|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
There's a false dichotomy here based on some incorrect assumptions. History shows that it's far from likely that these unskilled jobs will always be necessary. What can be outsourced has been outsourced, and what can be automated has or will be automated. I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple years a typical McDonald's strips its staff down to a manager, a few employees to take orders and interact with customers, and a few engineers and maintenance people who are shared by a few locations.
The same thing goes for many other jobs. Remember when farms needed hundreds of laborers? Then came machinery which reduced the workforce by 90%, and then came heavy machinery which reduced the workforce even more.
These jobs are going, going, gone. There will be a few left, but we've already seen this trend happen with the manufacturing industry. These people need skilled jobs which are relatively immune to automation/outsourcing. We either build a stupidly large safety net, or we force the creation of skilled jobs and the means (education) for people to fill them.
|
On July 16 2015 06:15 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2015 05:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 16 2015 01:14 Sermokala wrote:On July 15 2015 22:03 Gorsameth wrote:On July 15 2015 21:58 Sermokala wrote:
Wow you really are a joke of the minimum wage movement. You're against training people skills so they get out of minimum wage jobs because you think burger flipping is so vital to our economy that people should be able to live off it?
You can't bash reps for being obtuse when you're wearing ideology blinders like that.
The iran deal is pretty bad compared to say cold war deals but the enemy in this case is on a hard clock and we're not. So any deal is good. Thats not what he said at all. He said that there will always be someone working those burger flipping jobs and that person should not need government assistance to live. Ofcourse people should be able to get education but that doesn't mean those jobs stop existing. But the point of those jobs isn't and shouldn't be enough to support a family. They don't produce anything or contribute to the economy in any meaningful way. He bashed scotty (I don't support the guy) because he suggested that the government should be concentrating on training people into new skill positions instead of raising the minimum wage into something people could live off of. The problem with the $15 minimum wage is that it'll eliminate manufacturing jobs and other non service industry jobs that actually contribute to something instead of filling people into a proverty cycle where low level service jobs are all they end up having. Are you fucking serious? This is some of the most insulting, condescending stuff I've heard coming from someone on these boards, and that's saying something. The idea that "these jobs shouldn't be enough to support a family" is utterly ridiculous and screams of privileged ignorance. The reality is that the majority of people aren't intelligent enough or just aren't in a position to "get an education". Society needs workers that only have a high school education, and shouldn't stigmatize this as "settling" or somehow being lesser than having an education and a job correlating to it. The idea that they don't contribute to the economy is a joke; many of the essential services that make your life enjoyable are done by someone without an advanced education that's getting paid crap. "These jobs aren't for supporting families" is utter bullshit. There will always be people to work these jobs because they will always be necessary. They shouldn't be resigned to a life of crushing poverty for it. "Everyone should get an education" is an ignorant pipe dream that isn't even remotely feasible due to the fact that there aren't enough jobs to hire everyone if they were all "educated". This is why you have a huge unemployment rate for college graduates right now, and many of them that are working are working jobs that only require a high school education. You're presenting a false dichotomy here based on some incorrect assumptions. History shows that it's far from likely that these unskilled jobs will always be necessary. What can be outsourced has been outsourced, and what can be automated has or will be automated. I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple years a typical McDonald's strips its staff down to a manager, a few employees to take orders and interact with customers, and a few engineers and maintenance people who are shared by a few locations. The point is, these jobs are going, going, gone. There will be a few left, but we've already seen this trend happen with the manufacturing industry. These people need skilled jobs which are relatively immune to automation/outsourcing. We either build a stupidly large safety net, or we force the creation of skilled jobs and the means (education) for people to fill them.
The particular jobs that we have now will eventually be automated or outsourced.
However, there will always be "unskilled" jobs. "Unskilled" now would blow the minds of 18th century America. The fact is that there will always be a bottom rung in terms of income and skill/education level. We need to make sure that every job (if you work full/near full time) pays a wage that a person can actually live off of.
You cannot and never will be able to support the bulk of the population on "skilled" jobs, precisely because "skilled" entails having knowledge or abilities that the wider population doesn't have. The absolute definition of these will change (being a "skilled" worker 200 years ago definitely didn't require the education it requires now), but the overall structure of the work force will stay the same.
|
On July 16 2015 06:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2015 06:15 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 16 2015 05:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 16 2015 01:14 Sermokala wrote:On July 15 2015 22:03 Gorsameth wrote:On July 15 2015 21:58 Sermokala wrote:
Wow you really are a joke of the minimum wage movement. You're against training people skills so they get out of minimum wage jobs because you think burger flipping is so vital to our economy that people should be able to live off it?
You can't bash reps for being obtuse when you're wearing ideology blinders like that.
