In my opinion, minimum wage sounds great on paper. In reality, you know the increase in wages is going to result in increased in the cost for the business, which they will conveniently passed it on to consumers. So you may feel like you have more money, but the buying power is actually no better than before the minimum wage being implemented.
Robots just installed 100 MW of solar panels in the desert
- Thread starter Skye Jacobs
- Start date
gamerk2
Posts: 1,614 +2,047
But then costs of production go up, meaning both inflation, and a less profit. And since investors want the stock to go up so they can turn a profit, that's an automatic no-go.
gamerk2
Posts: 1,614 +2,047
Uhhh what? Nuclear has consistently been the most expensive form of energy generation out there, factoring in costs to actually build the required facilities.
gamerk2
Posts: 1,614 +2,047
I note that a low minimum wage also works to suppress wages in other fields.
gamerk2
Posts: 1,614 +2,047
Tbf, that goes all the way back to Vietnam, where college students were exempt from the draft. That's what started the big push towards college, rather then vocational schools. Follow that up with the decline of base manufacturing jobs in favor of cheap imports (Raegan's solution to stagflation) and the push for higher skilled jobs, and you get the current state of affairs.
And there isn't a really *good* solution either, since pretty much any solution involves a significantly higher base inflation, which as we've learned the American public is simply not willing to accept.
Endymio
Posts: 5,299 +4,916
SEC filings don't simply list "base salary" or "taxable" compensation; they list total compensation. Zuckerberg's income derives not from his symbolic salary, but from the dividends he receives as a Meta stockholder ... but ALL shareholders receive those same dividends.
Minimum wage was never intended for people to "live on" their entire lives. It was a temporary stepping-stone for entry-level employees. And no minimum wage law in the world can change the laws of economics -- in areas where labor is in high demand, even entry-level fast-food jobs can pay double minimum wage. Conversely, in other areas, it simply keeps people out of the job market.
LOL, what? You seriously did not just type that , did you? By your logic, if a job isn't worth $200/hr, it can't be worth $20/hr either. Learn economics: no firm will hire an employee who costs them money. Employees must be able to earn more for the company than they consume in labor costs.
Endymio
Posts: 5,299 +4,916
Well, like most people, I prefer to complain about problems than look for solutions, but certainly reducing the level of government distortion in the post-secondary education market would help. Drastically cut federal college loans and grants except for high-demand majors ... then use that money to fund loans and grants for vocational programs in high-demand industrial fields.
Utter nonsense. You think aerospace engineers or thoracic surgeons would be paid more if we raised the salary of fry cooks another $2/hour?
No. What began it was the introduction of federal Pell Grants for college in 1972, which allowed low and low-middle income students to enter college even without needing to work and save up. From 1975 to 2010, college enrollment rates in the US doubled.
You also forget that, in 1969 most of those college-status protections from the Vietnam draft were phased out.
Wrong again. In 1998, the US had more manufacturing jobs than it did in 1975 (17.4M vs. 16.6M). By 2010, it had dropped to just over half that figure ... a precipitous decline driven by many factors, such as Clinton's granting MFN status to China (and cheap Chinese imports), as well as an enormous rise in environmental regulations that drastically pushed up the price of US manufacturing.
gamerk2
Posts: 1,614 +2,047
Yes. Because the people making the higher minimum wage purchase more products, creating demand. That demand necessitates increased production to meet that demand. That means a higher demand for workers, reducing the amount available. Fewer available workers that can fill a job results in higher wages.
Or put another way: The economy grows from the bottom-up. Increasing consumer demand is the fastest sure-fire way to jumpstart long-term economic growth.
While grants certainly helped, it was the Vietnam era that kickstarted the college industry as we know it today. The grants came around primarily as a way to help meet the surging demand for college that the original exemption kicked off.
Interesting you used the stagflation era as your benchmark, since I specifically noted Raegan's economic policies, not Nixon/Ford.
Also, the "cost" of meeting environmental regulations is *very* overstated by opponents of regulation.
Endymio
Posts: 5,299 +4,916
Err, no. Paying a worker an above-market rate doesn't create dollars. If a firm pays a minimum-wage worker $1 more, by definition it must pay someone else $1 less -- either a higher-paid employee, or a shareholder/owner. Those individuals then purchase less products and services. (the third option of the company charging customers $1 more also works to the exact same effect.)
