Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

On the upside there will be potential for better detecting foodborne illnesses as well as just better food hygiene with fewer human hands.

It's a dire time for people who dropped out of school and with few marketable skills. The tattered net that was the McD's job, is not going to be there for long, not that should have ever been a job for proper adults, but soon it will be on its way out.

However, I think minimum wage increases are a red herring. Increased minimum wages should buy you better employees who are more productive. Never the less, it's just more automation, possibly base wage increase accelerates adoption, but it's not the reason --were just getting better at automation and it's becoming pervasive.

As to people's appetite for automated food production and presentation Japan should allay their fears. After a little trepidation, consumers will grow to like the predictable service.

View on HN

> Increased minimum wages should buy you better employees who are more productive

I disagree. I think an increased minimum wage, presumably above the market clearing price for a person with that set of skills, allows the manager to introduce non-economic factors into his decision making. This includes personal biases and encourages nepotism. It's also worth remembering that the minimum wage law had less than noble intentions

> The business-friendly National Center for Policy Analysis points out “the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act, requiring ‘prevailing’ wages on federally assisted construction projects, was supported by the idea that it would keep contractors from using ‘cheap colored labor’ to underbid contractors using white labor.”

[0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffield/2014/04/29/on-th...

The current min wage is no wage for an adult. It's untenable. Admittedly, I imagine it will benefit modestly educated Americans (including white, black and Latin) but will likely be detrimental to low skills (minimum education) immigrants (and some locals) as there is no price advantage to hiring them, given their deficits.

However, I think minimum wage increases are a red herring. Increased minimum wages should buy you better employees who are more productive.

Why would it do that? If your wages were higher than competitors, certainly paying higher wages gives you the best of the existing workers. But a minimum wage doesn't give you higher wages than competitors at all.

Because you're no longer scraping the bottom of the barrel and it gives the worker more in germs of financial stability.

Why aren't you scraping the bottom of the barrel anymore? Before a min wage, you are hiring the least valuable workers. After a min wage increase you are still hiring the same low value workers.

People who didn't see it fit to work for 7/hr might find value in working at 15/hr. Now they can afford to pay gas to get there, etc. Cost benefitwise more people see a benefit in taking that job.

Why are these "better employees"?

Also, it seems like a minimum wage actually makes life worse for employers who have use for high value employees. Without a minimum wage I can offer $15/hour and I'll get the high value people. High value labor is therefore sorted into high productivity use.

Once you impose a minimum wage this effect is eliminated.

All the benefits you attribute to a minimum wage could be gained voluntarily by companies even without a minimum wage. In fact the minimum wage interferes with these voluntary efforts. Yet they often don't exploit them. Why don't they?

"Why are these better employees"

He just explained that to you. The people who actually work hard and have goals will actually want the minimum wage jobs because now its more manageable to live off of.

A university student who needs to pay rent, groceries, a car, etc. Cant afford to live off minimum wage so they want the better paying jobs which may not exist cause companies want to get away with the most profitable scenario which is paying employees the absolute minimum.

That last statement wasn't needed, no body has time for ad hominems.

No, he explained why the labor force would go up - some people won't work at $7/hour but will at $15. That's not the same thing as these people being better employees.

...want the better paying jobs which may not exist cause companies want to get away with the most profitable scenario which is paying employees the absolute minimum.

Yet most jobs in the US pay far more than minimum wage. Why would they do this if paying minimum wage is the "most profitable scenario"?

Because turnover is expensive and you want people to be satisfied enough with their jobs not to leave.

With a minimum wage you have a fairer wages playing field. No longer are you competing against the wage exploiter when it comes to labor costs.

As to why you get a better employee at 15 vs 7/hr, think about an engineer.

At 70k a laid off engineer will sit it out. A so so engineer will take that job instead. Now, raise that 70k to 120k (or whatever rate) and you'll be able to entice the better engineer, while the so so engineer gets left out, perhaps going back to learn more marketable skills.

I think what hes referring to is that good skilled people will actually want the minimum wage jobs since they cash out the same as the harder earned jobs that require more effort to get into.

Probably because if they're able to actually support themselves, they might be willing to care about the company a bit, instead of constantly wondering if they'll be kicked out of their apartment.

Right, but if no one hires the bottom of the barrel, what do we do with them? Ramp up welfare programs, further penalizing anyone who eventually finds something they can do for a living?

We can't all hire the best (or better) employees.

Yes, logically, we'd have to provide [either subsidies, or training, etc.] for people who don't have skills necessary to enter the job market. However at the higher min wage, we get better workers as well as a bigger economy (they make more, spending more and thus contribute more to tax receipts). A worker at 15/hr has more economic stability than a 7 or 8/hr worker, as well you're now getting high school graduates with some junior college ed. A more educated workforce should offer the potential of more value add vs a less educated worker.

*higher productivity

> However, I think minimum wage increases are a red herring. Increased minimum wages should buy you better employees who are more productive. Never the less, it's just more automation, possibly base wage increase accelerates adoption, but it's not the reason --were just getting better at automation and it's becoming pervasive.

I'm not sure adding productivity helps. Since a lot of the time is spent doing things like waiting for the frier to be done cooking the fries. No matter how efficient a worker you are, the fries will not cook faster. Likewise there are times of the day when the foot traffic is very low. At those times people are told to do things like sweep the floor but I'm not sure if someone finishes sweeping 10 minutes earlier it really makes a difference.

More productive workers are also usually more dependable. So you're worrying less that the person that's supposed to come in before the lunch rush isn't just going to flake out on you.

I have to admit, I had not considered them just not showing up to work at all. I'm a bit unqualified to talk on this topic as I have never worked in fast food, I was more curious why it matters in that environment.