The iran deal is pretty bad compared to say cold war deals but the enemy in this case is on a hard clock and we're not. So any deal is good. Thats not what he said at all. He said that there will always be someone working those burger flipping jobs and that person should not need government assistance to live. Ofcourse people should be able to get education but that doesn't mean those jobs stop existing. But the point of those jobs isn't and shouldn't be enough to support a family. They don't produce anything or contribute to the economy in any meaningful way. He bashed scotty (I don't support the guy) because he suggested that the government should be concentrating on training people into new skill positions instead of raising the minimum wage into something people could live off of. The problem with the $15 minimum wage is that it'll eliminate manufacturing jobs and other non service industry jobs that actually contribute to something instead of filling people into a proverty cycle where low level service jobs are all they end up having. Are you fucking serious? This is some of the most insulting, condescending stuff I've heard coming from someone on these boards, and that's saying something. The idea that "these jobs shouldn't be enough to support a family" is utterly ridiculous and screams of privileged ignorance. The reality is that the majority of people aren't intelligent enough or just aren't in a position to "get an education". Society needs workers that only have a high school education, and shouldn't stigmatize this as "settling" or somehow being lesser than having an education and a job correlating to it. The idea that they don't contribute to the economy is a joke; many of the essential services that make your life enjoyable are done by someone without an advanced education that's getting paid crap. "These jobs aren't for supporting families" is utter bullshit. There will always be people to work these jobs because they will always be necessary. They shouldn't be resigned to a life of crushing poverty for it. "Everyone should get an education" is an ignorant pipe dream that isn't even remotely feasible due to the fact that there aren't enough jobs to hire everyone if they were all "educated". This is why you have a huge unemployment rate for college graduates right now, and many of them that are working are working jobs that only require a high school education. You're presenting a false dichotomy here based on some incorrect assumptions. History shows that it's far from likely that these unskilled jobs will always be necessary. What can be outsourced has been outsourced, and what can be automated has or will be automated. I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple years a typical McDonald's strips its staff down to a manager, a few employees to take orders and interact with customers, and a few engineers and maintenance people who are shared by a few locations. The point is, these jobs are going, going, gone. There will be a few left, but we've already seen this trend happen with the manufacturing industry. These people need skilled jobs which are relatively immune to automation/outsourcing. We either build a stupidly large safety net, or we force the creation of skilled jobs and the means (education) for people to fill them. The particular jobs that we have now will eventually be automated or outsourced. However, there will always be "unskilled" jobs. "Unskilled" now would blow the minds of 18th century America. The fact is that there will always be a bottom rung in terms of income and skill/education level. We need to make sure that every job (if you work full/near full time) pays a wage that a person can actually live off of.
Exactly. Surgical gloves are easy to make, but robots should be involved with every aspect. Recording documents are the registry of deeds isn't this amazingly hard task, but the state understands that people NEED to be paid well to do it. Robots are not going to pick up my trash and I need people to pick up my trash. And disposing of waste isn't something the free market is going to highly value, but its important to be disposed of correctly to avoid problems in the future. People don't do good jobs for shit money.
|
On July 16 2015 06:02 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2015 05:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 16 2015 01:14 Sermokala wrote:On July 15 2015 22:03 Gorsameth wrote:On July 15 2015 21:58 Sermokala wrote:
Wow you really are a joke of the minimum wage movement. You're against training people skills so they get out of minimum wage jobs because you think burger flipping is so vital to our economy that people should be able to live off it?
You can't bash reps for being obtuse when you're wearing ideology blinders like that.
The iran deal is pretty bad compared to say cold war deals but the enemy in this case is on a hard clock and we're not. So any deal is good. Thats not what he said at all. He said that there will always be someone working those burger flipping jobs and that person should not need government assistance to live. Ofcourse people should be able to get education but that doesn't mean those jobs stop existing. But the point of those jobs isn't and shouldn't be enough to support a family. They don't produce anything or contribute to the economy in any meaningful way. He bashed scotty (I don't support the guy) because he suggested that the government should be concentrating on training people into new skill positions instead of raising the minimum wage into something people could live off of. The problem with the $15 minimum wage is that it'll eliminate manufacturing jobs and other non service industry jobs that actually contribute to something instead of filling people into a proverty cycle where low level service jobs are all they end up having. Are you fucking serious? This is some of the most insulting, condescending stuff I've heard coming from someone on these boards, and that's saying something. The idea that "these jobs shouldn't be enough to support a family" is utterly ridiculous and screams of privileged ignorance. The reality is that the majority of people aren't intelligent enough or just aren't in a position to "get an education". Society needs workers that only have a high school education, and shouldn't stigmatize this as "settling" or somehow being lesser than having an education and a job correlating to it. The idea that they don't contribute to the economy is a joke; many of the essential services that make your life enjoyable are done by someone without an advanced education that's getting paid crap. "These jobs aren't for supporting families" is utter bullshit. There will always be people to work these jobs because they will always be necessary. They shouldn't be resigned to a life of crushing poverty for it. "Everyone should get an education" is an ignorant pipe dream that isn't even remotely feasible due to the fact that there aren't enough jobs to hire everyone if they were all "educated". This is why you have a huge unemployment rate for college graduates right now, and many of them that are working are working jobs that only require a high school education. That's fine just don't make minimum wage Federal, leave it to the states as all regions face different economic realities. They all have different costs of living and some regions have very large economic distortions that shouldn't be a factor for others.
This is pretty much where I stand. I feel like the minimum wage issue is best left to states. I laugh when someone like Bernie Sanders goes around saying we need a $15+ minimum wage nation wide. As if the cost of living is is the same in Fayetteville, Arkansas as it is in San Francisco. A "living" wage really depends on where you're living.
