If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The American Conservative)   A compelling argument for raising wages by the pinko Commies at the American Conservative   (theamericanconservative.com) divider line 75
    More: Interesting, American conservatives, pinko commie, Americans, knowledge economy, Business education, home maintenance, for-profit colleges, wage earners  
•       •       •

2361 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2012 at 3:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-20 11:39:58 AM
FTA:

Consider the impact of a large increase in the federal minimum wage, perhaps to $10 or more likely $12 per hour.

The generally low-end jobs catalogued above are entirely in the non-tradable service sector; they could not be outsourced to even lower-paid foreigners in Bangalore or Manila. Perhaps there might be some incentive for further automation, but the nature of the jobs in question - focused on personal interactions requiring human skills - are exactly those least open to mechanical replacement. Just consider the difficulty and expense of automating the job of a home health care aide, child care worker, or bartender.

With direct replacement via outsourcing or automation unlikely, employers responding to a higher minimum wage would be faced with the choice of either increasing the wages of their lowest paid workers by perhaps a couple of dollars per hour, or eliminating their jobs. There would likely be some job loss,[vii] but given the simultaneous rise in labor costs among all competitors and the localized market for these services, the logical business response would be to raise prices by a few percent to help cover increased costs while also trimming current profit margins. Perhaps consumers would pay 3 percent more for Wal-Mart goods or an extra dime for a McDonald's hamburger, but most of the jobs would still exist and the price changes would be small compared to typical fluctuations due to commodity and energy prices, international exchange rates, or Chinese production costs.

The resulting one-time inflationary spike would slightly raise living expenses for everyone in our society, but the immediate 20% or 30% boost in the take-home pay of many millions of America's lowest income workers would make it easy for them to absorb these small costs, while the impact upon the middle or upper classes would be totally negligible. An increase in the hourly minimum wage from the current federal level of $7.25 to (say) $12.00 might also have secondary, smaller ripple effects, boosting wages currently above that level as well.


I... I'm having a bit of cognitive dissonance here. I'm so used to utter nonsense from anyone labeling themselves "Conservative" that I am having an *extremely* hard time processing the concept of something that makes economic sense from the right.

From the "Who We Are"

What wrecked the good name of conservatism? Success. The conservative critique of the liberal welfare-warfare state was so powerful that special interests (such as those that President Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial Complex) and opportunistic politicians began to adopt the label and offer fame, money, and power to conservatives who would admit them to the fellowship. As well, there was another reaction against the new age of ideology and bigness, a populist reaction. Combining populist anger with the name of conservatism proved a winning formula for fundraisers and office-seekers. But instead of making the populist uprising more conservative, the effect was to remake conservatism as populism. Thus the principle conservative values of peace, community, and economic responsibility came to be lost amid wars and rumors of wars, military Keynesianism and promises of perpetual, debt-fueled growth.

I think I need to go lie down
 
2012-11-20 11:43:13 AM
With Americans still trapped in the fifth year of our Great Recession, and median personal income having been essentially stagnant for forty years, perhaps we should finally admit that decades of economic policies have largely failed...

Although our media often pays greater attention to the recent gains in stock market and asset prices, such paltry growth means that many of the millions of jobs lost in 2008 and 2009 will never be regained, and the broadest measures of American unemployment and underemployment will remain stuck in the vicinity of 15%.[ii] Meanwhile, an astonishing 93% of the total increase in income during the recovery period has been captured by the top one percent of earners, who now hold almost as much net wealth as the bottom 95 percent of our society.


sideshow.me.uk

Did someone hack the American Conservative?
 
