. Raging Bull, Airplane, The Shining, Caddyshack, The Elephant Man - I saw them all from the shadowy comfort of the projection booth, and collected $10 an hour for my trouble. Eventually, I was offered an assistant manager position, which I declined. I wasn’t management material then, anymore than I am now. But I had a plan. I was going to be in the movies. Or, God forbid, on television.
I thought about all this last month when I saw “Boyhood” at a theater in San Francisco. I bought the tickets from a machine that took my credit card and spit out a piece of paper with a bar code on it. I walked inside, and fed the paper into another machine, which beeped twice, welcomed me in mechanical voice, and lowered a steel bar that let me into the lobby. No usher, no cashier. I found the concession stand and bought a bushel of popcorn from another machine, and a gallon of Diet Coke that I poured myself. On the way out, I saw an actual employee, who turned out to be the manager. I asked him how much a projectionist was making these days, and he just laughed.
“There’s no such position,” he said. I just put the film in the slot myself and press a button. Easy breezy.”
To answer your question Darrell, I’m worried. From the business owners I’ve talked to, it seems clear that companies are responding to rising labor costs by embracing automation faster than ever. That’s eliminating thousands of low-paying, unskilled, entry level positions. What will that mean for those people trying to get started in the workforce? My job as an usher was the first rung on a long ladder of work that lead me to where I am today. But what if that rung wasn't there? If the minimum wage in 1979 had been suddenly raised from $2.90 to $10 an hour, thousands of people would have applied for the same job. What chance would I have had, being seventeen years old with pimples and a big adams apple?
One night, thirty-six years ago, during the midnight showing of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, I sat in the projection booth and read a short story by Ray Bradbury called “A Sound of Thunder.” It was about a guy who traveled back in time to look at dinosaurs, but against strict orders, ventured off the observation platform and accidentally stepped on a butterfly. When he returned to the present, everything in the world had changed. “The Butterfly Effect” is now an expression that describes a single event that leads to a series of unanticipated outcomes, resulting in a profoundly unintended consequence. (Ironically, it's also a movie with Ashtonn Kutcher, which I had to pay to see 30 years later.)
Anyway, I’m not an economist or a sociologist, but I’m pretty sure a $20 minimum wage would affect a lot more than the cost of a Big Mac. Beyond the elimination of many entry-level jobs, consider the effect on the skills gap. According to the BLS, they’re about three million available positions that companies are trying to fill right now. Very few of those jobs require a four-year degree, but nearly all require specific training. And all pay more than the current minimum wage. If we want a skilled workforce, (and believe me, we do,) should we really be demanding $20 an hour for unskilled labor?
Last year, I narrated a commercial about US manufacturing, paid for by Walmart. It started a shitstorm, and cost me many thousands virtual friends. Among the aggrieved, was a labor organization called Jobs With Justice. They wanted me to know just how unfairly Walmart was treating it’s employees. So they had their members send my foundation over 8,000 form letters, asking me to meet with unhappy Walmart workers, and join them in their fight against “bad jobs.”
While I’m sympathetic to employees who want to be paid fairly, I prefer to help on an individual basis. I’m also skeptical that a modest pay increase will make an unskilled worker less reliant upon an employer whom they affirmatively resent. I explained this to Jobs With Justice in an open letter, and invited anyone who felt mistreated to explore the many training opportunities and scholarships available through mikeroweWORKS. I further explained that I couldn’t couldn’t join them in their fight against “bad jobs,” because frankly, I don’t believe there is such a thing. My exact words were, “Some jobs pay better, some jobs smell better, and some jobs have no business being treated like careers. But work is never the enemy, regardless of the wage. Because somewhere between the job and the paycheck, there’s still a thing called opportunity, and that’s what people need to pursue.”
People are always surprised to learn that many of the subjects on Dirty Jobs were millionaires - entrepreneurs who crawled through a river of crap, prospered, and created jobs for others along the way. Men and women who started with nothing and built a going concern out of the dirt. I was talking last week with my old friend Richard, who owns a small but prosperous construction company in California. Richard still hangs drywall and sheetrock with his aging crew because he can’t find enough young people who want to learn the construction trades. Today, he’ll pay $40 an hour for a reliable welder, but more often than not, he can’t find one. Whenever I talk to Richard, and consider the number of millennials within 50 square miles of his office stocking shelves or slinging hash for the minimum wage, I can only shake my head.
Point is Darrell, if you fix the wage of a worker, or freeze the price of a thing, you’re probably gonna step on a few butterflies. Doesn’t matter how well-intended the policy - the true cost a $20 minimum wage, has less to do with the price of a Big Mac, and more to do with a sound of thunder. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me.
Mike
PS I looked into the Freedom Socialist Party and their demand for a universal, $20 an hour living wage. Interesting. You're right - they're serious. But not long after they announced their position, they made the interesting decision to advertise for a web designer....at $13 an hour. Make of that what you will... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/18/socialist-13-hour_n_6008432.html)



Thoughts? Comments? Agree? Disagree?