Imagine random places in rural America having to up their minimum wage to $15 an hour...it makes sense in places like San Francisco or Seattle, or Washington DC, where cost of living is through the roof, but making policies binding the whole country in order to keep up with big cities/high expense areas would be a disaster. One of the main reasons the cost of living is so high in those places in the first place is because there are other, higher paying jobs available for people who have the skills to work them.
|
On July 16 2015 06:26 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2015 06:02 Wolfstan wrote:On July 16 2015 05:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 16 2015 01:14 Sermokala wrote:On July 15 2015 22:03 Gorsameth wrote:On July 15 2015 21:58 Sermokala wrote:
Wow you really are a joke of the minimum wage movement. You're against training people skills so they get out of minimum wage jobs because you think burger flipping is so vital to our economy that people should be able to live off it?
You can't bash reps for being obtuse when you're wearing ideology blinders like that.
The iran deal is pretty bad compared to say cold war deals but the enemy in this case is on a hard clock and we're not. So any deal is good. Thats not what he said at all. He said that there will always be someone working those burger flipping jobs and that person should not need government assistance to live. Ofcourse people should be able to get education but that doesn't mean those jobs stop existing. But the point of those jobs isn't and shouldn't be enough to support a family. They don't produce anything or contribute to the economy in any meaningful way. He bashed scotty (I don't support the guy) because he suggested that the government should be concentrating on training people into new skill positions instead of raising the minimum wage into something people could live off of. The problem with the $15 minimum wage is that it'll eliminate manufacturing jobs and other non service industry jobs that actually contribute to something instead of filling people into a proverty cycle where low level service jobs are all they end up having. Are you fucking serious? This is some of the most insulting, condescending stuff I've heard coming from someone on these boards, and that's saying something. The idea that "these jobs shouldn't be enough to support a family" is utterly ridiculous and screams of privileged ignorance. The reality is that the majority of people aren't intelligent enough or just aren't in a position to "get an education". Society needs workers that only have a high school education, and shouldn't stigmatize this as "settling" or somehow being lesser than having an education and a job correlating to it. The idea that they don't contribute to the economy is a joke; many of the essential services that make your life enjoyable are done by someone without an advanced education that's getting paid crap. "These jobs aren't for supporting families" is utter bullshit. There will always be people to work these jobs because they will always be necessary. They shouldn't be resigned to a life of crushing poverty for it. "Everyone should get an education" is an ignorant pipe dream that isn't even remotely feasible due to the fact that there aren't enough jobs to hire everyone if they were all "educated". This is why you have a huge unemployment rate for college graduates right now, and many of them that are working are working jobs that only require a high school education. That's fine just don't make minimum wage Federal, leave it to the states as all regions face different economic realities. They all have different costs of living and some regions have very large economic distortions that shouldn't be a factor for others. This is pretty much where I stand. I feel like the minimum wage issue is best left to states. I laugh when someone like Bernie Sanders goes around saying we need a $15+ minimum wage nation wide. As if the cost of living is is the same in Fayetteville, Arkansas as it is in San Francisco. A "living" wage really depends on where you're living. Imagine random places in rural America having to up their minimum wage to $15 an hour...it makes sense in places like San Francisco or Seattle, or Washington DC, where cost of living is through the roof, but making policies binding the whole country in order to keep up with big cities/high expense areas would be a disaster. One of the main reasons the cost of living is so high in those places in the first place is because there are other, higher paying jobs available for people who have the skills to work them.
"Leaving it to the states" isn't always a good thing, and it blows my mind that people use this as a rallying cry all the time.
Part of the federal government's job is to be a check against the states if they fuck something up. Some states have routinely screwed up by oppressing minorities, instituting dubious educational standards, favoring Christianity, etc. The federal government has been there to step in and protect those citizens from a state that is run by a tyranny of the majority.
What makes a state intrinsically more trustworthy? If you leave it up to the states, then you just get states like Georgia that set a pathetically low minimum wage that you absolutely cannot live off of unless you are in a run-down shack in the most rural county in the middle of nowhere.
If anything, I find individual state governments to be more susceptible to corruption and less trustworthy. While our federal government is by no means clear of wrong-doing in our past, history proves that state governments do some pretty horrible things and regularly can't be trusted to do even the most basic things right.
Furthermore, even if you leave it up to the states, that still wouldn't help; most states aren't purely rural or purely urban. In my state (Minnesota), I can live off of a pretty modest wage; my current rent for a two bedroom apartment with utilities included is $725. The exact same apartment would cost anywhere between $1200-$1500 a month if I moved 30 minutes north, because it's considered "inside the metro area", and you'd be really hard-pressed to find a place that didn't make you pay for your utilities. The people living in urban parts of states (e.g. Twin Cities, MN, or Atlanta, Georgia) can't live off of the minimum wage that the people in the rural parts of those same states can.
|
On July 16 2015 06:26 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2015 06:02 Wolfstan wrote:On July 16 2015 05:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 16 2015 01:14 Sermokala wrote:On July 15 2015 22:03 Gorsameth wrote:On July 15 2015 21:58 Sermokala wrote:
Wow you really are a joke of the minimum wage movement. You're against training people skills so they get out of minimum wage jobs because you think burger flipping is so vital to our economy that people should be able to live off it?
