NY Fight For $15: Say Goodbye To Half A Million Jobs Read more: http://dailycaller


A proposal to enact a $15 minimum wage in New York could cost the state upwards of half a million jobs, according to a report released Thursday.
The report,”Higher Pay, Fewer Jobs” was released by the Empire Center for Public Policy and the American Action Forum. It addresses a Sept. 10 proposal by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo to raise the state minimum wage to$15 an hour. If passed by local lawmakers, it would phase in gradually eventually hitting $15 throughout the state by 2021.

Read more: REPORT: NY $15 Minimum Wage Could Cost 588,800 Jobs | The Daily Caller

One would think Seattle would have shown the folly of this. One establishment replaced workers with touch screens. More and more talk is being put forward of robots. Yes a touch of science fiction except it is becoming more possible daily.

Why robots could soon replace fast food workers demanding higher minimum wage - Blog - MyNorthwest.com


SF has seen similar results - lost jobs, closed businesses, and LA soon will. But the activists & pols will keep trying. They “know” they can get it right where others have failed (not that they’ll acknowledge those failures publicly!). Trying the same stupidity over and over and over expecting different results …

Re those burger machines, they cost a lot, so it takes a lot for them to be economically viable. If government-forced minimum wage increases (in Seattle and SF the increase is done over several years, and has not yet reached $15/hour!) have made converting to such machines economically viable, the jobs the machines replace are not coming back! The production life expectancy of those machines is almost certainly at least 5-10 years, and very possibly more than 10 years. So cities like Seattle, SF, LA, etc. are doing permanent damage to their economies!


Workers demanding an increase in the minimum wage is indeed folly, but not for the reasons they expect. I’ll let Hawking explain it.

“Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution,” “So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality,” Hawking said.

In other words, as machines take over more and more jobs, more and more people will be unemployed. Technology has already killed many blue collar jobs, but the jobs that have replaced them… retail and home healthcare jobs, tend to pay much less. Now, technology is even threatening those jobs.

As more and more jobs are replaced with automation, more and more people will find themselves poor… UNLESS, and I hate to say it… wealth redistribution happens. Either that, or a Trekkian view of economics comes into play.

Technology will force this issue, one way or another. It’s up to us what path we take.


Well here’s your problem: Hawking isn’t an economist. He’s talking outside his field, so everything he says is that of a layman. Which means his opinions can be picked apart by anyone.

In other words, as machines take over more and more jobs, more and more people will be unemployed.

That’s nonsense; jobs aren’t fixed in their amount or categories. There are jobs today that didn’t even exist 20 years ago which do now thanks to technology, like online marketers, app developer, big data manager, and air nannies.

People’s ability desire goods & services is insatiable, if machines displace people in routine tasks, then humans will simply find more non-routine, creative work to generate demand.

Along with more unroutine work we haven’t figured out how to effectively automate.


I say let these liberals cesspools implement their wage hikes. Then they can all be poor in their own stupidity. If liberals think it is a bright idea then let them do as the please in their cities. When their cities start looking like the sh!hole that is Detroit maybe then they will learn the error of their foolish ways.


Except those machines are VERY slow to wear out, take a minimum of maintenance, don’t get sick, have babies, watch TV, play with their I-Phones, chat up their co-workers while ignoring customers or require salaries, social security or paid vacations.


Problem is, when their cities turn into (even bigger than they already are) crapholes, they suck money from the rural and small-town regions of the state to “correct” their disaster.


Too true. I just cannot stand liberals in big cities. They act like it is a one size fits all scenario. Were that the case then life would be so much easier. I do not doubt that in some places the stranded of living may necessitate a $15 min wage. But just because that is true there does not make is so elsewhere. Whats worse when they ruin the liberal “paradises” they move to the Red states and proceed to ruin those places as well. We are starting to feel that pain here in Texas as people flee from California to here. They come here and expect us to change our ways that have been working. People wonder why we have people not from Texas. One can only be jaded.


The thing about “standard of living” is that “minimum wage” is supposed to be for entry-level jobs. Like for high school kids who still live at home. It was never intended to be about providing for a family. If anyone has a family and is working at a minimum wage job, he missed the boat somewhere.