2012-11-20 11:45:37 AM
From the other side of the aisle, also a private sector proposal:

Large retail firms are in the position to improve the lives of millions of American workers and their families, and to boost the national economy, all while improving their own outlook for growth. This study shows that a new wage floor that pays the equivalent of $25,000 per year for full time work, or $12.25 per hour, would raise the living standards of at least 5 million American households and feed back into the economy across sectors. Workers spending higher incomes in the marketplace - on retail goods and other purchases - could lead to the addition of $11.8 to $15.2 billion to GDP and between 100,000 and 132,000 new jobs. At the same time, the wage increase would be a productive investment for firms and a negligible cost for consumers. With a host of benefits and a small price tag, large retailers can embrace this opportunity to make a positive change in the economy by paying a wage that supports families, improves productivity, increases sales, and generates new economic activity and jobs.

Link

Nice to see some agreement on one thing: the middle class, the real job creators, do not have enough money and as a result aggregate demand is and will continue to suffer.
 
2012-11-20 11:52:07 AM
There is going to be an increase in the pay going to entry level workers. But an increase in the minimum wage is just silly and not really necessary. A national minimum wage is just a silly idea all around. You think anyone working in New York, New York is working at McD for 7.25 an hour?! In Tulsa you can actually support yourself on that. Sorry sorry I'll get off the soap box

However most of the time you hear about an increase in the min wage it is just raw meat for the union guys. Most of the Teamsters I know and all the AFL-CIO peps I know have pay packages tied to the minimum wage. Maybe the Republican party thinks it can win itself some converts. I find that unlikely but they have a couple of years to try.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-20 12:14:37 PM
It sounds like a good idea. As automation and outsourcing replace manufacturing jobs a larger percentage of people are going to be working in the service industries.

People forget that consumer demand is what drives the economy and that there are no customers unless there are consumers with money to spend.
 
2012-11-20 12:41:58 PM
Back when I ran the Iron Horse, I took over to labor costs running in the 41% range.

My solution was to scale back my runners--who were essentially bussers who were used as minimum wage prep cooks. Mostly students, they were coming in as a crew of three, on top of cooks who came in later. Looking at the numbers, I scaled back my runners' shifts by three hours, and brought my cooks in an hour earlier. I gave my cooks a pay increase, and they got the job done by the runners in half the time, were happier because they were not only getting more hours, but a higher wage, and I was still saving payroll. My runners were happier, because they had time to actually study, they were tipped, so while they were getting less in their paychecks, they made up the difference by applying themselves to dealing with the waitstaff, who tipped them more for the increase in their attention and the services they provided to them.

By the time I left, I was running a 26-28% labor cost, and a similar food cost. Why? Because I looked at the numbers and adjusted our performance. I worked a lot of hours, certainly, because I was management, and that meant that I picked up a lot of the slack when folks needed time down. And that is really the issue. If you want to decrease your labor numbers, someone has to pick up the slack. Your management isn't just there to crunch paperwork, but to be in the trenches. That meant I was washing dishes, I was in on cleaning days, I was doing the receiving and the prep. I was a hands on chef, and I worked just about every damn show. If shows had tiny numbers, I worked them alone with a single dishwasher and no runners. I paid better, and applied my people better so that they didn't feel like they were wasting their time. They were valued assets to the company, and felt that way.

You want better workers? More loyal workers? Treat them like it. Invest in them. Invest in their training, invest in their lives a bit even. Cripes, I went to bat for my dishwashers with their parole officers, and bailed a few out when they got into trouble. That paid off in spades, because those folks knew I was going to bat for them all the time. I had cooks with me for years, which in the restaurant industry in a college town is neigh unheard of, because we treated our folks well, and I paid better than my competition. And we profited from that, because I didn't have to spend time training new folks constantly. I knew I could count on my people.

You want better workers? BE better management.
 
2012-11-20 12:44:31 PM

vpb: It sounds like a good idea.


It sounds like a liberal idea. Break out the torches and pitchforks, people!
 
2012-11-20 12:44:51 PM

hubiestubert: You want better workers? More loyal workers? Treat them like it. Invest in them. Invest in their training, invest in their lives a bit even.


I don't know. Sounds communist.
 