You can't bash reps for being obtuse when you're wearing ideology blinders like that.
The iran deal is pretty bad compared to say cold war deals but the enemy in this case is on a hard clock and we're not. So any deal is good. Thats not what he said at all. He said that there will always be someone working those burger flipping jobs and that person should not need government assistance to live. Ofcourse people should be able to get education but that doesn't mean those jobs stop existing. But the point of those jobs isn't and shouldn't be enough to support a family. They don't produce anything or contribute to the economy in any meaningful way. He bashed scotty (I don't support the guy) because he suggested that the government should be concentrating on training people into new skill positions instead of raising the minimum wage into something people could live off of. The problem with the $15 minimum wage is that it'll eliminate manufacturing jobs and other non service industry jobs that actually contribute to something instead of filling people into a proverty cycle where low level service jobs are all they end up having. Are you fucking serious? This is some of the most insulting, condescending stuff I've heard coming from someone on these boards, and that's saying something. The idea that "these jobs shouldn't be enough to support a family" is utterly ridiculous and screams of privileged ignorance. The reality is that the majority of people aren't intelligent enough or just aren't in a position to "get an education". Society needs workers that only have a high school education, and shouldn't stigmatize this as "settling" or somehow being lesser than having an education and a job correlating to it. The idea that they don't contribute to the economy is a joke; many of the essential services that make your life enjoyable are done by someone without an advanced education that's getting paid crap. "These jobs aren't for supporting families" is utter bullshit. There will always be people to work these jobs because they will always be necessary. They shouldn't be resigned to a life of crushing poverty for it. "Everyone should get an education" is an ignorant pipe dream that isn't even remotely feasible due to the fact that there aren't enough jobs to hire everyone if they were all "educated". This is why you have a huge unemployment rate for college graduates right now, and many of them that are working are working jobs that only require a high school education. That's fine just don't make minimum wage Federal, leave it to the states as all regions face different economic realities. They all have different costs of living and some regions have very large economic distortions that shouldn't be a factor for others. This is pretty much where I stand. I feel like the minimum wage issue is best left to states. I laugh when someone like Bernie Sanders goes around saying we need a $15+ minimum wage nation wide. As if the cost of living is is the same in Fayetteville, Arkansas as it is in San Francisco. A "living" wage really depends on where you're living. Imagine random places in rural America having to up their minimum wage to $15 an hour...it makes sense in places like San Francisco or Seattle, or Washington DC, where cost of living is through the roof, but making policies binding the whole country in order to keep up with big cities/high expense areas would be a disaster. One of the main reasons the cost of living is so high in those places in the first place is because there are other, higher paying jobs available for people who have the skills to work them.
That sounds fair to me. Can the federal government mandate that a minimum wage be instated that provides roughly equivalent living conditions country-wide? In other words: enough to pay for a home, food, medical expenses, education and a minimal level of comfort (washing machine, computer, clothes, that kinda stuff)? Or would such a law be impossible to draft? I for one cannot think of how it can be phrased.
Because if it simply up to the states, it seems likely that nothing is going to happen in some of the states it is needed most (because lets face it: Oregon is not the state that needed a minimum wage most).
|
On July 16 2015 06:33 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2015 06:26 LuckyFool wrote:On July 16 2015 06:02 Wolfstan wrote:On July 16 2015 05:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 16 2015 01:14 Sermokala wrote:On July 15 2015 22:03 Gorsameth wrote:On July 15 2015 21:58 Sermokala wrote:
Wow you really are a joke of the minimum wage movement. You're against training people skills so they get out of minimum wage jobs because you think burger flipping is so vital to our economy that people should be able to live off it?
You can't bash reps for being obtuse when you're wearing ideology blinders like that.
