Seattle’s Minimum Wage Hike May Have Gone Too Far

[Captain N]

did it ever occur to you that people who are against it make much more then 16 $/hour because they educated themselves and thus deserve more ?

nah better call for communism where dude who flips burgers make as much as neurosurgeon because all shoudl be equal ye ?

Except most don't and we've seen it even out of your blunders that you're not much higher than the wage you so adamantly champion against.

Nobody has ever said a neurosurgeon should make the same as a burger flipper -- you're being absurd.

Coincidentally the wage disparity between a Union and Non-Union worker is about $6 more per hour in the service sector alone...but I guess if those educated folks are doing so much better on average.


https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf

[Nasukkin]

This is a massive "no shit" moment. I mean, you don't even have to take an introductory university course on economics to understand what's going on here.

Someone tells you that the cost of coffee at your local market is going to increase by 20%. You are judicious when it comes to how you spend your money (let's just assume for the sake of argument that you are), and you factor that into your budget and what it's going to do to your weekly budget. Maybe that means that you don't drink quite as much coffee any more. Maybe you decide to break out the kettle and brew some tea more often.

That's what's happening here. Businesses need their workers, but they are sensitive to changes in cost and... well, it's their business to maximize cost efficiency in their business. If they think they can get away with hiring fewer full-time employees in order to mitigate the increased cost, they are going to do that. They wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't. After all, no individual employer has any obligation to provide opportunities to an outsider if their current business model is working.

And about that tea: this is part of why automation of jobs is becoming a thing. Why pay someone to do the same general tasks every day when you can get a computer and/or robot to do it for a fraction of the long-term cost? Again, you'd be a fool not to, if the approach is more efficient in making your business profitable.

[Kellhound]

You're just making these numbers up, right? Because they don't line up with my napkin math.

And a quick check of SNAP eligibility requirements show that a single person making $11/hour doesn't qualify for SNAP benefits to begin with.

If you have an issue with "lining the pockets of the rich", you're arguing against a capitalist economic system, not minimum wage laws.

And yes; people earning more pay more in taxes to pay for social security and such; that doesn't reduce the net gains to zero, as you yourself admit.

I prefer to use calculators over a napkin, but whatever floats your boat.
Depends on dependants.
I have an issue with people pushing solutions that do more good for the rich than the poor in the name of helping the poor.
My point has always been it doesn't have near the positive impact that some like to say it does because increased housing costs are often not accounted for.

- - - Updated - - -

A single person making that amount wouldn't get food stamps. You also magically went from $60 left down to being lucky if you have 40 cents left. I gave you a literal mathematical proof but you're just hand waving it away and making up numbers at this point. You're also still hinging on your assumption that everything is going to go up in cost by 10% and that's just not true.

I also don't understand your statement about lining the pockets of the rich. It makes zero since if we're talking about increasing min wage and making companies pay more. How are the rich getting more money?

- - - Updated - - -



Except no one is arguing that everyone makes the same amount. Not sure what thread you're reading.

- - - Updated - - -



Automation is becoming a "thing" because paying a robot 0/hr will be infinitely cheaper than paying a human anything. There's also cost saved in less liability, insurance, etc. Automation will come regardless of minimum wage.

Wow your reading skills are bad. I said $2 becomes $0.40. Do try to keep up. I also stated one dependant the first time I mentioned food stamps.I also only put $20 into other expenses going up.

Lets see, housing prices jump because the poor have more money to spend on keeping a roof over their head, that money goes to the owners of the properties. Last time I checked, the poor were generally not owners of property they rent out, especially apartment complexes. The biggest winners in Seattle were the property owners.

[RaoBurning]

No, you're not. Because this phenomenon has never been observed in any country that has had a minimum wage that has been raised.

What -actually- happens is the increased buying power inflates demand which means businesses have to acquire more employees to keep up.

Do you actually understand how employment works as a function of market demand? I'd say no.

