Does Minimum Wage Increase Help Or Hurt The Appraisal Business?

[J Grant]

Of course wages and profit have a relationship and some businesses might suffer with a rise to $15. I personally think $15 is too high it should be $12. But who cares what I think or you think...everyone is in trouble in the future without re calibration of what work and income means in the future.
The problem is it is not just teenagers in most of these jobs, for many, min wage and low wage jobs are the only jobs available , I read service jobs now comprise 40% of US job market. The better pay blue collar and professional jobs are shrinking due to automation, outsourcing and AI.

How about this for an answer, a lot of people ought to think about not having kids, if the reality will be a growing scarcity of paid or well paid work . Or be prepared to support them forever as millennials live off mom and dad ( I know many in that situation since their bled dry parents are my age. These boomers being sucked dry of money or home equity and will die broke, what will their 40 year old """kids" do then? In poor nations it will be more bleak as displaced workers nothing to fall back on.

When automation replaces jobs, where will the customers come from who earn $ to buy the goods and services? Businesses contract when they have fewer customers.

Ironically, despite the tech advances, it may mean reversion to homesteading and a subsistence living/barter economy- when paying jobs, or decent paying jobs grow too scarce. (that or kill each other off in a war or famine, take your pick)

The problem is technology including automation replacing jobs occurs at a faster pace than our ability (, or willingness ) to deal with the consequences.

Keeping wages low to forestall automation may not be the answer, automation wil come anyway (unless some system is put in place to limit it). Whether a worker earns $9 an hour or $15 an hour, if a kiosk or auto checkout operates at $2 an hour it can displace a human.r..

The catch is, as more displaced workers have no income to buy goods and services, even though it is cheaper for a business to operate, their customer base and thus profit will shrink..

 

[J Grant]

If 1/3 of home depot workers get replaced by auto checkout , those workers are the customers for fast food joint next door. And the fast food joints replaced their workers by 1/3 with kiosks: the displaced fast food workers were the customers for Home Depot. Replicate that in a region )

Net result: despite greater efficiency/lower overhead i, Home Depot and Fast food joint next door have lost 1/3 their customer base. Where is the sustainability in that? Each fired worker is one less customer (for all kinds of goods/services ) in their local area.

I

 

[DTB]

If 1/3 of home depot workers get replaced by auto checkout , those workers are the customers for fast food joint next door. And the fast food joints replaced their workers by 1/3 with kiosks: the displaced fast food workers were the customers for Home Depot. Replicate that in a region )

Net result: despite greater efficiency/lower overhead i, Home Depot and Fast food joint next door have lost 1/3 their customer base. Where is the sustainability in that? Each fired worker is one less customer (for all kinds of goods/services ) in their local area.

I

Now you're beginning to get why job creators are so vital.
Keep up the drumbeat of capitalism and rich people suck and see how that works out.

 

[Deleted member 128537]

If 1/3 of home depot workers get replaced by auto checkout , those workers are the customers for fast food joint next door. And the fast food joints replaced their workers by 1/3 with kiosks: the displaced fast food workers were the customers for Home Depot. Replicate that in a region )

Net result: despite greater efficiency/lower overhead i, Home Depot and Fast food joint next door have lost 1/3 their customer base. Where is the sustainability in that? Each fired worker is one less customer (for all kinds of goods/services ) in their local area.

I

They have been saying that since the horse and buggy went away. When have new inventions and increased productivity ever decreased the standard of living? Name me one country.

The problem is if people don’t adapt they will be left behind. But it’s not the economy’s fault. It’s their lack of flexibility and willingness to change careers by getting an eduction even later in life. I became an appraiser when I was 40 years old. I had a different career before then. In a changing economy one must always be a learner.

The absolute worse thing to do is guarantee people things. That will totally ruin the willingness to adapt and learn. Typical liberal BS. As humans we have adapted for centuries through the fastest economic development in history. It just takes hard work.

No business is gauranteed an existence. How many blacksmiths do you see?

 

[Michigan CG]

They have been saying that since the horse and buggy went away.

But THIS time it is different.

 

[Dublin ohio]

I became an appraiser when I was 40 years old. I had a different career

Same here. My previous "career" was as a professional stage hand. Traveled the country doing stadium and arena shows for about 16 years. It was a young mans job. And I do mean young. By the time I was 43. My body just could not take it anymore. Long hours, physical work, minimal sleep and home was another hotel. Plus I had just taken on a second "family" with 2 grade schools boys. Do not regret it to this day.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

A quarter of American jobs — belonging to about 36 million people — are at risk of being replaced by automation or artificial intelligence over the next two decades, according to a Brookings Institution report issued in January. Other reports have been even more dire, with the Institute for New Economic Thinking saying 100% of work activity could be automated by 2060.

Speaking at the SXSW conference and festivals Saturday in Austin, Texas, Ocasio-Cortez said workers who fear losing their jobs to automation actually fear the lack of a social safety net.

Some have suggested taxes on robots or universal basic incomes to support a jobless population.

While Ocasio-Cortez did not offer a specific solution, she said the problem boils down to corporate greed.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/w...ia-ocasio-cortez-2019-03-10?mod=mw_latestnews

Higher minimum wage means the payback for automation is shorter. Politicians have to deal with their policies to moderate impacts on the labor force.

Capital goes where it is treated best.