The iran deal is pretty bad compared to say cold war deals but the enemy in this case is on a hard clock and we're not. So any deal is good. Thats not what he said at all. He said that there will always be someone working those burger flipping jobs and that person should not need government assistance to live. Ofcourse people should be able to get education but that doesn't mean those jobs stop existing. But the point of those jobs isn't and shouldn't be enough to support a family. They don't produce anything or contribute to the economy in any meaningful way. He bashed scotty (I don't support the guy) because he suggested that the government should be concentrating on training people into new skill positions instead of raising the minimum wage into something people could live off of. The problem with the $15 minimum wage is that it'll eliminate manufacturing jobs and other non service industry jobs that actually contribute to something instead of filling people into a proverty cycle where low level service jobs are all they end up having. Are you fucking serious? This is some of the most insulting, condescending stuff I've heard coming from someone on these boards, and that's saying something. The idea that "these jobs shouldn't be enough to support a family" is utterly ridiculous and screams of privileged ignorance. The reality is that the majority of people aren't intelligent enough or just aren't in a position to "get an education". Society needs workers that only have a high school education, and shouldn't stigmatize this as "settling" or somehow being lesser than having an education and a job correlating to it. The idea that they don't contribute to the economy is a joke; many of the essential services that make your life enjoyable are done by someone without an advanced education that's getting paid crap. "These jobs aren't for supporting families" is utter bullshit. There will always be people to work these jobs because they will always be necessary. They shouldn't be resigned to a life of crushing poverty for it. "Everyone should get an education" is an ignorant pipe dream that isn't even remotely feasible due to the fact that there aren't enough jobs to hire everyone if they were all "educated". This is why you have a huge unemployment rate for college graduates right now, and many of them that are working are working jobs that only require a high school education. That's fine just don't make minimum wage Federal, leave it to the states as all regions face different economic realities. They all have different costs of living and some regions have very large economic distortions that shouldn't be a factor for others. This is pretty much where I stand. I feel like the minimum wage issue is best left to states. I laugh when someone like Bernie Sanders goes around saying we need a $15+ minimum wage nation wide. As if the cost of living is is the same in Fayetteville, Arkansas as it is in San Francisco. A "living" wage really depends on where you're living. Imagine random places in rural America having to up their minimum wage to $15 an hour...it makes sense in places like San Francisco or Seattle, or Washington DC, where cost of living is through the roof, but making policies binding the whole country in order to keep up with big cities/high expense areas would be a disaster. One of the main reasons the cost of living is so high in those places in the first place is because there are other, higher paying jobs available for people who have the skills to work them. That sounds fair to me. Can the federal government mandate that a minimum wage be instated that provides roughly equivalent living conditions country-wide? In other words: enough to pay for a home, food, medical expenses, education and a minimal level of comfort (washing machine, computer, clothes, that kinda stuff)? Or would such a law be impossible to draft? I for one cannot think of how it can be phrased. Because if it simply up to the states, it seems likely that nothing is going to happen in some of the states it is needed most (because lets face it: Oregon is not the state that needed a minimum wage most).
Given how political our executive agencies are, they cannot be trusted to enforce such a regulation evenhandedly.
|
United States43219 Posts
I think the assumption that the machines will only take away the working class jobs is pretty funny and hilariously ignorant. Do you have any idea what turbotax did to the accounting world, for example? Think about it for a second, a machine that replaces highly skilled and compensated workers is going to be far, far more valuable than a machine that replaces exploited underpaid workers.
Technology isn't coming to sweep away the proles and leave you as a college educated master race. It's after you and you'll be glad of that minimum wage when your degree doesn't count for shit.
|
Donald Trump's popularity has surged among Republicans after dominating several news cycles with his anti-illegal immigration rhetoric, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Nearly six in 10 — 57 percent — Republicans now have a favorable view of Trump, compared to 40 percent who have an unfavorable one. That marks a complete reversal from a late-May Post-ABC poll, in which 65 percent of Republicans saw Trump unfavorably.
Trump continues to be unpopular among the public at large, with negative marks outpacing positive ones 61-33. "Strongly unfavorable" views outnumber strongly positive ratings by a 3-1 ratio.
But Trump's image has improved since his campaign launch; in May, just 16 percent had a favorable view of him, while 71 percent were unfavorable — by far the worst rating among a slew of candidates in that poll.
Trump's numbers have improved enough that they are nearly as good as frontrunner Jeb Bush. Bush's 63 percent favorable rating among Republicans outpaces Trump by six points. Overall, Bush is viewed favorably by 38 percent of Americans and unfavorably by 47 percent.
Source
|
United States43219 Posts
If Trump becomes president I'm moving to Mexico.
|
On July 16 2015 07:57 KwarK wrote:
If Trump becomes president I'm moving to Mexico.
There are many times where I would say that Mexico is worse and no president would be worth the risk. Trump is the exception to this rule. The man is a racist nightmare given form and even Fox News is like "whoa, slow down there."
|
California Gov. Jerry Brown has approved legislation recognizing the state’s professional cheerleaders as employees who are entitled to minimum wage and overtime, following high-profile lawsuits alleging labor violations in California and elsewhere around the country.
Brown's office announced Wednesday that he signed the bill, requiring sports teams to employ cheerleaders as workers instead of contractors. That provides them with sick leave and other labor protections available to other staff. It's believed to be the first law of its kind in the nation.
Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez of San Diego introduced the bill after Oakland Raiderette cheerleaders filed a wage-theft lawsuit. Gonzalez, who cheered at Stanford, says many professional cheerleaders are treated like glorified volunteers.
Some NFL cheerleaders say they have been paid sub-minimum or no wages and were forced to pay thousands of dollars to travel.
"Everyone who works hard to provide a great game day experience deserves the same basic level of dignity and respect on the job, starting with simply being paid for their work," Gonzalez said in a statement after the bill had passed through the state’s legislature.
The bill was introduced in January, just months after the NFL's Oakland Raiders agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle a lawsuit brought by 90 members of the team's cheerleading squad. The performers alleged they were underpaid or faced lengthy delays in receiving their wages, in violation of state labor law.