--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: psyconaught]
    #21232013 -

brilliant and totaly agree~

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: psyconaught]
    #21232049 -

Fuckin spot on.  But you knew I would say that


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: zappaisgod] * 1
    #21232957 -

Moronic.

Maybe he likes to brag about how he earned only $2.90 per hour, but that's the equivalent of $9.62 in 2015, which is 33% more than today's minimum wage of $7.25.  I'd like to ask how he would have fared making 33% less during those times, as people do today.

Second, he's worried that automation will take over jobs.  As I've said before:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Automation has been replacing workers for the past 100 years, and it's had no impact on long term unemployment trends:

Quit fighting to stay in the stone age.



Third, he talks about what would happen if minimum wage "had been suddenly raised from $2.90 to $10 an hour".  Does he not get inflation?  That's the equivalent of raising minimum wage from $7.25 to $25, which no one, not even the Freedom Socialist Party, is proposing.  And besides the Freedom Socialist Party, which no one here has claimed to be a part of, no one is asking for a $20 minimum wage, which is exactly what he is arguing against.  :facepalm:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #21233981 -

What a stupid, stupid anecdote.



As fal said, he fails to take inflation into account.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #21234433 -

I agree with Mr. Rowe.  I also think inflation should be taken into account.  Therefore...$9.46/hr.  This is based on the conversion of $2.90 in 1979 to 2014 dollars using the BLS calculator.  Not over $10, not $15, and sure as hell not $20 an hour.  $9.46 an hour is reasonable yet still on the higher end (adjusted), historically.


--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong."

Francois-Marie Arouet

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: Mr. Bojangles]
    #21234457 -

CPI doesn't take certain things into account, like productivity.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: psyconaught] * 2
    #21234487 -

I agree with some of what he says, but definitely not all. First, automation is almost always cheaper than hiring workers at the current minimum wage, thus we will continuously be trending towards increased automation regardless of whether or not the minimum wage is increased.

Second, the increase in minimum wage does not necessarily automatically correlate to fewer jobs. The verdict is still out in the scientific community. For example, this is one of the better done and more accepted studies out there, published in a very good journal. They find no adverse effects on employment from an increased minimum wage when comparing contiguous counties, a strategy that controls for several variables. The paper is certainly far from definitive, but the research on the matter arguing either way is far from definitive.

Third, and this is more of a matter of opinion, but I think it is the responsibility of the company to provide for their workers a liveable wage,  because if they don't that burden ends up falling on the taxpayers. So, in my mind, it's like the taxpayers giving a subsidy to the companies.

I do agree with him that workers should seek training to increase their skills if they don't want to work for minimum wage anymore. However, even with a raised minimum wage, I doubt many people will think it's a comfortable living and will still seek training.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21234501 -

The tradeoff seems to be, based on recent CBO estimates, that a few people will lose their jobs but many more will be lifted out of poverty.

I think it's a step in the right direction.

We can either deal with low wages and the federal government subsidizing the employees, or force employers to pony up. and free up 'the dole.'


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: The Ecstatic] * 2
    #21234504 -

"it seems clear that companies are responding to rising labor cost by embracing automation faster than ever"

What rising labor cost?  Wages have been flat for the last decade.

The reason they switch to automation is for higher profitability!!  The cost of automation is coming down, making the investment a nobrainer.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #21235103 -

The Ecstatic said:
The tradeoff seems to be, based on recent CBO estimates, that a few people will lose their jobs but many more will be lifted out of poverty.



A few?  500,000 in an already depressed labor market?  All to give a few more unskilled yutzes an extra $100 a week?  You explain it to the people who lose their jobs why they should be sacrificed for the "greater good".
Quote:


I think it's a step in the right direction.

We can either deal with low wages and the federal government subsidizing the employees, or force employers to pony up. and free up 'the dole.'



You just said you were putting more people on the dole.  Employers do not pay for across the board wage increases.  Consumers do.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: zappaisgod]
    #21235109 -

Quote:
A few?  500,000 in an already depressed labor market?  All to give a few more unskilled yutzes an extra $100 a week?  You explain it to the people who lose their jobs why they should be sacrificed for the "greater good".



I don't need to explain it. The majority of the people want it. This is how government works.


And fal has already posted the same facts time and time again, the increase in wages is exponentially higher than the increase in goods.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #21235120 -

The Ecstatic said:
Quote:
A few?  500,000 in an already depressed labor market?  All to give a few more unskilled yutzes an extra $100 a week?  You explain it to the people who lose their jobs why they should be sacrificed for the "greater good".



I don't need to explain it. The majority of the people want it. This is how government works.