 

[Overimprovement]

The weight to use in measuring the effect of a minimum wage hike is not whether a particular business is able to stay alive or not (though that often is the first sign of consequences), but rather the effects across every business and every individual. Sure some businesses may fail, but others may well pick up their slack. Yes, those workers who don't lose their jobs or have their hours reduced will see increased disposable income, BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF WHOM?

This is a zero net sum game we are playing. 1. There is a fixed amount of money to pay in wages from ALL sources. The total money available does NOT change simply by raising or lowering wages. 2. Similarly, the total amount of money available to spend from wages does not change and more than the total amount of water in our ecosystem (air, land, and oceans) does not change.

I sincerely think these two fundamental points are not understood very well. The total paid out by employers/government/investments stays the same, and the total spent/saved/earned in interest/paid in taxes stays the same. Well, unless you are in Venezuela and the country just prints tons of money...and a cup of coffee costs more than you can carry, and doubles while you are waiting in line.

The NET, all-inclusive effect is that this same amount of spendable wages will simply be DISTRIBUTED differently. For every worker X who gets an extra $100/month in income, there MUST be a worker (or workers) Y who now get $100 LESS/month. Likewise, WHERE the money gets spent will be different as well.

To summarize, increasing the minimum wage does not create more total money. It simply redistributes the FIXED existing amount from those who have/earn more to those who have/earn less, either directly through wages, or indirectly through changes in purchasing power. It also changes where the money gets spent. Are these noble desires? It was for Robin Hood, but not in a capitalistic society. The end game is two main things---one is a marked decrease in the NUMBER of workers. Some jobs will switch to automation, some jobs will just be eliminated, meaning a general decrease in service experienced by everyone. The second is a higher percentage of a company's cash paid to employees, at the expense of things like R&D, benefits, maintenance, etc. This is perhaps sustainable in the short run, but certainly not the long.

Lets quit sugar-coating it. Its nothing more than a forced redistribution of wealth, from those who have earned it through experience, education and hard work, to those who have not earned it. Why is this a good thing for any society?

And why do those who espouse this get upset when applied toward appraisers? Why should the General Appraiser with 30 years' experience, including 1000's of hours in court and across all types of property get paid more than the trainee who just passed their initial exam after the 23rd time, and only then because they cheated?

Why is this principle ANY different than rewarding the teenager with zero work experience with $15/hour to say "ahhh...do you want pickles with that, man?"

The Bible speaks much against laziness, and essentially says if a man wants to eat, let him work. This is a complete 180 from the AOC's of the world who want the government to support even those unwilling to work. What a complete and ignorant fool this person is!

 

[Mr Rex]

I watched the Fed chairman on 60 minutes last night. He pointed out that one of the duties of the Fed is to control inflation. So, ever wonder why the Fed isn't all in on raising the minimum wage? Just saying...

 

[Randolph Kinney]

The weight to use in measuring the effect of a minimum wage hike is not whether a particular business is able to stay alive or not (though that often is the first sign of consequences), but rather the effects across every business and every individual. Sure some businesses may fail, but others may well pick up their slack. Yes, those workers who don't lose their jobs or have their hours reduced will see increased disposable income, BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF WHOM?

This is a zero net sum game we are playing. 1. There is a fixed amount of money to pay in wages from ALL sources. The total money available does NOT change simply by raising or lowering wages. 2. Similarly, the total amount of money available to spend from wages does not change and more than the total amount of water in our ecosystem (air, land, and oceans) does not change.

I sincerely think these two fundamental points are not understood very well. The total paid out by employers/government/investments stays the same, and the total spent/saved/earned in interest/paid in taxes stays the same. Well, unless you are in Venezuela and the country just prints tons of money...and a cup of coffee costs more than you can carry, and doubles while you are waiting in line.

The NET, all-inclusive effect is that this same amount of spendable wages will simply be DISTRIBUTED differently. For every worker X who gets an extra $100/month in income, there MUST be a worker (or workers) Y who now get $100 LESS/month. Likewise, WHERE the money gets spent will be different as well.

To summarize, increasing the minimum wage does not create more total money. It simply redistributes the FIXED existing amount from those who have/earn more to those who have/earn less, either directly through wages, or indirectly through changes in purchasing power. It also changes where the money gets spent. Are these noble desires? It was for Robin Hood, but not in a capitalistic society. The end game is two main things---one is a marked decrease in the NUMBER of workers. Some jobs will switch to automation, some jobs will just be eliminated, meaning a general decrease in service experienced by everyone. The second is a higher percentage of a company's cash paid to employees, at the expense of things like R&D, benefits, maintenance, etc. This is perhaps sustainable in the short run, but certainly not the long.

Lets quit sugar-coating it. Its nothing more than a forced redistribution of wealth, from those who have earned it through experience, education and hard work, to those who have not earned it. Why is this a good thing for any society?

And why do those who espouse this get upset when applied toward appraisers? Why should the General Appraiser with 30 years' experience, including 1000's of hours in court and across all types of property get paid more than the trainee who just passed their initial exam after the 23rd time, and only then because they cheated?

Why is this principle ANY different than rewarding the teenager with zero work experience with $15/hour to say "ahhh...do you want pickles with that, man?"

The Bible speaks much against laziness, and essentially says if a man wants to eat, let him work. This is a complete 180 from the AOC's of the world who want the government to support even those unwilling to work. What a complete and ignorant fool this person is!

This needs to be a "sticky" somewhere so that all can learn from it.