Source
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the way the workers and the government can take back productivity gains is by legislating overtime at 32 hours. Taxation and minimum wage laws won't help at all.
|
On July 16 2015 06:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2015 06:26 LuckyFool wrote:On July 16 2015 06:02 Wolfstan wrote:On July 16 2015 05:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 16 2015 01:14 Sermokala wrote:On July 15 2015 22:03 Gorsameth wrote:On July 15 2015 21:58 Sermokala wrote:
Wow you really are a joke of the minimum wage movement. You're against training people skills so they get out of minimum wage jobs because you think burger flipping is so vital to our economy that people should be able to live off it?
You can't bash reps for being obtuse when you're wearing ideology blinders like that.
The iran deal is pretty bad compared to say cold war deals but the enemy in this case is on a hard clock and we're not. So any deal is good. Thats not what he said at all. He said that there will always be someone working those burger flipping jobs and that person should not need government assistance to live. Ofcourse people should be able to get education but that doesn't mean those jobs stop existing. But the point of those jobs isn't and shouldn't be enough to support a family. They don't produce anything or contribute to the economy in any meaningful way. He bashed scotty (I don't support the guy) because he suggested that the government should be concentrating on training people into new skill positions instead of raising the minimum wage into something people could live off of. The problem with the $15 minimum wage is that it'll eliminate manufacturing jobs and other non service industry jobs that actually contribute to something instead of filling people into a proverty cycle where low level service jobs are all they end up having. Are you fucking serious? This is some of the most insulting, condescending stuff I've heard coming from someone on these boards, and that's saying something. The idea that "these jobs shouldn't be enough to support a family" is utterly ridiculous and screams of privileged ignorance. The reality is that the majority of people aren't intelligent enough or just aren't in a position to "get an education". Society needs workers that only have a high school education, and shouldn't stigmatize this as "settling" or somehow being lesser than having an education and a job correlating to it. The idea that they don't contribute to the economy is a joke; many of the essential services that make your life enjoyable are done by someone without an advanced education that's getting paid crap. "These jobs aren't for supporting families" is utter bullshit. There will always be people to work these jobs because they will always be necessary. They shouldn't be resigned to a life of crushing poverty for it. "Everyone should get an education" is an ignorant pipe dream that isn't even remotely feasible due to the fact that there aren't enough jobs to hire everyone if they were all "educated". This is why you have a huge unemployment rate for college graduates right now, and many of them that are working are working jobs that only require a high school education. That's fine just don't make minimum wage Federal, leave it to the states as all regions face different economic realities. They all have different costs of living and some regions have very large economic distortions that shouldn't be a factor for others. This is pretty much where I stand. I feel like the minimum wage issue is best left to states. I laugh when someone like Bernie Sanders goes around saying we need a $15+ minimum wage nation wide. As if the cost of living is is the same in Fayetteville, Arkansas as it is in San Francisco. A "living" wage really depends on where you're living. Imagine random places in rural America having to up their minimum wage to $15 an hour...it makes sense in places like San Francisco or Seattle, or Washington DC, where cost of living is through the roof, but making policies binding the whole country in order to keep up with big cities/high expense areas would be a disaster. One of the main reasons the cost of living is so high in those places in the first place is because there are other, higher paying jobs available for people who have the skills to work them. "Leaving it to the states" isn't always a good thing, and it blows my mind that people use this as a rallying cry all the time. Part of the federal government's job is to be a check against the states if they fuck something up. Some states have routinely screwed up by oppressing minorities, instituting dubious educational standards, favoring Christianity, etc. The federal government has been there to step in and protect those citizens from a state that is run by a tyranny of the majority. What makes a state intrinsically more trustworthy? If you leave it up to the states, then you just get states like Georgia that set a pathetically low minimum wage that you absolutely cannot live off of unless you are in a run-down shack in the most rural county in the middle of nowhere. If anything, I find individual state governments to be more susceptible to corruption and less trustworthy. While our federal government is by no means clear of wrong-doing in our past, history proves that state governments do some pretty horrible things and regularly can't be trusted to do even the most basic things right. Furthermore, even if you leave it up to the states, that still wouldn't help; most states aren't purely rural or purely urban. In my state (Minnesota), I can live off of a pretty modest wage; my current rent for a two bedroom apartment with utilities included is $725. The exact same apartment would cost anywhere between $1200-$1500 a month if I moved 30 minutes north, because it's considered "inside the metro area", and you'd be really hard-pressed to find a place that didn't make you pay for your utilities. The people living in urban parts of states (e.g. Twin Cities, MN, or Atlanta, Georgia) can't live off of the minimum wage that the people in the rural parts of those same states can.
If the concern is that states governments are corrupt/won't do a good job, then I would rather see the federal government addressing that, rather than undermining or overruling them by imposing something like a minimum wage mandate. At that point why even have state government. A corrupt Georga state government could easily just hike state income/property taxes or something to compensate a federally mandated minimum wage hike, thus generally rendering a minimum wage hike useless there, unless you have further mandates from the federal government to not have states raise income taxes etc.
