Not really, owners will pay whatever is cheapest and if I robot costs $19/hour and a person costs $20 (cp) the owner will go with the robot.

I'm betting this isn't so straight forward. At the moment, the idea of going to a restaurant and having food that was entirely prepared by robots is, for some reason, unappetizing. (Granted, I realize that I probably eat prepacked food that may have been prepared by robots all the time)

I could be wrong but I also think that there could be a backlash against companies that replace everyone with robots so the owners can squeeze out more money.

I think the success of chains like Five Guys is also a reflection of something... its local meat, its fresh not frozen, its cooked by the people in front of you - I'm not sure I've quite figured this out yet but I feel like this is somehow counter to the idea of robot prepared food.

Finally- I'm just skeptical that we're at all that close to it being economical to replace people with robots anyways.

Well by (cp) I meant ceteris paribus. Certainly there are differences between human and robots that don't make them universally exchangeable in every labor situation, but in general, owners will look to minimize costs.

That's true and really has nothing to do with a min wage discussion

Where to set the minimum wage is a legitimate public policy debate upon which reasonable people can disagree.

In the course of contributing to that debate, just as a pro tip for how to be taken seriously as an adult, you should try very hard to avoid broadcasting just how much scorn you feel for the lazy and worthless poor.

It has everything to do with one actually. If minimum wage is $15/hour then you'll see way more desire to use automated processes like robots to do simple tasks like flipping a burger patty, salting fries, etc.

But what if someone develops a robot that can flip burgers for cheaper than what min wag workers are currently getting? Do we then lower min wage?

Not sure why everybody is ragging on the article. It said the struggles are a result of emotional issues and less dire than those of lower income people.

And the mortgage payments look ok ballpark if its a 15 year.

Nope didn't say that at all. Have machines ever replaced manual labor before?

LOL you really do have a problem with reading comprehension don't you. Raising the minimum wage will no doubt cause people to lose their jobs. Consult CBO comments on he effects of raising the minimum wage. They estimate something like 500,000 jobs will be lost. The higher it is raised the more people will lose their jobs. There are a lot of reasons that wages are stagnant in the USA but one of the biggest factors is that the demand for unskilled labor in the US has diminished due to globalization. Also a large contributing factor is the automation of tasks previously done manually. You know like machines replacing humans such as burger flipping machines replacing burger flippers. Btw Bill Clinton was and is a huge proponent of freer trade, just check out his record.

We have a minimum wage already and it has been raised several times both at the federal and state levels. Somehow there are still plenty of investors.

It's almost as if worker productivity has gone up so much, that companies can still make huge profits, even while paying higher wages.

If wages kept pace with actual worker productivity, min wage would be around $22. So yeah, not $200 but plenty of investors - even WITH a living wage!

only if you think paying people to dig holes and then fill them back up is a good idea.

How rich do I need to be to avoid the poor doors?

lol yeah man it's a real puzzler

Good? Removing the option of being a burger flipper will see more people go to school for slightly less menial jobs. Poverty is a trap. I'm all for them getting out of it--and working a job that pays <10 an hour is a big part of that trap. (because you don't actually earn enough money to pay for your bills you need to work more hours and get government assistance. The time you spend on that job is taking away from the time you should be spending doing something else)

Silly poors! Just stop eating and paying rent for a few years while you go to school to become a robot engineer.

There isn't a shred of evidence that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour will reduce the poverty rate. The truth of the matter is that a very small percentage of the work force actually makes minimum wage now, something like less than 2% IIRC. Sure go ahead and raise the minimum wage but thinking it will have only positive economic effects is pretty loltastic. Any kind of serious discussion of the economic effects of raising the minimum wage should center around the economic trade offs in my view. Keep drinking that kool aid.

Let's keep assuming non-standard plausible reasons for this supposedly "typical" family.

The biggest economic tradeoff is the downward pressure on profits caused by the upward pressure on all wages - concentrated at the bottom. Considering profits are at record highs and the rich are much richer than ever before - I have a feeling they can absorb the shock of a few $$ min. wage increase.

I only had a 1/4 bottle left. You do the math. (it was actually a joke, fellas. Not the quarter bottle, the reference.)

Ok we obviously all know that but whatever it is that you're getting at it is trivial.

Its a typical family that makes 400k and spends more than they make. Obv there is going to be some highly atypical/horrific things about their spending.

wat

Is that really not clear to you? The spending of a typical busto 400k/year family is going to be very atypical compared to normal families or even rich non busto families.

Ok. So why make up a hypothetical outlier busto $400k family then write about them? The only reason is because you are trying to imply their situation is somehow typical or commonplace.

If that's the case why not just find a real family? Oh yeah because families living hand to mouth who make $400k and aren't drooling financial idiots don't exist.

We don't all know that if you're saying things like "MW is literally the lowest amount you can legally pay someone".