There are a dozen other reasons why minimum-wage laws are not just bad for the economy, but even worse for the very workers they're intended to protect. Why not learn what economists have been telling us for decades?
Oops! Women were never drafted to fight in Vietnam, so please explain how "avoiding the draft" caused their college enrollment rates to rise from 40.7% in 1964 all the way up to 71% in 2005.
As for men, their enrollment rates did rise during Vietnam ... but actually dropped dramatically at war's end....a plateau they didn't recover from until 1992, when the federal government, by introducing the FAFSA, Stafford Loans, and higher limits on grants, drastically increased the level of funding students received.
Understated is closer to the mark. In 1965, the US produced nearly half the manufactured goods in the world, and China essentially zero, despite the fact that the US-China wage gap was larger then than it is today. It wasn't "wages" that caused US manufacturing to offshore, but the crippling costs of regulation. Of course, it started long before Obama, but during one year alone in his term, industrial manufacturing was hit with some 270 new regulations ... an average of more than one new rule to follow every working day. Who can do business in an environment like that?
Last edited:
gamerk2
Posts: 1,614 +2,047
Except the data disagrees with you. Study after study has shown the same effect: When the minimum wage goes up, economic growth follows.
Your argument that raising the minimum wage "takes money away from someone else" is again, nonsensical. And even if it wasn't, since the lower/middle rung of the economic ladder tends to spend a much higher percentage of their income, allowing them to spend more is a much more effective tool to generate economic growth, as opposed to the higher economic rungs, who tend to stuff their income in banks.
As I noted, the Vietnam exemption started the trend towards higher education becoming mandatory. And once that trend started, women naturally also started to seek higher education since it became all but required to get a job.
(And as an aside, the Selective Service Act is unconstitutional on the grounds that only mem are draftable, and will almost certainly be overturned should it ever be invoked)
The data I'm seeing doesn't reflect that. It shows the opposite: college admission rates as a percentage of population trended upwards from the early 80s onwards. There also wasn't a notable spike in 92 that I can see.
Degrees of difference: Male college enrollment and completion
This brief explores the dimensions of male achievement in higher education, focusing on completion and enrollment across time, racial groups and institutional types.
aibm.org
It's not that hard, since most of those regulations are specific to individual industries. It's significantly less of a hassle for companies that don't have to worry about exporting to Europe (which has even tougher standards to meet). Realistically, you always target the toughest set of standards for wherever you are shipping. And the cost of meeting those standards isn't a primary driver of cost.
LordVile95
Posts: 489 +296
No it’s really not. Over the lifespan of the plant it’s fairly cheap it’s just the initial outlay and the initial outlay also knocking on to a lack of investment in supply chain etc. A lot of the models also don’t factor in that you have to replace most of a renewable fleet as it ages and only factor in plate capacity which renewables never get anywhere near.
LordVile95
Posts: 489 +296
Then the only option is UBI which means more taxes on bussiness
gamerk2
Posts: 1,614 +2,047
That "initial outlay" is currently on the order of "a couple Billion dollars, if managed well".
gamerk2
Posts: 1,614 +2,047
*sigh*
Minimum Wage increases and their short and long term effects have been studied to absolute death. And the results are consistent: Short term, you see a slight dip (and we're talking sub-1%) in the workforce, but that quickly rebounds as increased consumer spending generates demand (profit), leading to an increase in jobs.
The problem you have is you can't see past the immediate effects. When people have more money, they will spend more money. And that spending, more then any other factor, is what spurs job creation, through increased demand.
Endymio
Posts: 5,299 +4,916
Oops! Please explain then why the US economy has grown four times faster than the EU since 2008, despite the EU having significantly higher minimum wages. And China has grown much faster than the US, despite having no national minimum wage at all.
This is the real world. While your "studies" are done by minimum wage advocates, who make a huge number of artificial assumptions, such as businesses will "save money" from a higher wage by reducing turnover, increasing employee productivity, and other starry-eyed fairy tales.
This really is pretty basic. If a business pays an employee a dollar more, it has one dollar less to allocate elsewhere. Only those who literally believe money grows on trees can believe otherwise.
For women? Don't be absurd. The "trend" began in 18th century Europe, where those with university educations were guaranteed a life of ease and plenty ... but only the wealthy could afford them. When the federal government began subsidizing college, far more people began to go. This isn't rocket science.
If Vietnam "started that trend", why did women's college enrollment rates begin rising in 1950? By the time the Vietnam War started, their enrollment rates had already more than tripled.
