Minimum Wage: What's the Other Argument?

[Lexicus]

Why is the service sector fundamentally different?

Because, there's no limit to what we can decide we want to pay people to do for each other.
I don't know how to make it any more clear. Yeah, your examples are correct in that technology can be used to make humans obsolete in providing some services...but that misses the point which is that we can always come up with new services that we want. And in some cases it may be that people will prefer to be served by humans and not robots, even if the latter can do it more cheaply.

 

[El_Machinae]

There's infinite work. The problem is that there's a limit (at any given time) to how much work can be done that actually generates a positive return (especially on first order). Entrepreneurial insights can generate new work, and so can the production of public goods. But at any snapshot, we don't have access to unlimited projects that are net positive.

 

[metalhead]

Airbnb probably increases the demand for temporary housing, and also employs additional people as part-time innkeepers/cooks/housekeepers. It's actually a perfect example of technology contributing to job creation, not job elimination. It just changes the definition of "job."

 

[Vectors]

Because, there's no limit to what we can decide we want to pay people to do for each other.
I don't know how to make it any more clear. Yeah, your examples are correct in that technology can be used to make humans obsolete in providing many services...but that misses the point which is that we can always come up with new services that we want.

That still requires you to have currency to buy stuff with. The growth of fast food is because people don't have the time to cook and that's because they have to spend so much time working because they have to pay for things like childcare because both parents have to work to afford the house. None of that is good.

 

[Commodore]

If one only sees taxes as 'bullying', the conversation gets more difficult. But remember that we're talking about unemployment up there, so either we're taxing corporations to provide welfare or we're taxing to encourage employment. It's the horns of dilemma, and perfect is going to be the enemy of the good.

It's not that I see taxes as bullying, it's that I see this particular type of taxation as bullying because of the motivations behind it. It all boils down to corporations not acting the way the government and the people want them to, so they decide to take their money away until they start "acting right". Also, forcing corporations to stop developing new automation technologies through taxation stifles human ingenuity and technological development. I'm just not a believer at all in the concept of stifling technological development simply because that development will put people out of a job. The reason I don't believe in choosing jobs over development is because I believe technology should be allowed to advance and develop completely unrestricted. Plus, every experience I've had with automated jobs in which I have also dealt with their human counterparts, my experience was always better with the machines, without exception.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, I am also pro-technology in many, many ways. Probably one of the most optimistic on that front on this board.

That said, remember, corporation are our servants. They're a specific legal entity, and they get specific obligations and privileges that normal people don't get. So we're allowed to adjust policies for them to our benefit. But yeah, going Luddite on them isn't the best idea. I'd prefer using taxes to employ people to create Public Goods (in the economic sense) than hamper any specific corporations to increase efficiency in creating their output.

Their efficiency lowers the net cost of producing a good, which is a good thing in and of itself. It's the loss of employment that's the problem. Not the gain in efficiency. We need to keep our eye on that ball.

 

[Lexicus]

It's not that I see taxes as bullying, it's that I see this particular type of taxation as bullying because of the motivations behind it. It all boils down to corporations not acting the way the government and the people want them to, so they decide to take their money away until they start "acting right". Also, forcing corporations to stop developing new automation technologies through taxation stifles human ingenuity and technological development. I'm just not a believer at all in the concept of stifling technological development simply because that development will put people out of a job. The reason I don't believe in choosing jobs over development is because I believe technology should be allowed to advance and develop completely unrestricted. Plus, every experience I've had with automated jobs in which I have also dealt with their human counterparts, my experience was always better with the machines, without exception.

Come on, corporations are creations of public law and the public absolutely has the right to regulate their conduct using the government. Yeah, you're damn right the power of the state needs to be deployed to make them 'act right.' I wonder how you'd feel if, for example, your children were poisoned because a corporation decided to pollute the air they were breathing and the water they were drinking. Maybe I'm wrong but I bet you'd be a bit more amenable to 'taking away their money until they start acting right.'

Actually, I think the best way to compel corporations to act right is not to take their money but to imprison people who are responsible for specific offenses. But that's getting off-topic.

As for the question of technology, of course I favor more technical sophistication. It's worth pointing out, of course, that technologies are typically developed by public institutions and then made profitable by corporations, rather than the image many people seem to have where corporations are somehow responsible for all technological progress themselves.

But anyway, the question isn't how to limit technological progress, the question is how to deploy the increasing surplus to make lives easier for most/all people, instead of having all the benefits go to the wealthy.

 

[Commodore]

Come on, corporations are creations of public law and the public absolutely has the right to regulate their conduct using the government. Yeah, you're damn right the power of the state needs to be deployed to make them 'act right.' I wonder how you'd feel if, for example, your children were poisoned because a corporation decided to pollute the air they were breathing and the water they were drinking. Maybe I'm wrong but I bet you'd be a bit more amenable to 'taking away their money until they start acting right.'