Productive workers are better, period. The fact that there are hours where productivity doesn't affect your bottom line doesn't really matter. Managers have been scheduling around these hours since the dawn of time.

Source: I worked fast food with both lazy and productive workers before I decided making $8.00/HR wasn't good enough.

At 15 on average one might get a better worker, one more dependable, one who may be able to be rested before work, one which does not have to work as many hours at minimum wage to make ends meet. This will result in a healthier worker, therefore more dependable and offer more labor stability to the employer.

The bottom quartile of workers still has to work somewhere.

Some will be pushed out. That means more people will require government subsidies and it contributes to building a virtual "wall" by pushing low skills immigrants out of the shrinking low skills labor pool. With automation Trump (or Hillary) won't have to visit immigration reform, there will be no jobs to attract people at the lowest skills levels. There will still be a pull on high skills professionals.

Why is this a good thing? If a Mexican can do a job cheaper than a machine, why shouldn't he be hired to do so? It makes life better for him and for the guy who doesn't need to buy a machine.

If you really dislike Mexicans and are willing to harm Americans in order to keep them away, I guess it makes sense. I guess I'm just not a fan of Trump/Bernie/Hillary style nationalism.

That's a characterization I didn't make. What I stated were the consequences of higher min wages. It benefits citizens as well as high skills foreign nationals in the US but is possibly detrimental to low skills labor. There is no judgement in that, just stating the consequences, some positive, some negative. Not all low skills labor come from directly across the border.

On the other hand it benefits higher skills workers from across the border because there will be more demand for high skills labor.

It's a good thing because it expands our ability to automate things. It rewards innovation rather than manipulating the immigration process.

And you know why people don't want Mexicans to flood America. I've seen you link to Putnam's study which shows that diversity destroys trust and communities. There are real externalities here.

I generally care very little about psychological externalities, whether they be dirty Mexicans destroying trust or Halloween costumes at Yale being too scary.

(Hat tip to Bryan Caplan who pointed out the parallel. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/nativism_agains.... )

I do, however, support your right to put up a "No Mexicans" sign and make your own house a safe space.

That's a bizarre stance. It's normal that people don't want to have, say, a brick factory built next to their house because it would impact their psychological well-being.

Trust between members of society, however, is not a matter of individual psychology. It's one of the crucial differences between western countries where you can expect a level of fairness in dealing with strangers, and the third world where you have to rely on your family and clan. It's what enables the markets to work, the justice system, the bureaucracy. Not to mention making living more pleasant.

And anyway, why would the "no Mexicans" policy be OK at a single house level, and not a gated community, city, state, country?

Brick factories emit pollution. A much better comparison would be to a porno factory in a soundproofed house - I just don't like the thought of gay dudes fellating each other right next door, and I don't like to see them walking out to their car in their leather pants!

With a functioning justice system, trust between members of society is something that can be outsourced. And if you are really worried about it, don't do business with Mexicans. I am sympathetic to the problem of political externalities - it would be terrible if the US were to be overrun by people who vote for Trump, Hillary or Bernie.

I take issue with your "no Mexicans" policy when you threaten me with violence if I don't participate in it. Same issue I have with Jim Crow, really (remember that Jim Crow was a "must discriminate" law).

I was thinking about noise from the factory, not pollution. We generally don't live in soundproof houses and even if you have some high-tech envelope building, you still might want to enjoy your backyard.

With a functioning justice system, trust between members of society is something that can be outsourced.

It's fiction. First, it doesn't happen. In reality outsourcing means third-world elites using western courts like Russian oligarchs settling their disputes in Britain or Latin American countries borrowing under US law. Second, because the justice system is too slow and expensive to be used in any significant number of transactions. Finally, rampant corruption renders it all moot in low-trust countries.

I take issue with your "no Mexicans" policy when you threaten me with violence

What about a private company? Should its owners be allowed to institute a "no Mexicans" hiring policy?

What is your favorite historical example of a long-lasting multi-ethnic society?

Rome would be the obvious answer here.

Thanks. Are there any signs you'd recommend that we watch for in respect to decline-of-empire and Gothic invasion and immigration, in order to see if the U.S. is following along a similar path? Or is that the preferred outcome?

The Romans were multi-ethnic from pretty early on - Italians, Greeks, Africans, any ethnicity surrounding the Mediterranean was represented. Their first black emperor (Caracalla) about 200 years in was a nonevent. Overall I think 500 years/1100 years (western/eastern) is a pretty good run.

The study that showed pretty much everyone is, at heart, a bigot? Yeah. So? Strive to do better. Knowing your natural predisposition, counteract it.

Help these Mexicans get jobs and in a while they won't be "diverse", they just won't look exactly like everyone. Even these purebred enclaves have got blondes and brunettes (right?) and society hasn't ripped itself apart. This is just another trivial difference they'll learn to ignore.

The study that showed pretty much everyone is, at heart, a bigot? Yeah. So?

Not really but that's like concluding that studies on multitasking show everyone's lazy and they just need to try harder instead of focusing on one thing. "Knowing your natural predisposition, counteract it."

Back in the communist days, there was a popular saying in Poland: "the system is fine, only people failed it." Obviously, it's silly to design a system for humans that doesn't work for humans because you otherwise like its aesthetics or it would work great if the people acted differently than humans normally do.

Not that we don't do it in IT with certain regularity.

There are seven billion people - we can't all live in separate little groups. Obviously, it's silly to design a system for a world we don't live in.

No, that's not what the Putnam study said. That's what Putnam wrote at the end that he hoped would be true, but had no evidence for (in spite of searching for it for 6 years and delaying publication of evidence to the contrary).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com