One of the arguments against raising the minimum wage is that it incentivizes automation and robot labor to replace it.

But I think the robot labor force is upon us no matter what, and delaying it by using extremely underpaid wage labor doesn't seem to be doing anyone any favors.

If a living wage forces automation, then it's better to force that and deal with that reality (with social programs, education, basic income, anything), that tilt at windmills.

Sometimes I wonder if people being on welfare and having 40 extra hours a week to figure out what they're doing with their life is better than people working 40 hours at a week at a stressful, useless "job"... and still being on welfare because it pays barely anything.

The fundamental problem is the low market price of unskilled labor. A living wage is one a way to deal with it, along with social programs, education and basic income.

However living wages suffer from the problem that they only benefit people with jobs. Even if they didn't increase unemployment, I would not support them because I don't think a person deserves more than their employer is willing to pay. However, I do think that all people below a certain income should have their income supplemented by the government (what we call welfare in the UK/Aus/NZ, US welfare is much more complex).

I think one problem is that the left has encouraged people to think in terms of rights and justice, when the problems around poverty are really problems of redistribution and charity. Saying that you want to help poor people because they need help and can't provide enough income for themselves sounds arrogant, but it's the truth.

I generally agree. If a job is so close to being marginalized that it would be eliminated by an increase in the minimum, then the cost of that automation is already pretty close to replacing that job, anyway.

My pie-in-the-sky ideal would be if Corporate America (tm) decided that getting enough out of employees was better in the long run than getting the most out of them to make this quarter.

>One of the arguments against raising the minimum wage is that it incentivizes automation and robot labor to replace it.

This argument was conceived precisely so wages could be pressured downward. It becomes patently obvious when you dig a little into the writings by economists who make these predictions - they are typically absolutely clueless about technology.

> One of the arguments against raising the minimum wage is that it incentivizes automation and robot labor to replace it.

I really have to ask at what point people started thinking that reducing total productivity in order to increase the supply of menial toil is a good idea.

I wonder if they're getting what they think they're getting out of that deal. Servers are already getting 10-20% of the top, while the restaurant itself is probably only making 2-3% after expenses. Right now everyone tips their server because that's where their wage comes from. If that started to not be the case, perhaps restaurateurs could keep more of the money that's coming in the door. Food for thought.

Any idea what the typical wage for workers who get the tipped minimum wage is, after tips? I don't see a problem with the "NRA"'s position if those end up the same as others after tips.

Right, my understanding is that they have to receive at least minimum wage when tips are included, and if not the employer has to make up the difference. Tipping as it's practiced today is awful for many reasons, but the minimum wage isn't one of them.

This is strictly true, but when I waited tables I was told that if I ever claimed to make less than minimum wage with tips included (and thus force them to pay me more) I'd be fired. On more than one occasion, as a result, I made less than minimum wage. Paying taxes on income you didn't even get is especially awesome in that case.

When you say one occasion, do you mean one night, or one week, or longer? I ask because one possibility (and if I had to guess, I'd say this is the case), is that the vast majority of workers on the tipped minimum wage actually make more than the minimum wage after tips.

I was referring to single shifts where they overstaffed on a light afternoon so I didn't get many tables.

Also, I didn't get very good tips compared to some of the attractive and personable young women I worked with. Generally we did make more than minimum wage after tips, especially if you considered a weekly or biweekly average.

If I ever got stiffed on a table that would come out of my check, so my worst night was where I only had a few tables and got stiffed on a big one. I ended up paying to work that night since I needed to keep the job.

If you live in CA (and some other states), don't sweat it. CA requires employers to pay full minimum wage irrespective of tips.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm

I was a server at Ruby Tuesday for years, where I made $2.85/hr plus tips. I averaged $8-20 per hour in tips (toward the higher end on weekends and holidays), but I was one of the better servers. The hourly wage only covered taxes.

I think this would be extremely difficult to compute, because a server working in a fancy restaurant makes the same base pay as one working in a chain restaurant, but the tips will be orders of magnitude different.