See, you seem to think of corporations in terms of the large multinationals that you despise so much. However, just about every small business out there is a corporation as well. The problem with that, is the regulations are geared towards the large multinationals, but apply to the small businesses as well. That simply isn't fair and often stifles economic development as well as creating even more barriers to those who wish to start their own business.

Are you seriously going to tell me that you are in favor of taxing a local restaurant chain into oblivion just because it's more viable financially to automate than it would be to hire people? How is that in any way fair?

Also, nice try with the "what if it were your children" logical fallacy. You are correct in what my response would be if my children were harmed by a corporation, but that's precisely why I shouldn't part of the decision making process in such a situation. My position and actions would be influenced purely by emotion and large-scale social decisions should have as small of an emotional factor as we can possibly achieve.

 

[Lexicus]

See, you seem to think of corporations in terms of the large multinationals that you despise so much. However, just about every small business out there is a corporation as well.

If you think small businesses are necessarily more ethical than large multinationals, you're sadly mistaken.

Are you seriously going to tell me that you are in favor of taxing a local restaurant chain into oblivion just because it's more viable financially to automate than it would be to hire people? How is that in any way fair?

In fact, I'm not in favor of that - but maybe you can tell me how it's "fair" that a restaurant can simply lay people off if it's more profitable for robots to do their jobs? Seems like "fairness" is wholly beside the point here.

Also, nice try with the "what if it were your children" logical fallacy. You are correct in what my response would be if my children were harmed by a corporation, but that's precisely why I shouldn't part of the decision making process in such a situation. My position and actions would be influenced purely by emotion and large-scale social decisions should have as small of an emotional factor as we can possibly achieve.

It kind of sounds like you're in favor of legally allowing corporations to poison people. Fortunately, we have laws that pretty effectively bully the corporations into not poisoning people, though they are not as effective as I would like.

 

[Commodore]

It kind of sounds like you're in favor of legally allowing corporations to poison people. Fortunately, we have laws that pretty effectively bully the corporations into not poisoning people, though they are not as effective as I would like.

Nah, I'm just not seriously entertaining a ridiculous analogy. Automation and poisoning people are two completely different things. One thing makes life better for everyone, while the other serves no practical purpose for society.

Automation has always been a net positive for humanity as a whole in the long term, even if it causes short term pain. The problem though, is that no one is willing to accept that short term pain. That's why I am skeptical of anyone who opposes automation or wants to slow it down. It all just strikes me as a downright shamelessly selfish attempt people are making to cling to their obsolete jobs rather than take the time to develop new skill sets that make them attractive candidates for all the new jobs out there that aren't automated (yet).

EDIT: Forgot to address this:

In fact, I'm not in favor of that - but maybe you can tell me how it's "fair" that a restaurant can simply lay people off if it's more profitable for robots to do their jobs? Seems like "fairness" is wholly beside the point here.

It's fair for a business owner to layoff his/her workers for robots because it is their business. The whole point of a business is to make money for its owner, not to provide jobs to the community. It's also fair because employees agree to such policies when they sign their employment agreements. If you don't think the terms of your employment agreement are fair, then you don't sign it and look for employment elsewhere. If you sign it, then you are saying that you agree to the terms and think they are fair and equitable.

 

[Lexicus]

Look, most of us agree that social dynamism is good, the question is who bears the cost of that dynamism. I think it ought to be borne by the rich, and not the wage laborers who are getting laid off by machines.

And, BTW, you missed the point of the 'analogy' which was actually an 'example' of a behavior we might want to bully corporations into not doing.

 

[Vectors]

What if there isn't enough productive labour? Would it be so bad to reduce the work week or have a universal basic income?

 

[Lexicus]

I certainly don't think so. I would favor both those things.

 

[metalhead]

It's fair for a business owner to layoff his/her workers for robots because it is their business. The whole point of a business is to make money for its owner, not to provide jobs to the community. It's also fair because employees agree to such policies when they sign their employment agreements. If you don't think the terms of your employment agreement are fair, then you don't sign it and look for employment elsewhere. If you sign it, then you are saying that you agree to the terms and think they are fair and equitable.

Most people don't have employment agreements, and protections against abusive employers are something that the types of employees vulnerable to abuse don't have the money or time to fight over in court.

The point of a business oughtn't to be to solely make money for its owner. That's going to have to fundamentally change once making money for business owners and shareholders becomes incompatible with keeping the population fully employed. The mindset of money first has done irreparable damage to our planet in many cases, not to mention caused premature death and disease for millions upon millions of people, simply because someone who owned a business made profitability their only goal.