See my graph above. The trend began around 1950. For men, it dropped post-Vietnam and plateaued until the early 1990s..
In technical terms, you're not looking for a "spike". You're looking for an inflection point. The '92 federal changes didn't take effect until the following year, and didn't truly seep into the public consciousness until a year or two after that. Look at the slope of the graph for the decade after 1994 compared to the decade before.
Endymio
Posts: 5,299 +4,916
Only in simplistically banal studies that rate the value of every unit of energy generated equal, when in the real world a kW-hr generated by wind or solar when supply exceeds demand is not only worthless, it literally costs the utility money to shed it, while a kW-hr generated when the grid is nearing blackout conditions -- and the wind isn't blowing, nor the sun shining -- is nearly priceless.
I've also seen several of those studies where they amortize the building cost of the nuclear plant over only 30 years, when current plants are lasting 60 and even 70 years.
LordVile95
Posts: 489 +296
Which is the same with every type of energy generation? At least with nuclear you actually get the plate capacity
mbrowne5061
Posts: 2,365 +1,557
How much water do you think is available for a nuclear plant in the Mojave desert?
Like, I agree - build the nukes - but lets think about the location, too, yeah?
Endymio
Posts: 5,299 +4,916
How much electricity do you think is needed in the middle of the Mojave desert? The only reason the solar plant is there is because it's impractical to put it where it's actually needed.
And that of course means the true cost of the solar includes additional grid expansion and significantly higher line losses.
gamerk2
Posts: 1,614 +2,047
It's not like a major economic upheaval hit in 2008, and how it was addressed couldn't have possibly affected those results in any way.
EU choose austerity, and it basically ruined several of their economies in the process. China (and to a lesser extent, the US) instead re-invested in themselves to drive economic growth.
If anything, your point highlights *exactly* why direct government investment into the economy *works*, and why doing massive cuts to spending to try and close deficits *don't*.
Translation: "I don't like the study so I disregard them rather then refute their conclusions".
It's not about businesses *saving money*; higher wages always leads to higher costs. The argument is that higher wages *across the entire economy* leads to a net increase economic growth via increased consumer spending. Or put in a much simpler way: More people with more money is good for the economy.
Using your logic, wealth is finite and unchanging.
The correct way to look at it is as an investment, as noted above.
gamerk2
Posts: 1,614 +2,047
Its such a shame we can't put solar + batteries on every building so they can generate and store the majority of the power they need, reducing the burden on the rest of the grid.
The sarcasm is implied.
Endymio
Posts: 5,299 +4,916
Oops! You forgot the same upheaval struck Europe at the same time:
"...The 2008 housing crisis in Europe caused a severe recession, plunging many European nations into a deep financial crisis. Countries like Spain, Ireland, and the UK faced bursting property bubbles, resulting in sharp price drops, banking sector impairments of over €940 billion, and long-term economic instability...."
You're making excuses. If you don't like 2008, let's start our comparison post-Covid:
"...Since 2020, the United States has experienced significantly faster GDP growth than the European Union, widening a long-term economic gap. US real GDP grew over 11% by early 2025 from pre-pandemic levels, outpacing the EU’s ~4.6% gain,..."
So much for those higher wages translating into higher economic growth.
Even a moment's reflection should convince you that your argument is not only specious, but absurd. Minimum wage earners in the US are only 1% of the total workforce. It's ludicrous to believe raising their salaries is anything more than statistical noise on total GDP growth. It does, however, drastically hurt those very workers you're attempting to protect.
So now you want to not only mandate higher wages for fry cooks, but for every worker in the US? Heck, why not just mandate a $5M annual salary for everyone? Won't that mean we can all buy yachts and private jets?
TANSTAAFL. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Endymio
Posts: 5,299 +4,916
It's a shame people can't do the math to understand how much battery arrays large enough to power a home for hours on end actually cost. I actually have a Tesla Powerwall in my home. I'd need 2 of them to run my home all night .... if I lived in a higher latitude, I'd need four of them, at $15K a pop ... and even more if we take into account days with heavy cloud cover.
Using the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) metric, solar is much, much cheaper than nuclear power, even when you factor in the cost of adding battery storage to the solar grid. The comparison includes the cost of plant construction (much more expensive than deploying solar arrays), fuel costs, plus managing fuel waste and plant decommissioning. The only real advantage that nuclear has is the fact that it requires much less land use than massive solar arrays.
Similar threads
