BOA - $20 an hour

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

BOA - $20 an hour

Post by doodle » Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:19 am

I was initially surprised about BOA's announcement to pay workers $20 an hour. Seems like a move that wouldn't maximize shareholder value in an industry that certainly pays most tellers far less. Then I read this https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/17/bank-of ... -jobs.html Same goes for Amazon bumping pay to 15 an hour. Is this because they are able to automate so much more of their operations?

Technology inducing unemployment. It seemed like that theme got swept under the rug as job numbers have soared over the last decade coming out of the great recession. Is this theme something that needs to come back to the forefront as workers clamor for higher wages? Will those higher wages continue to come on the backs of leaner workforces?
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by Kriegsspiel » Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:48 am

I saw recently that in the wake of a minimum wage increase in NYC to $15, restaurant workers employment went down, and managers said they were planning on laying off more people (going to automated service ilke San Fran and McDonald's I guess?).
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
User avatar
europeanwizard
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:06 am
Location: The Netherlands, Europe

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by europeanwizard » Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:53 am

Some weeks back, Peter Schiff analyzed this in a podcast. He figured that this benefits the big boys, because they have enough money for robotization/automation. They either replace workers, or augment them, such that they can do with a smaller workforce.

Smaller companies can only downsize when the automation gets commoditized.
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by doodle » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:29 am

Makes sense. It will be interesting to see what happens if the left regains power in future elections and pressures minimum wage standards higher. Will the economic disparity and stratification that they were seeking to mitigate become even more pronounced? I'm a glass half empty type of person so I'd appreciate the perspective of a more Pollyanna type of person to counterbalance my darker worldview as I recognize that I sometimes see problems with situations way too early.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by Kriegsspiel » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:57 am

I keep coming back to the idea that labor really doesn't have any leverage. Except for the power to pull a crab back into the bucket. They can't force people to innovate and invent, they can only force them to share the rewards (in our current system).

Image

That said, John Michael Greer's idea of not taxing any income (salary, dividends, interest, rent), but instead taxing capital gains and automation, not allowing depreciation for tax purposes is thought-provoking.

It's basically a check on technological unemployment, employing a logical tax philosophy (tax what you don't want to happen, subsidize what you do want to happen). The problem is... what reason would corporations have for forming in the USA? Or doing business here? Other countries would look very tempting, in the same way the US has sucked up global talent for a long time. We would have to be willing to accept the possible consequences of technological stagnation or regression. It's a Prisoner's Dilemma.

However, taxing automation is, IMO, the moral way to provide for UBI. Robots don't mind the fruits of their labor or the prizes of their frugality being taken from them.

These things have a way of turning out differently than intended.
doodle wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:29 am
I'm a glass half empty type of person so I'd appreciate the perspective of a more Pollyanna type of person to counterbalance my darker worldview as I recognize that I sometimes see problems with situations way too early.
Sorry, it's darkness all the way down >:D
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
jacksonM
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by jacksonM » Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:23 am

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:48 am
I saw recently that in the wake of a minimum wage increase in NYC to $15, restaurant workers employment went down, and managers said they were planning on laying off more people (going to automated service ilke San Fran and McDonald's I guess?).
They have already gone down this road in Australia and you can see the results there. When my wife's sister's family visited us a couple of years ago my brother-in-law bragged about the minimum wage law and how their daughter would be starting a job at McDonald's making over $20/hour. Even had my own daughter wanting to move there.

Interestingly they were all quite impressed with how low the prices at McDonald's (as well as every other restaurant) were in the U.S.A - even adjusting for the exchange rate.

The next year we visited them in Australia and made an 8 day roundtrip car trip from Sydney to the Great Barrier reef. When I observed that in practically ever small town we drove through, the only restaurant in town was McDonald's and sometimes Burger King (Hungry Jack's) he explained that the reason for this was because those companies moved into town and offered lower prices to drive out the competition then raised them.