2012-11-20 12:57:12 PM

hubiestubert: I worked a lot of hours, certainly, because I was management, and that meant that I picked up a lot of the slack when folks needed time down. And that is really the issue. If you want to decrease your labor numbers, someone has to pick up the slack.


That's a key point right there. When all else has failed and they have run out of ideas look for an increase in vacation time, maturity leave, or sick days. If everyone in your office has a month of vacation you have to hire more people to cover the shifts. It's the European model
 
2012-11-20 01:15:01 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: If everyone in your office has a month of vacation you have to hire more people to cover the shifts.


Office? I'm a chef. I work for a living.
 
2012-11-20 01:54:33 PM
What's the point of owning a business if you can't treat your employees like serfs?
 
2012-11-20 01:57:45 PM
Being a member of the group of libbiest libby lib libs that ever libbed, I have to say I'm finding these American Conservative links to be required reading. Cogent, reasoned thought from the right that doesn't degenerate into dipshiatty WHARRGARBL in five words or less like all the other right wing troll links we get around here.

I just might subscribe.
 
2012-11-20 01:57:53 PM

Lionel Mandrake: What's the point of owning a business if you can't treat your employees like serfs?


We are approaching that level of wealth distribution at this point...
 
2012-11-20 02:00:42 PM
Finally, at least someone on the right wing blog world gets it.
 
2012-11-20 02:06:03 PM
I'm not clicking on anything from the American RINO again. This article makes too much sense and not enough Jesus.
 
2012-11-20 02:17:45 PM

impaler: With Americans still trapped in the fifth year of our Great Recession,


It's certainly convenient for pessimistic Conservatives that there are definitions for "recession" other than the technical definition (2 quarters of negative GDP growth), because by any official, academic definition we haven't been in a recession for a couple years now.
 
2012-11-20 02:43:37 PM
The American Conservative is a good magazine - they are intellectually consistent. I'm a liberal, but I have a subscription. It's good reading, with occasional exceptions. (I'm looking at you Buchanan)

They represent what conservative thought was before they all went crazy.
 
2012-11-20 03:23:08 PM
Sounds like a good start.
 
2012-11-20 03:25:34 PM
Is this going to be like that policy paper on copyrights that gots yanked a few hours later?
 
2012-11-20 03:26:11 PM
i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-20 03:29:32 PM

hubiestubert: You want better workers? BE better management.


Poppycock. Everyone knows that low-wage jobs require no skills above and beyond having a pulse and every low-wage worker is a nameless, faceless resource that is infinitely replaceable.
 
2012-11-20 03:41:25 PM
What about Milton Friedman's argument that someone with few skills is hurt by minimum wage laws because they're not worth minimum wage yet? Should there be an exception for an apprenticeship, or a sliding minimum wage based on age?
 
2012-11-20 03:44:49 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: impaler: With Americans still trapped in the fifth year of our Great Recession,

It's certainly convenient for pessimistic Conservatives that there are definitions for "recession" other than the technical definition (2 quarters of negative GDP growth), because by any official, academic definition we haven't been in a recession for a couple years now.


A nasty and unnecessary blemish on an otherwise excellent piece. It's not clear why the author felt the need to open with a soft lie, unless it's to prime the reader to accept the premise: the country is in dire straights (Great Recession, y'all!), so here's a way to fix it. A good editor would have red-lined that bit of bullshytt.
 
2012-11-20 03:45:56 PM
I have a beter idea - place capital gains on the same basis as other earnings, and earmark the money for wage enhancement for low earners, rather than throwing that burden onto already pressed small businesses.
Sure - it's "welfare" but so is any other state mandated transfer of wealth.
 
2012-11-20 03:47:22 PM
(looks at name of website, shakes head profusely and looks again to make sure.)

That article made sense. That is how Henry Ford did it. While it might create some initial cost increases, it will also create a larger pool of consumers with more to spend. This is basically what the working class wants, a living wage; not "socialism". "Obamacare" would be a non-issue if the private sector provided either adequate healthcare benefits or a wage to where the employee could afford health insurance.
 