Building on this: It's the same reason why retail chains hire extra seasonal workers around Christmas. Massive boost in customers coming in means more people needed to man the store. Higher demand, more employees/hours needed. It really isn't rocket science and it baffles me that it's apparently impossible to get people to understand these things.

[Endus]

Building on this: It's the same reason why retail chains hire extra seasonal workers around Christmas. Massive boost in customers coming in means more people needed to man the store. Higher demand, more employees/hours needed. It really isn't rocket science and it baffles me that it's apparently impossible to get people to understand these things.

Or just look at economic history since the 19th Century. There were few worker protections, like minimum wage, and working conditions became absolutely inhumane, and wages were cratered so low that child labor was prevalent, since without it, those children would have starved, because both parents working 7-day weeks at 14-16 hours a day wasn't enough for basic subsistence for them and their children in conditions of abject poverty.

That all changed with the implementation of broad worker protections in basically the entire developed world.

Today, while there are still issues (and many are connected to a minimum wage not tied to inflation, in the USA, for instance), they aren't even remotely as bad as they were in that era. We're far better off in developed society, today, even our poorest quintile, than they were in the past, that it's just ludicrous that people argue that minimum wages make things worse.

[Doctor Amadeus]

The report is biased one sided and leaving out a tremendous amount of information not concluded yet, and yes just as with any adjustment a long time coming, nothing is without good or bad, that people will get used to, the question is if more good or bad can be made of this based on reliable information that it would, and provided those against it aren't trying to lobby with more money than they pay more workers to simply try to fuck these people out of a decent wage.

[kamuimac]

Building on this: It's the same reason why retail chains hire extra seasonal workers around Christmas. Massive boost in customers coming in means more people needed to man the store. Higher demand, more employees/hours needed. It really isn't rocket science and it baffles me that it's apparently impossible to get people to understand these things.

the golden rule is "never discuss with idiots - first they will bring you down to their level with sheer stupidity and then beat with experience" - just ignore what uneducated plebs whine about.

[Hooked]

They are trying to destroy peoples life saving by doubling minimum wage, the result is people will travel farther to buy goods and services leading to massive layoffs in the cities that do this.

Its called economics 101 mixed with common sense and freedom of travel.

[Alydael]

If you as a business owner cannot afford to pay your workers adequately then you shouldn't be owning a business. Period.

I can tell by your comment that you have never owned a business nor have you worked in upper management. Many businesses just scrape by. I have seen companies in which the owner did not take a salary for over a year because the money was just simply not there and they wanted to keep the business going.

You can not get blood from a stone.

If the 15/$ hr is not there to pay someone, it has been proven that the money will not just magically appear just because some people think it is the right thing to do.

When I did independent contracting, some companies couldn't pay me for months because they didn't have it. I was doing well, so I let it slide.

That's not the problem. The problem is that a lot of adults (for whatever reason) are taking jobs that used to be kids jobs. These were the jobs that kids, such as I used to, worked to get through school. Now these adults want a real salary for working what is, in effect, a child's job. Sorry, this is the real world- not La La land. In the real world- the numbers have to add up.

As for " If you as a business owner cannot afford to pay your workers adequately then you shouldn't be owning a business. Period"

I would love to watch you operate a small corner store or a restaurant with that philosophy for a year or two.

[Mittens]

What is your point then? Are you saying they do correlate? Are you saying there is a causation relationship? Seems like you just wanted to seem clever and shout, "gotcha! correlation=/=causation!" Without even realizing what the fuck was being discussed. You literally agreed that there are other factors at play. You don't seem to even understand your own view point.

What I'm getting at is that Endus is using graphs that are using general views to answer a question that is very localized and requires more controls. I can do the same with CPS data and show negative effects and in fact this was done pre card-krueger which is why that paper is so influential.

- - - Updated - - -

Your points certainly don't, that's true. Near as I can tell you seem to be arguing that a minimum wage increase would increase poverty in a vacuum, which is an extremely disingenuous point to make since no single economic factor can ever exist in a vacuum.

No what I'm saying is that using general data is the wrong take to make a claim about minimum wage. And that the dishonest part of Endus argument.