I politely suggested that was nonsense and maybe the minimum wage laws had something to do with it but I don't think it registered.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by flyingpylon » Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:30 am

I have teenagers, so I see the inside of places like McDonalds and Taco Bell more often than I'd like. Both restaurants (at multiple locations) have added self-service kiosks with touch screens for ordering. I'm always sure to ask my kids the rhetorical question: "You think they're paying these kiosks 15 bucks an hour?"
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by moda0306 » Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:49 am

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:57 am
I keep coming back to the idea that labor really doesn't have any leverage. Except for the power to pull a crab back into the bucket. They can't force people to innovate and invent, they can only force them to share the rewards (in our current system).

Image

That said, John Michael Greer's idea of not taxing any income (salary, dividends, interest, rent), but instead taxing capital gains and automation, not allowing depreciation for tax purposes is thought-provoking.

It's basically a check on technological unemployment, employing a logical tax philosophy (tax what you don't want to happen, subsidize what you do want to happen). The problem is... what reason would corporations have for forming in the USA? Or doing business here? Other countries would look very tempting, in the same way the US has sucked up global talent for a long time. We would have to be willing to accept the possible consequences of technological stagnation or regression. It's a Prisoner's Dilemma.

However, taxing automation is, IMO, the moral way to provide for UBI. Robots don't mind the fruits of their labor or the prizes of their frugality being taken from them.

These things have a way of turning out differently than intended.
doodle wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:29 am
I'm a glass half empty type of person so I'd appreciate the perspective of a more Pollyanna type of person to counterbalance my darker worldview as I recognize that I sometimes see problems with situations way too early.
Sorry, it's darkness all the way down >:D
I don’t know I follow. Most of the time, innovators or inventors are simply a higher wage form of labor. You’re talking engineers here. Not ceo’s usually. It is capital, not high-wage labor, that is the enemy of labor. And capital doesn’t invent. It just supplies capital.
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by WiseOne » Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:06 am

I wonder if this has less to do with minimum wage laws, and more to do with increased health insurance & payroll costs and decreased legal immigration (as opposed to the illegal kind, which is not relevant here). Legal immigration has tightened up considerably since Trump took office, going by the experience of my friends applying for green card renewals. That used to be a couple of months and a fairly easy process, but it now takes up to a year, or more. And that's for a skilled person, such as a university professor. I can only guess that it's even harder if you're unskilled.

We've all tossed around predictions that increased wages would result from a smaller unskilled labor pool. Perhaps this is actually happening? If so, it's a good thing. I also guess that higher payroll costs (other than wages) would pressure companies to minimize the number of employees and squeeze more work out of the ones they do hire, which again means you're competing for the high quality people in an already tight pool. This also would encourage increased pay.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by moda0306 » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:18 am

MangoMan wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:52 am
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:49 am
Most of the time, innovators or inventors are simply a higher wage form of labor. You’re talking engineers here. Not ceo’s usually. It is capital, not high-wage labor, that is the enemy of labor. And capital doesn’t invent. It just supplies capital.
Not always, but usually, where does that capital come from? Innovation and/or some other type of hard work coupled with vision. Why should that be the enemy of labor? If there was no capital, there would be no jobs.
Capital (in the form of physical assets themselves... machinery, not the transfers of pieces of paper) come from already applied labor, but innovation and the sweat kind. But keep in mind to the degree a capital class exists, these folks are often not innovating, but simply leveraging and looking after their interests as owners. We don't identify with this much as a bunch of proletariat and petty bougie folks, but absolutely massive amounts of wealth are held by folks who didn't innovate anything, but simply seek the best risk-adjusted rate of return they can. Not that anything is individually wrong with this... I'd do the same if I inherited $400 million.

Of course you have some folks who combine saved capital with their sweat AND innovation labor, and these are the people we rightfully tip our cap to as entrepreneurs. But these folks often 1) are utterly dependent on their bodies and brains to be able to survive, 2) have a bank or capital class rent-seeker to pony up to, which makes them extremely dependent on steady demand, and/or 3) depend on a critical mass of demand from a working class with diminishing financial ability to purchase stuff beyond basic needs. They have their lot in with labor, not capital. They're 90% worker, and 10% "capitalist." Until perhaps they sell their business and retire one day with dozens of times more net worth than annual living expense.