2012-11-20 03:48:00 PM
I don't even understand how that article is conservative. I guess I'm young enough that the only conservativeness I've ever know is the fundamentalist infused fark-you-I got-mine variety.
 
2012-11-20 03:49:19 PM

heavymetal: (looks at name of website, shakes head profusely and looks again to make sure.)

That article made sense. That is how Henry Ford did it. While it might create some initial cost increases, it will also create a larger pool of consumers with more to spend. This is basically what the working class wants, a living wage; not "socialism". "Obamacare" would be a non-issue if the private sector provided either adequate healthcare benefits or a wage to where the employee could afford health insurance.


eh, I think regardless of wages, we need to separate health care from employment. it stifles entrepreneurship and career mobility.
 
2012-11-20 03:50:50 PM

GentDirkly: What about Milton Friedman's argument that someone with few skills is hurt by minimum wage laws because they're not worth minimum wage yet?


It's based on a retarded premise - namely, that there is a class of work for which "minimum" wage is too high.

It's a "minimum" because that is the baseline by which all other wages should be judged. We set a "minimum" so that employers can't rip off low-skill employees (who need work that pays, and they'll make do with less if it means money is coming in). And if a Friedmanite tries to tell me that "the market" will set a "minimum" wage wherever it damn well pleases, I will slap him in the face with every non-free-market rule we have: legalized monopolies, subsidies, tax cuts/breaks for large entities (or those in the correct fields, like oil production)...

// wait staff not included, but they're paid in "taxed" tips
// always leave cash tips (and not "Bible verse on a dollar bill", you cheapskates) for your wait staff, if possible
 
2012-11-20 03:51:47 PM
"Thus the principle conservative values of peace, community, and economic responsibility came to be lost amid wars and rumors of wars, military Keynesianism and promises of perpetual, debt-fueled growth."

The first sounds suspiciously like socialism, and also how can you be a military Keynesian ?
Unless I really misunderstand him, the basic trope is pay off debt during boom, accrue debt in bust, a constant state of war accrues debt without limit increasing spending with revenue or without revenue in a totally arbitrary way, or did I miss the last 50-60 years?
 
2012-11-20 03:53:26 PM

GentDirkly: What about Milton Friedman's argument that someone with few skills is hurt by minimum wage laws because they're not worth minimum wage yet? Should there be an exception for an apprenticeship, or a sliding minimum wage based on age?


The article addresses that: basically, the only low end jobs left can't be outsourced, and employers have already cut everyone they can. Net result: inflation, but those on the low end are gaining far more in additional income, and those not on the low end can deal with moderate inflation
 
2012-11-20 03:56:08 PM

hubiestubert: Back when I ran the Iron Horse, I took over to labor costs running in the 41% range.

My solution was to scale back my runners--who were essentially bussers who were used as minimum wage prep cooks. Mostly students, they were coming in as a crew of three, on top of cooks who came in later. Looking at the numbers, I scaled back my runners' shifts by three hours, and brought my cooks in an hour earlier. I gave my cooks a pay increase, and they got the job done by the runners in half the time, were happier because they were not only getting more hours, but a higher wage, and I was still saving payroll. My runners were happier, because they had time to actually study, they were tipped, so while they were getting less in their paychecks, they made up the difference by applying themselves to dealing with the waitstaff, who tipped them more for the increase in their attention and the services they provided to them.

By the time I left, I was running a 26-28% labor cost, and a similar food cost. Why? Because I looked at the numbers and adjusted our performance. I worked a lot of hours, certainly, because I was management, and that meant that I picked up a lot of the slack when folks needed time down. And that is really the issue. If you want to decrease your labor numbers, someone has to pick up the slack. Your management isn't just there to crunch paperwork, but to be in the trenches. That meant I was washing dishes, I was in on cleaning days, I was doing the receiving and the prep. I was a hands on chef, and I worked just about every damn show. If shows had tiny numbers, I worked them alone with a single dishwasher and no runners. I paid better, and applied my people better so that they didn't feel like they were wasting their time. They were valued assets to the company, and felt that way.