What no one talks about, is how it affects the middle class families.
So, a $9 per hour employee gets a 6 dollar raise. For every two they keep, they lay off one. Now, instead of a $4 Big Mac, you have a $6 Big Mac. Ms. Single Parent, who suffered student loans and re education to be a CNA, is making less than the burger flipper, and the burger he flips, costs more. And so does Gas, Milk, Electricity, etc.
In Washington, I guess they tried this, and the workers who got the raise, asked for less hours because it was reducing their entitlement dollars.
So, even if you give them the raise, they still won’t get off welfare. Plus, the rest of us suffer the price increases.
Raising the minimum wage is hurtful to the very people they are claiming they are trying to help.


Last night, Donald Trump had the best answer to that question about raising the minimum wage. He came from the point of view of an international trader who wants jobs to come to this country.

Carson’s answer was very good as well.


To add to it it reduces competition. Why should I work hard at my job when I go make more flipping burgers? Increasing minimum wage would trigger other to demand a pay increase as why should someone in an entry level job be make $15 min when i am making X per hour with a college education?


That’s just the problem - when the minimum wage goes up, usually all wages follow suit, meaning higher prices for everything, and perhaps fewer jobs.


You can find a lot of debate on this topic, but there are pleanty of economists worried about this as well.

AI is also getting more and more advanced by the day. AI will be taking those “unroutine” work as well. And I hate to say it, but most people aren’t cut out for the kind of work your describing. And what would happen if everybody went into those jobs? To many applicants, not enough available positions.

When the singularity hits, it’s going to blindside us.

What is the Technological Singularity?


I plan to have a cyberbrain by that time Maylar. That what when the Singularity does hit I will be right beside it.


I must point out that on average, wages haven’t been going up since the 70’s, and the prices of everything has… so your scenario is already happening… just minus the minimum wage going up part in any significant amount.


Uh, yes they have. This isn’t even in doubt, what economists actually talk about is whether they’ve gone up in maybe the last ~15 years, not from 40 years ago.

The problem tends to boil down to people looking at wages only, and not counting fringe benefits. If you’re not counting total compensation, then you’re not being serious.

It’s also easy to show that prices of goods have gone down as well, if you put everything in terms of labor hours. e.g. “How long do I have to work to buy x?”, and compare & contrast to past decades.


AI is programmed subroutines, it cannot innovate, it cannot reason, it can only do what its programmers tell it to do in advance.

Ergo, before an AI can do anything, someone has to do the leg work to research, plan, & construct it to do that task. There is no “catch all” ready for any task you can give it. AI is very much a niche affair, tailored to the task you want to give it. It also breaks, and needs humans to right-side it.

“And I hate to say it, but most people aren’t cut out”

Cut out to be Air nannies? Seriously?

Unskilled and mid-skilled work appears with technology the same as skilled work. In the past it was factory workers, later it was data entry clerks, today it’s data mining, “sharing economy” jobs like uber, and just about every profession listed here. Heck, we’ve had a shortage in blue collar jobs for decades.

AI will be taking those “unroutine” work as well. And I hate to say it, but most people aren’t cut out for the kind of work your describing. And what would happen if everybody went into those jobs? To many applicants, not enough available positions.

Why? If demand grows, so do the jobs. And technology makes us create demand we didn’t even know we had until that service springs up.

Apps were this. Big Data was this. Organic “Farm2table” restaurants was this.

When the singularity hits, it’s going to blindside us.

You do realize the singularity means multiple things, that not everyone who works in AI is on board with the idea that it can actually reach the state you’re implying (or not in our foreseeable lifetimes), and that even if they do, this doesn’t spell the end of work for humans?

Let me put it this way; does the existence of smarter people mean that there is no jobs for the sub-average? Or does it simply mean both is allocated to work worthy of their capability?

The economy has always been on the search to conserve human labor, sot hat it can keep re-focusing on something else. It’s always been this way, and technology has been adding to both sides of this equation, not just one.


Union wage increases have the same effect. When a union wage increases, all the wages for the company/companies that union is involved with are raised accordingly. Then it forces up prices, forcing inflation all around, and affects everyone. It’s not just minimum wage. It’s a matter of across-the-board raises for reasons other than merit (of course, merit raises would never be across-the-board).


True. After all, how can a company justify paying non-union employees LESS than they pay the union employees for the same non-work?