And I agree with your closing paragraph, leaving it to the states would still mean they would have to deal with issues such as big cities vs rural areas, my area (Northern Virginia) is absolutely nothing like Southwest VA, a 5+ hour drive away. There's no easy solution to the minimum wage debate, but I don't see how a federal government could address issues like that better than an honest state government.
|
On July 16 2015 07:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Donald Trump's popularity has surged among Republicans after dominating several news cycles with his anti-illegal immigration rhetoric, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Nearly six in 10 — 57 percent — Republicans now have a favorable view of Trump, compared to 40 percent who have an unfavorable one. That marks a complete reversal from a late-May Post-ABC poll, in which 65 percent of Republicans saw Trump unfavorably.
Trump continues to be unpopular among the public at large, with negative marks outpacing positive ones 61-33. "Strongly unfavorable" views outnumber strongly positive ratings by a 3-1 ratio.
But Trump's image has improved since his campaign launch; in May, just 16 percent had a favorable view of him, while 71 percent were unfavorable — by far the worst rating among a slew of candidates in that poll.
Trump's numbers have improved enough that they are nearly as good as frontrunner Jeb Bush. Bush's 63 percent favorable rating among Republicans outpaces Trump by six points. Overall, Bush is viewed favorably by 38 percent of Americans and unfavorably by 47 percent.
Source
Well there goes the neighborhood. I can't wait for the first debate and see who Trump bumps off the stage. I love that Republicans are still trying to convince themselves he doesn't represent a big chunk of the party. No longer being underwater in negatives was a bit of a surprise.
BTW has anyone seen a Jeb supporter in real life or on the internet? I've been asking around and no one so far has ever seen a single one.
|
On July 16 2015 06:15 ticklishmusic wrote:
There's a false dichotomy here based on some incorrect assumptions. History shows that it's far from likely that these unskilled jobs will always be necessary. What can be outsourced has been outsourced, and what can be automated has or will be automated. I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple years a typical McDonald's strips its staff down to a manager, a few employees to take orders and interact with customers, and a few engineers and maintenance people who are shared by a few locations.
The same thing goes for many other jobs. Remember when farms needed hundreds of laborers? Then came machinery which reduced the workforce by 90%, and then came heavy machinery which reduced the workforce even more.
These jobs are going, going, gone. There will be a few left, but we've already seen this trend happen with the manufacturing industry. These people need skilled jobs which are relatively immune to automation/outsourcing. We either build a stupidly large safety net, or we force the creation of skilled jobs and the means (education) for people to fill them.
"Forcing the creation of skilled jobs and the means for people to fill them" is an incoherent fantasy. Have you even thought about what those jobs could be? The only real answer to the ongoing automation crisis is to create a guaranteed income, regardless of employment status. You have callous idiots like Sermolaka saying that burger flipping shouldn't pay a living wage, but what we really need is a way for everyone to make a living regardless of their job. What do you do when there simply are no jobs that produce a profit available for humans and you have a half or 3/4 of the population without employment? The thing that matters at that point is who owns the robots.
|
On July 16 2015 07:00 KwarK wrote:
I think the assumption that the machines will only take away the working class jobs is pretty funny and hilariously ignorant. Do you have any idea what turbotax did to the accounting world, for example? Think about it for a second, a machine that replaces highly skilled and compensated workers is going to be far, far more valuable than a machine that replaces exploited underpaid workers.
Technology isn't coming to sweep away the proles and leave you as a college educated master race. It's after you and you'll be glad of that minimum wage when your degree doesn't count for shit.
I can attest to KwarK's position. I've worked in Day Trading and Computer Consulting (and have some family history in Computer Consulting), both are being shredded by improvements in technology.
In Day Trading, the pits used to be filled with people:
![[image loading]](http://openmarkets.cmegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/SP-Pit.jpg)
You'd get all sorts of Ivy League hotshots battling against clever people (and a lot of really dumb ones) from all walks of life. Some of those people were making over a million dollars in a year. And for a large number of those traders, there was a team of people behind him... some manning the phones to get client orders, runners going back and forth, mathematicians, economists, and voodoo doctors trying to help make predictions.
The last time I went to the CME was quite a few years back. It looked more like this:
![[image loading]](http://mrtopstep.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/DSCN2611-300x225.jpg)
Now, they're emptying out almost all pits except for the options pits. http://investor.cmegroup.com/investor-relations/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=894826
What happened? First, it was the development of online trading. That wasn't so bad. The agile pit traders went to online trading firms and continued to make good money. A lot of the low skilled guys like the runners got canned, but the traders and the quants (mathematicians, economists, guessers) remained. I had a friend who made more than 1/2 a million dollars per year for a few years in a row right out of college because he got into one of those firms right as trading started going online and he was one of the young hotshots. Unfortunately for him, the trades he was profiting on dried up and eventually he left his company and joined a new one that took a different approach.
The new company automated everything. The reason why things stopped working for him at Company 1 was because Company 2 had computer algorithms doing it automatically (and much faster, they were beating him to the trade). Company 2 was a very fast growing company and there was a good group of guys who all made from decent to good money, but now the boss was making a whole lot more than the bosses taking a small percentage of profits at company 1. I worked for Company 2 and the emphasis was always on automating every trade. With my computer programming background, I was somewhat valuable (but getting paid like an entry level computer programmer, not a trader); however, my friend who couldn't really code became expendable. So he was let go, but was smart enough to go back to school to get his masters and get on with his life in a different field.