You want better workers? More loyal workers? Treat them like it. Invest in them. Invest in their training, invest in their lives a bit even. Cripes, I went to bat for my dishwashers w ...


Rule of Acquisition #211: Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them
 
2012-11-20 04:08:31 PM

albatros183: "Thus the principle conservative values of peace, community, and economic responsibility came to be lost amid wars and rumors of wars, military Keynesianism and promises of perpetual, debt-fueled growth."

The first sounds suspiciously like socialism, and also how can you be a military Keynesian ?
Unless I really misunderstand him, the basic trope is pay off debt during boom, accrue debt in bust, a constant state of war accrues debt without limit increasing spending with revenue or without revenue in a totally arbitrary way, or did I miss the last 50-60 years?


One word. Military industrial complex. Keynesian can also mean using the govt spending to generate growth. You use the military as a dumping ground to buy material and this generates jobs and economic growth.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-11-20 04:08:42 PM
You've got it all wrong.

"It's good for ME to get a pay raise, it's just wrong for EVERYONE ELSE to get one."

In the U.S. this phrase appears to be true no matter who is saying it.
 
2012-11-20 04:09:22 PM

manimal2878: I don't even understand how that article is conservative.


because it promotes an economic policy that tends towards personal, familial, and community stability.
don't confuse 'conservative' with 'rightwing'. the loudest opponents of the iraq invasion were conservatives: this magazine (which was founded in reaction to iraq), and other journals (inc. websites) like it (see antiwar.com).
 
2012-11-20 04:16:20 PM

mentula: manimal2878: I don't even understand how that article is conservative.

because it promotes an economic policy that tends towards personal, familial, and community stability.
don't confuse 'conservative' with 'rightwing'. the loudest opponents of the iraq invasion were conservatives: this magazine (which was founded in reaction to iraq), and other journals (inc. websites) like it (see antiwar.com).


Bullshiat. During the run up to the war there was almost no right-wing presence in the antiwar movement. This is more of the right trying to lay claim to the work the left did.
 
2012-11-20 04:19:34 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: mentula: manimal2878: I don't even understand how that article is conservative.

because it promotes an economic policy that tends towards personal, familial, and community stability.
don't confuse 'conservative' with 'rightwing'. the loudest opponents of the iraq invasion were conservatives: this magazine (which was founded in reaction to iraq), and other journals (inc. websites) like it (see antiwar.com).

Bullshiat. During the run up to the war there was almost no right-wing presence in the antiwar movement. This is more of the right trying to lay claim to the work the left did.


Define conservative. It is really down to semantics.
 
2012-11-20 04:19:42 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Bullshiat. During the run up to the war there was almost no right-wing presence in the antiwar movement. This is more of the right trying to lay claim to the work the left did.


you need to read more widely
 
2012-11-20 04:30:41 PM

mentula: manimal2878: I don't even understand how that article is conservative.

because it promotes an economic policy that tends towards personal, familial, and community stability.
don't confuse 'conservative' with 'rightwing'. the loudest opponents of the iraq invasion were conservatives: this magazine (which was founded in reaction to iraq), and other journals (inc. websites) like it (see antiwar.com).


Liberalism also promotes personal, family and community stability. I don't think that is a sufficient answer.

This is the type of thing liberals have been saying about wage disparity for 30 years. Again, except for the title at the top of the page, it doesn't look like anything I have ever known a conservative to agree with or endorse.
 
2012-11-20 04:34:38 PM

Saiga410: A Dark Evil Omen: mentula: manimal2878: I don't even understand how that article is conservative.

because it promotes an economic policy that tends towards personal, familial, and community stability.
don't confuse 'conservative' with 'rightwing'. the loudest opponents of the iraq invasion were conservatives: this magazine (which was founded in reaction to iraq), and other journals (inc. websites) like it (see antiwar.com).