Not exactly but they are free to do it in their own state
Quote:
And fal has already posted the same facts time and time again, the increase in wages is exponentially higher than the increase in goods.



No it isn't.  100% of the cost of higher wages will be reflected in higher costs of goods.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: zappaisgod]
    #21235183 -

zappaisgod said:
A few?  500,000 in an already depressed labor market?  All to give a few more unskilled yutzes an extra $100 a week?  You explain it to the people who lose their jobs why they should be sacrificed for the "greater good".



500,000 is only 0.3% of the labor market, it is only a temporary drop according to all sources, and it is based on a massive 40% increase in minimum wage.

zappaisgod said:
100% of the cost of higher wages will be reflected in higher costs of goods.



And once again, a 10% increase in minimum wage will only increase overall prices by up to 0.4%, and food prices by up to 4%, which is easily affordable with a 10% increase.

We're just going in circles here.  :facepalm:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21235612 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
A few?  500,000 in an already depressed labor market?  All to give a few more unskilled yutzes an extra $100 a week?  You explain it to the people who lose their jobs why they should be sacrificed for the "greater good".



500,000 is only 0.3% of the labor market, it is only a temporary drop according to all sources, and it is based on a massive 40% increase in minimum wage.

zappaisgod said:
100% of the cost of higher wages will be reflected in higher costs of goods.



And once again, a 10% increase in minimum wage will only increase overall prices by up to 0.4%, and food prices by up to 4%, which is easily affordable with a 10% increase.

We're just going in circles here.  :facepalm:



Yep.  You keep spouting the same bullshit.  Fuck a few big time and put them on the dole so that another few can have a small raise all while increasing prices on the commodity that consumes a higher percentage of poor people's income.  Brilliant.

Let the states do it if they want.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: zappaisgod]
    #21236234 -

zappaisgod said:
You keep spouting the same bullshit.  Fuck a few big time and put them on the dole so that another few can have a small raise all while increasing prices on the commodity that consumes a higher percentage of poor people's income.  Brilliant.

Let the states do it if they want.



It is a good deal, even for the 0.3% you call "fucked", because those 0.3% will make 40% more as soon as they get back into the workforce, which studies show will happen.

Given that inflation averages about 3% a year, a one time 0.4% increase in prices isn't significant, and all the extra business generated from the extra spending would be good for all businesses.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21239618 -

You have all these wonderful dreams but the fact of that matter is that redistributing wealth is not creating wealth.  By your model extrapolated we should have a $100 an hour minimum wage and that will be stimulative.  Absurdism to the nth degree.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: zappaisgod]
    #21239643 -

zappaisgod said:
You have all these wonderful dreams but the fact of that matter is that redistributing wealth is not creating wealth.



I'm not arguing it creates wealth, I'm arguing it reduces poverty.

zappaisgod said:
By your model extrapolated we should have a $100 an hour minimum wage and that will be stimulative.  Absurdism to the nth degree.



I have no idea what you're talking about.  My model is to set the minimum wage at the living wage, and NO MORE.  :shrug:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21239654 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
You have all these wonderful dreams but the fact of that matter is that redistributing wealth is not creating wealth.



I'm not arguing it creates wealth, I'm arguing it reduces poverty.



Sterilization reduces poverty better.  Do you want that?
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
By your model extrapolated we should have a $100 an hour minimum wage and that will be stimulative.  Absurdism to the nth degree.



I have no idea what you're talking about.  My model is to set the minimum wage at the living wage, and NO MORE.  :shrug:



Why not more?  If some is good more is better.  It will stimulate even more spending.

LIiving wage bullshit again.  Should the minimum wage be more for somebody with 3 kids than for somebody with none living in his parent's basement?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Mike Rowe's thoughts on the minimum wage [Re: zappaisgod] * 1
    #21239699 -

You're really comparing a liveable wage to eugenics? :facepalm:


Oh, and there are tax credits for parents.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Minimum Wage Revisited
( 1 2 all )
Evolving 4,507 33 04/15/04 02:49 PM
by Tao
* A couple of questions on the minimum wage
( 1 2 all )
Evolving 3,667 29 10/21/03 05:40 PM
by Evolving
* Interesting thought....
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
RonoS 11,259 98 08/16/03 09:20 AM
by Phred
* Should minimum wage be raised?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
RebelSteve33 9,969 94 08/03/12 02:52 AM
by vladtepes
* Delmart Edward Joseph "Mike" Vreeland and 9-11 PGF 1,556 18 06/04/02 09:58 AM
by PGF
* Mandatory Minimum Sentences Grav 1,341 15 01/19/06 10:31 PM
by wilshire
* Pure Capitalism
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Lallafa 11,376 76 12/26/01 01:30 AM
by Phred
* My thoughts, Iraq, war, and genocide Ellis Dee 1,842 14 03/18/03 06:11 AM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,887 topic views. 1 members, 61 guests and 32 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.048 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.