Meanwhile, I spent my hours at work creating programs that would eventually make sure all the skilled workers would be expendable in the future where the computer does all the thinking/trading and just needs a low-skilled human to make sure it keeps running. The company may also need one highly skilled employee to develop future trades. It was happening right before my eyes: the boss got richer, but the middle-class (sometimes even upper-class) employees were getting whittled away.
The industry went from huge pits full of people at every financial center around the world along with a huge number of supporting people to ensure they could do their job -> online trading where some of the supporting people got cut -> automated trading where one trader/coder combo can maintain dozens of computers at once and replace his fellow traders. These are highly skilled, sometimes extremely well paying, jobs that have been replaced by technology.
I decided to leave and get back into Computer Consulting.
Computer Consulting isn't that much better. Long ago, your effectiveness as a programmer was measured in the number of lines of code you could write in an average day. Programs would be measured in lines of code and it might be millions. My dad managed an IT group that wrote custom software and the best coder could maybe write 4x as much as the weakest coders. No matter how good you were, coding was a time consuming task. That created a lot of skilled middle-class jobs.
It's not nearly the same anymore. More and more of the code you want is already written. So often, if you just know the name of X function and how to use it, you can do what would have taken hours worth of coding and instead condense it into a minute or less. A highly skilled programmer can do the work of a 100 weak professional programmers (I'm talking pros, not amateurs who took one course on programming).
Then compound that with another harsh reality. Coding is barely skilled labor anymore. The goalposts changed. India alone churns out so many competent programmers that work for much less that it makes very little sense to have an American do your coding (unless there is a cultural difference that prevents the Indians from understanding the problem). Then add on the growing computer literacy amongst the youth in America and programmers have a problem. I work with kids as a part time job and I'd suspect that most of the 10 year olds I work with can build their own website. That used to be the domain of the really nerdy kids. Now almost everyone (in an upper-middle-class area) can do it. Who needs a programmer when anyone with an idea can program it themselves? It's quite possible that computer programming may someday become a lot like my next example.
If you want to go back a little further in time, companies used to fill large room with women whose sole job was to type. My grandfather used to talk about rooms filled with hundreds of women who did nothing but type because the people of his generation and older didn't have that skill. Now everyone can type and the job of the typist is gone. That used to be a skilled job filled by 100s of women at the company he worked that could support a lower-middle-class lifestyle. Multiply that by hundreds or thousands of other companies that relied on that skilled task, that's now 100s of thousands or millions of jobs that are completely gone.
Skilled labor will change from the upper class all the way down to the lower class. Staying ahead of it is not easy. There's a very good chance that whatever you do right now will partially or fully be replaced by technology before you retire.
|
Just on that, here's a fun little toy that predicts how likely a given job is to be automated. The full document/paper is here.
Top 20 least likely to be automated:
+ Show Spoiler +
1. Recreational therapists
2. First-line supervisors of mechanics, installers and repairers
3. Emergency management directors
4. Mental health and substance abuse social workers
5. Audiologists
6. Occupational therapists
7. Orthotists and prosthetists
8. Healthcare social workers
9. Oral and maxillofacial surgeons
10. First-line supervisors of fire-fighting and prevention workers
11. Dietiticians and nutritionists
12. Lodging managers
13. Choreographers
14. Sales engineers
15. Physicians and surgeons
16. Instructional coordinators
17. Psychologists
18. First-line supervisors of police and detectives
19. Dentists (general)
20. Elementary school teachers (except special education)
Top 20 most likely to be automated:
+ Show Spoiler +
1. Telemarketers
2. Title examiners, abstracters, and searchers
3. Hand sewers
4. Mathematical technicians
5. Insurance underwriters
6. Watch repairers
7. Cargo and freight agents
8. Tax preparers
9. Photographic process workers and processing machine operators
10. New accounts clerks
11. Library technicians
12. Data entry keyers
13. Timing device assemblers and adjusters
14. Insurance claims processing and policy clerks
15. Brokerage clerks
16. Order clerks
17. Loan officers
18. Insurance appraisers, auto damage
19. Umpires, referees and other sports officials
20. Tellers
The little gadget thing lets you stick any job in and see how it rates. Of course it's just a bunch of researchers' guesses but the results are pretty interesting.
|
On July 16 2015 10:38 Belisarius wrote:Just on that, here's a fun little toy that predicts how likely a given job is to be automated Of course it's just a bunch of researchers' guesses but the results are pretty interesting. Looks like health is the place to be. (It's on a bunch of different websites so I just took the first example Google gave me. The full document/paper is linked in the article.)
It's actually not researcher's guesses, IIRC. They ranked jobs based on metrics like amount of human interaction, among other things, and then plugged that into some sort of equation.
That's why programmers have a ~50% chance of being automated. In actuality, if programming could be automated, it wouldn't take very long at all for almost all other jobs to be automated too.
|
Yeah it looks quite rigorous. At the end of the day it's still an estimation like any other, but calling it a guess is probably not doing the work justice.
It's gonna be a lot better than my random anecdotal guesses would be, anyway.
I think you're incorrect about programming meaning everything else would be automated as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