[Endus]

What I'm getting at is that Endus is using graphs that are using general views to answer a question that is very localized and requires more controls. I can do the same with CPS data and show negative effects and in fact this was done pre card-krueger which is why that paper is so influential.

- - - Updated - - -



No what I'm saying is that using general data is the wrong take to make a claim about minimum wage. And that the dishonest part of Endus argument.

Neither minimum wage nor poverty are wholly local issues, and if minimum wage laws caused increases in poverty, that would be visible in the macro viewpoint anyway.

Plus, I'll remind you I did narrow down to the State level, and you never bothered responding. You just went off on a weird tangent where you completely failed to understand that causative factors necessarily have to create correlative results.

Data that contradicts your viewpoint isn't "dishonesty".

[Independent voter]

What I envisioned happening is that higher wage people would move into Seattle and take the jobs away from the minimum wage people. The minimum wage people would move to out of city limits or move to another city where they are more wanted.

I'm waiting to see if this happens, I still think it will happen.

It will be 10 times harder for an unemployed person with no job experience to get started.

[LMuhlen]

If your income goes up by 18% ($11 to $13) you earn about $300 more a month. If your rent of $1200 goes up by 10% that equals $120. $120 is 40% of $300. Thus a 10% rent increase has reduced your raise to $180. Of course you actually didnt have an increase of net income of $300 because of taxes, so kiss another $27 goodbye (if you have dependants, figure $57 if you dont). You are now at $153. Oh, but because your income increased, your food stamps decrease, so you lost $73 for that. You are now down to $80. Lop another $20 for other expense increases. So at the end of the day, if you are lucky, your $2 pay increase nets you about $0.40. Better than nothing, but not by much. Most of it has gone to lining the pockets of the rich and to prop up Social Security.

And yes, when you make minimum wage and do not have housing assistance (wait listed!), almost all of your pay can easily go to housing. And THAT is the real issue, housing costs. (Plus the reduction of benefits).

So this person used to make $1650, which is $1500 after taxes. With a $1200 rent, he had $300 free a month. With your own parameters, he now gets $60 more. So you gave him a 18% raise and now he has 20% more money to spend. How is that a bad thing?

If what was said is true, that he didn't fall into the range to get food stamps in the first place, the increase is more than doubled.

[Mittens]

Neither minimum wage nor poverty are wholly local issues, and if minimum wage laws caused increases in poverty, that would be visible in the macro viewpoint anyway.

Plus, I'll remind you I did narrow down to the State level, and you never bothered responding. You just went off on a weird tangent where you completely failed to understand that causative factors necessarily have to create correlative results.

Data that contradicts your viewpoint isn't "dishonesty".

No, but the effects of minimum wages affect each city/town differently and there are a whole lot of factors that affect poverty that you are ignoring, like business cycles.

[Endus]

No, but the effects of minimum wages affect each city/town differently and there are a whole lot of factors that affect poverty that you are ignoring, like business cycles.

I'm not "ignoring" them at all. The existence of those factors, and that they have such a greater effect than minimum wage's (if any, which no evidence has been provided to demonstrate), proves my point. That minimum wage's effect is minimal to nonexistent when compared to other factors, at best.

[Tijuana]

This thread is no surprise to anyone who passed economics in school. This is what many posters here have been pointing out throughout the $25 minimum wage debate.

When you raise the minimum dramatically above what the market will bear, the market will not bear it. That is not to say that the current minimum is not below market; it clearly is. But the Democrat party using poor people as a bargaining chip, in a battle they only want to fight, but not win, is shameful.

This is the problem with the modern Democrat party; they don't want to settle anything. They just want to fight Republicans and say they are mean. If the Republicans agreed to the entire Democrat platform, Democrats would vote against it.

[Mittens]

I'm not "ignoring" them at all. The existence of those factors, and that they have such a greater effect than minimum wage's (if any, which no evidence has been provided to demonstrate), proves my point. That minimum wage's effect is minimal to nonexistent when compared to other factors, at best.