Bullshiat. During the run up to the war there was almost no right-wing presence in the antiwar movement. This is more of the right trying to lay claim to the work the left did.

Define conservative. It is really down to semantics.


In America, it means you hate science and women. Do i get a prize?
 
2012-11-20 04:43:14 PM

ghare: Saiga410: A Dark Evil Omen: mentula: manimal2878: I don't even understand how that article is conservative.

because it promotes an economic policy that tends towards personal, familial, and community stability.
don't confuse 'conservative' with 'rightwing'. the loudest opponents of the iraq invasion were conservatives: this magazine (which was founded in reaction to iraq), and other journals (inc. websites) like it (see antiwar.com).

Bullshiat. During the run up to the war there was almost no right-wing presence in the antiwar movement. This is more of the right trying to lay claim to the work the left did.

Define conservative. It is really down to semantics.

In America, it means you hate science and women. Do i get a prize?


No you forgot to add fascist theology, and the gahys
 
2012-11-20 04:50:44 PM
Conservatives that make sense? What'll they think of next?

/ Cereally the Fark ALT Crew should be reading this shiat!
 
2012-11-20 05:42:35 PM
Anyone who is surprised by this article hasn't read TAC for very long.
 
2012-11-20 05:46:53 PM

d23: You've got it all wrong.

"It's good for ME to get a pay raise, it's just wrong for EVERYONE ELSE to get one."

In the U.S. this phrase appears to be true no matter who is saying it.


I don't know how you guys have a reputation for being arrogant and selfish.
 
2012-11-20 06:08:58 PM
When did American Conservative start hiring real conservatives?
 
2012-11-20 06:18:30 PM
They always catch up to liberals eventually.
 
2012-11-20 06:36:28 PM
hubiestubert: You want better workers? More loyal workers? Treat them like it. Invest in them. Invest in their training, invest in their lives a bit even.
As a military officer, I apply this all the time. It absolutely pays off.
 
2012-11-20 06:36:53 PM

heavymetal: "Obamacare" would be a non-issue if the private sector provided either adequate healthcare benefits or a wage to where the employee could afford health insurance.


Without some of the regulations that we didn't have pre-PPACA, there is no such wage possible. Even if everyone made at least the $35k or so necessary to afford a universal-community-rated health insurance, some 30-40% of the country still wouldn't be able to buy it due to pre-existing conditions. There's at least 10% of the population (people who have already had cancer or a heart attack, etc) that the insurance industry wouldn't want to touch individually for short of six figures for insurance along.

Old-school conservatives of the Bob Dole/George Bush Sr. era understood that this was a problem. That's why they proposed in the Senate as a half-thought-through semi-solution, well, basically Obamacare. Back in 1995 or so. Which is where Mitt Romney got the idea to run with it in Massachusetts.
 
2012-11-20 06:36:58 PM

stratagos: ... I'm having a bit of cognitive dissonance here. I'm so used to utter nonsense from anyone labeling themselves "Conservative" that I am having an *extremely* hard time processing the concept of something that makes economic sense from the right.


American Conservative has actual conservatives, who would just as soon join you in throwing the Tea Party down a flight of stairs as agree with them

DeaH: When did American Conservative start hiring real conservatives?


A while ago.

manimal2878: I don't even understand how that article is conservative.


It's concerned with the individual. Old school conservatism.
 
2012-11-20 07:15:19 PM
American Conservative is one of the few conservative sites out there that isn't pants-on-head retarded.
 
2012-11-20 08:01:30 PM
You goddamn people ignore your own pattern of repetitive destruction every single time. In fact the income inequality gap requires X amount of time to be erased from the voting public's mind. As soon as that happens, the wealthy crush the dumb proles. The poverty gets so bad that a new social contract needs to be written.

How about cutting that shiat out and building a real middle class that can keep the economic engine going 24/7 for decades? You'd be on farking Mars by now if you just knew what was good for you.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report