So this attempt to group said entrepreneurs away from labor generally and towards capital investment interest is a weak one IMO.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by Kriegsspiel » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:43 am

moda0306 wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:49 am
I don’t know I follow. Most of the time, innovators or inventors are simply a higher wage form of labor. You’re talking engineers here. Not ceo’s usually. It is capital, not high-wage labor, that is the enemy of labor. And capital doesn’t invent. It just supplies capital.
I was trying to say that if automation replaces humans, then those humans don't have any leverage over the people with the robots except for voting for representatives to change the rules to make (or incentivize) the people with the robots either:

- to hire people
- to give people the money they make from the robots

My point was that even though the humans have that power, nobody can FORCE the capital/business owners to locate their businesses where they'd be subject to those rules. I think businesses locate in America because we have the most friendly laws for them, and we have had the people they needed to work in their companies. But if we change our laws so that they're relatively worse than other countries, I would expect the corporations with the robots to leave and go somewhere else to make their stuff with their robots, and then export it to the US (or rather, whoever in the US can pay for it).

Without robots, labor and capital have to agree to terms because they need each other. But if capital has robots what do they need labor for? And if capital doesn't need labor (ie, to be located where labor lives so that they can get to work), and labor votes in representatives that are going to extract resources from capital, why would capital stick around? That's what I was getting at. More of a thought experiment, not a prediction.
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by moda0306 » Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:50 am

MangoMan wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:18 am
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:18 am
MangoMan wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:52 am


Not always, but usually, where does that capital come from? Innovation and/or some other type of hard work coupled with vision. Why should that be the enemy of labor? If there was no capital, there would be no jobs.
Capital (in the form of physical assets themselves... machinery, not the transfers of pieces of paper) come from already applied labor, but innovation and the sweat kind. But keep in mind to the degree a capital class exists, these folks are often not innovating, but simply leveraging and looking after their interests as owners. We don't identify with this much as a bunch of proletariat and petty bougie folks, but absolutely massive amounts of wealth are held by folks who didn't innovate anything, but simply seek the best risk-adjusted rate of return they can. Not that anything is individually wrong with this... I'd do the same if I inherited $400 million.

Of course you have some folks who combine saved capital with their sweat AND innovation labor, and these are the people we rightfully tip our cap to as entrepreneurs. But these folks often 1) are utterly dependent on their bodies and brains to be able to survive, 2) have a bank or capital class rent-seeker to pony up to, which makes them extremely dependent on steady demand, and/or 3) depend on a critical mass of demand from a working class with diminishing financial ability to purchase stuff beyond basic needs. They have their lot in with labor, not capital. They're 90% worker, and 10% "capitalist." Until perhaps they sell their business and retire one day with dozens of times more net worth than annual living expense.

So this attempt to group said entrepreneurs away from labor generally and towards capital investment interest is a weak one IMO.
Except those entrepreneurs are subject to the same business-unfriendly laws & taxation, and anti-'rich people' sentiment from the unwilling-to-work crowd (including the politicians who feed the flames). So what difference does it make. In effect, it's the same.
All things equal in terms of total income, businesses are absolutely NOT taxed unfriendly. W-2 wages are absolutely the most toxic way to be taxed, but for certain rare exceptions like gambling income, illicit drug sales, etc.

Of course, ordinary business income flowing through the proper entity "filters" will never be as "efficient" as capital gains, life-insurance benefits, rental properties, etc.