Business cycles are no small thing dude. And you are still not addressing that different places react differently to minimum wage hikes. Your claim that minimum wage hikes don't cause poverty (in general) is not sustained and needs to be completed.

[Kathandira]

This thread is no surprise to anyone who passed economics in school. This is what many posters here have been pointing out throughout the $25 minimum wage debate.

When you raise the minimum dramatically above what the market will bear, the market will not bear it. That is not to say that the current minimum is not below market; it clearly is. But the Democrat party using poor people as a bargaining chip, in a battle they only want to fight, but not win, is shameful.

This is the problem with the modern Democrat party; they don't want to settle anything. They just want to fight Republicans and say they are mean. If the Republicans agreed to the entire Democrat platform, Democrats would vote against it.

A nation wide minimum wage of $15 an hour is ridiculous. And continued discussions using that as a figure that is a one size fits all approach to fixing the U.S. economy is ignorant at best. Each state has different costs of living. Even within each state, different counties have different costs of living. If there is to be any mandate on minimum wage, it is that each state should be required to implement a minimum wage which fits it's cost of living.

$15 an hour might work well in high cost areas like where I live, but it would be much higher than the minimum cost of living in a state which has a low cost of living to begin with.

[Endus]

Business cycles are no small thing dude.

I never claimed they were. This is, in fact, my point. That minimum wage increases have no appreciable effect in terms of increasing poverty, and that no data exists to support that. That other factors, like business cycles, vastly outweigh any such effect, if it exists at all, for which there's no evidence.

And you are still not addressing that different places react differently to minimum wage hikes. Your claim that minimum wage hikes don't cause poverty (in general) is not sustained and needs to be completed.

It's been demonstrated just fine. If you think it's indefensible because of some factor I've overlooked, the onus is on you to provide data to demonstrate that. You are not. Produce data to back your claims and contradict the data I've cited, or give it up. It's not my job to defend against your entirely baseless and unsourced claim.

[Elegiac]

I can tell by your comment that you have never owned a business nor have you worked in upper management. Many businesses just scrape by. I have seen companies in which the owner did not take a salary for over a year because the money was just simply not there and they wanted to keep the business going.

The answer to which is; tough shit. Your business dreams do not justify not compensating your employees adequately.

If the 15/$ hr is not there to pay someone, it has been proven that the money will not just magically appear just because some people think it is the right thing to do.

In which case the business can and should go under. Lack of capital is one of the chief reasons for business failures, but the market keeps on churning out new employers regardless as long as the demand is present.

That's not the problem. The problem is that a lot of adults (for whatever reason) are taking jobs that used to be kids jobs. These were the jobs that kids, such as I used to, worked to get through school. Now these adults want a real salary for working what is, in effect, a child's job. Sorry, this is the real world- not La La land. In the real world- the numbers have to add up.

That reason being that the economy is transitioning from an industrial economy to a service economy. Saying that these are 'kid jobs' is an idiotic remark based on an economic viewpoint that hasn't been true for nearly two decades; the fact that most of these jobs are staffed by adults makes them adult jobs by definition.

As for " If you as a business owner cannot afford to pay your workers adequately then you shouldn't be owning a business. Period"

I would love to watch you operate a small corner store or a restaurant with that philosophy for a year or two.

I wouldn't engage in such if I didn't have sufficient capital to cover basic operating expenses; that includes employee wages.

You do realise your argument's logical extension is a justification for slavery, right?

- - - Updated - - -

A nation wide minimum wage of $15 an hour is ridiculous. And continued discussions using that as a figure that is a one size fits all approach to fixing the U.S. economy is ignorant at best. Each state has different costs of living. Even within each state, different counties have different costs of living. If there is to be any mandate on minimum wage, it is that each state should be required to implement a minimum wage which fits it's cost of living.

$15 an hour might work well in high cost areas like where I live, but it would be much higher than the minimum cost of living in a state which has a low cost of living to begin with.

Your point being what? It would inject much needed liquidity into the markets of these poor, shitty states and maybe start to improve them a bit.