 

[Commodore]

Most people don't have employment agreements, and protections against abusive employers are something that the types of employees vulnerable to abuse don't have the money or time to fight over in court.

Every job I have ever had, I was handed a piece of paper that outlined my duties and described my employment status (at-will, contractor, etc.) and informed that piece of paper was the formal offer of employment and would serve as an employment agreement. Since the wide variety of companies I have worked for have all done this, I can only assume this is a standard business practice. Of course, I will admit that I have never held a job in either fast food or retail, so maybe they don't do employment agreements, but I doubt it. People probably just sign it without realizing they even signed an employment agreement since it's usually done while signing the entire encyclopedia's worth of paperwork required to start working for someone.

 

[Lexicus]

It doesn't matter, because things people sign under the threat of starvation and stigmatization are not 'fair agreements' in any sense of the word.

Anyway by the same token one could say that a corporation agrees to be 'bullied' by the government when it uses the government's laws to exist...you still haven't addressed the point that corporations are creations of the law, not entities unto themselves that are not accountable to the wider society (just as all of us are accountable to the wider society).

 

[Commodore]

It doesn't matter, because things people sign under the threat of starvation and stigmatization are not 'fair agreements' in any sense of the word.

Anyway by the same token one could say that a corporation agrees to be 'bullied' by the government when it uses the government's laws to exist...you still haven't addressed the point that corporations are creations of the law, not entities unto themselves that are not accountable to the wider society (just as all of us are accountable to the wider society).

I never said corporations shouldn't be accountable when they actually do something harmful. Automation isn't harmful though, so I am of the belief that the government and society at large have absolutely no right to try to stop corporations from automating jobs.

 

[Lexicus]

I never said corporations shouldn't be accountable when they actually do something harmful. Automation isn't harmful though, so I am of the belief that the government and society at large have absolutely no right to try to stop corporations from automating jobs.

It's a question of who is harmed. You act like no one is harmed by automation, but that's simply untrue. Automation carried out under the circumstances described in this thread can certainly hurt people (namely, workers who are laid off because of it), even as it allows companies to be more profitable and charge less for things.

Similarly, allowing companies to poison people benefits them by making them more profitable and benefits consumers by enabling cheaper goods.

I am of the belief that the government and society at large have the right to do basically whatever they like with respect to corporations. It's not a mater of right or fair, because (again) a corporation exists at the pleasure of the public. The question is what public policies with respect to corporations will lead to better social outcomes.

I tend to agree with you that discouraging automation is not a good idea...but I've no problem with (for example) taxing corporations and spending on social services like new job training or unemployment insurance. I've no problem using tax incentives to drive corporations to create their own insurance and benefit pools for laid-off workers. Etc.

 

[metalhead]

Every job I have ever had, I was handed a piece of paper that outlined my duties and described my employment status (at-will, contractor, etc.) and informed that piece of paper was the formal offer of employment and would serve as an employment agreement. Since the wide variety of companies I have worked for have all done this, I can only assume this is a standard business practice. Of course, I will admit that I have never held a job in either fast food or retail, so maybe they don't do employment agreements, but I doubt it. People probably just sign it without realizing they even signed an employment agreement since it's usually done while signing the entire encyclopedia's worth of paperwork required to start working for someone.

The paper you signed likely had no legal force behind it, particularly if it said you are an at-will employee. Just because someone hands you a piece of paper and says it is an employment agreement doesn't mean much. If they asked you to do something not outlined in your listed duties, would you pull it out and refuse? What would the response have been? If the agreement is something that is not honored by the employer, and not enforceable through HR, then it doesn't do a whole lot of good.

Workers and society are both harmed by automation - workers in that they eliminate jobs and drive down demand for labor depressing wages, and society in that they allow a larger share of profits to go to business owners and shareholders instead of to middle class employees, increasing income and wealth inequality and reducing income and payroll tax revenue. Automation really only benefits business owners.

This of course doesn't mean that automation is bad or ought to be discouraged, but it means that we will need smart policy to minimize its negative impact. UBI and shorter work weeks for example. Far more extensive paid leave. Businesses should absolutely be required to serve the needs of society, not just the needs of their owners. Which means that if automation is going to eliminate jobs, and we don't manage to create demand for additional services to pick up the employment slack (something which, the more I think about it the more likely it seems will actually happen), then there is no reason not to force businesses to pay people the same amount of money for significantly less work.

 

[rah]

Corporations owe you squat. If they want to operate in your sphere than they must agree to your demands. If you demand more than they're willing to pay then they can choose not to play. If they choose not to play you may be damaged so you have to careful what you demand.

They should only serve the needs of society if it's in their interest. It must be a mutual agreement.

Some of those agreements should be obvious. (you will not poison the population) Others, are not.