If I could take the tax code on capital and apply it to my wage income, I'd take it in a heartbeat. I'd also take the tax code on businesses and apply it to my income if I could. I've actually considered incorporating and going to my boss and offering him a Independent Contractor arrangement on that basis alone.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by Xan » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:02 am

moda0306 wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:50 am
I've actually considered incorporating and going to my boss and offering him a Independent Contractor arrangement on that basis alone.
That would almost certainly be a big win for you, but your boss might not go for it. That could potentially hurt his own Qualified Business Income deduction.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by moda0306 » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:17 am

Xan wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:02 am
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:50 am
I've actually considered incorporating and going to my boss and offering him a Independent Contractor arrangement on that basis alone.
That would almost certainly be a big win for you, but your boss might not go for it. That could potentially hurt his own Qualified Business Income deduction.
He probably doesn't have to worry about that... his main limitation is the SSTB limitation (accounting firms phase out of the deduction above $315k) not the wage limitation (he's got lots of staff). But you've got your head in the right place.

When the Xan/Moda agreement stars align, probably means a good conversation is happening. Just sayin.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by moda0306 » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:26 am

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:43 am
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:49 am
I don’t know I follow. Most of the time, innovators or inventors are simply a higher wage form of labor. You’re talking engineers here. Not ceo’s usually. It is capital, not high-wage labor, that is the enemy of labor. And capital doesn’t invent. It just supplies capital.
I was trying to say that if automation replaces humans, then those humans don't have any leverage over the people with the robots except for voting for representatives to change the rules to make (or incentivize) the people with the robots either:

- to hire people
- to give people the money they make from the robots

My point was that even though the humans have that power, nobody can FORCE the capital/business owners to locate their businesses where they'd be subject to those rules. I think businesses locate in America because we have the most friendly laws for them, and we have had the people they needed to work in their companies. But if we change our laws so that they're relatively worse than other countries, I would expect the corporations with the robots to leave and go somewhere else to make their stuff with their robots, and then export it to the US (or rather, whoever in the US can pay for it).

Without robots, labor and capital have to agree to terms because they need each other. But if capital has robots what do they need labor for? And if capital doesn't need labor (ie, to be located where labor lives so that they can get to work), and labor votes in representatives that are going to extract resources from capital, why would capital stick around? That's what I was getting at. More of a thought experiment, not a prediction.
That's why labor needs to ORGANIZE. It's not doing so now currently. Massive corporations can easily play countries against each other because they've got free trade laws juxtaposed against competing tax systems. If we had a NEW free trade bill that limited tarriffs but used our collective state bargaining power to tax capital and globocorps at much higher levels, so they can't play countries against each other, that would be the ideal outcome IMO. But the pockets of neoliberal governments that make trade deals have little interest in the well-being of anything but global capital.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by Kriegsspiel » Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:16 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:26 am
That's why labor needs to ORGANIZE. It's not doing so now currently.
Organize and do what? That was what the Joker GIF was saying... what does the power to go on strike mean when you aren't needed to do the work in the first place?
Massive corporations can easily play countries against each other because they've got free trade laws juxtaposed against competing tax systems. If we had a NEW free trade bill that limited tarriffs but used our collective state bargaining power to tax capital and globocorps at much higher levels, so they can't play countries against each other, that would be the ideal outcome IMO. But the pockets of neoliberal governments that make trade deals have little interest in the well-being of anything but global capital.
I'm unaware of a cartel that has ever lasted, there's just too much incentive to cheat. In this scenario I predict wild cheating.
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: BOA - $20 an hour

Post by moda0306 » Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:44 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:16 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:26 am
That's why labor needs to ORGANIZE. It's not doing so now currently.
Organize and do what? That was what the Joker GIF was saying... what does the power to go on strike mean when you aren't needed to do the work in the first place?
Massive corporations can easily play countries against each other because they've got free trade laws juxtaposed against competing tax systems. If we had a NEW free trade bill that limited tarriffs but used our collective state bargaining power to tax capital and globocorps at much higher levels, so they can't play countries against each other, that would be the ideal outcome IMO. But the pockets of neoliberal governments that make trade deals have little interest in the well-being of anything but global capital.
I'm unaware of a cartel that has ever lasted, there's just too much incentive to cheat. In this scenario I predict wild cheating.
Labor is still needed enough... and I'm not talking about going on strike, although it would probably help immensely in lower income parts of the world, but instead enacting policy that keeps corporations from playing countries lax labor and environmental standards against each other.
Post Reply