As We've Been Saying, California's Minimum Wage Rises Increase Unemployment

[eschatological]

$10 an hour, 40 hours a week (good luck getting full time at minimum wage, your employers are required to pay benefits then) = $400 a week.

That equals $20,800 a year. That's fine for an individual (the poverty line is around $11k) but it isn't enough to pay for a family.

The problem is that employers purposefully keep hours low to not pay benefits, and force a person to work a second job or literally be under the poverty line. And, the poverty line is pretty low already.

[Nalorakk]

IDK, when I visited Dubbo, a large pepperoni pizza with chicken poppers and a 2 liter of coke was over 40$

wat
not even in the heart of sydney could you get that overcharged

in dubbo????? how is that even possible

maybe be more sensible with your wallet if you think that's fair

[Theinquisition]

There are less poeople in poverty in Australia than there is in America.


Sure as an outsider things look expensive, but more of their population(%wise) can afford that pizza than ours can.

You don't have some of the same demographic and cultural problems within that demographic that we do.

[Aboubacar]

wat
not even in the heart of sydney could you get that overcharged

in dubbo????? how is that even possible

maybe be more sensible with your wallet if you think that's fair

That same meal is like 25-40 USD depending on coupons, where you order and delivery charge. Don't forget Americans still have the ancient tipping system

- - - Updated - - -

The question I wanna know is this. How many of the unemployed are 1. Convicts or 2. Kids who haven't learned that jobs are not for playing around at.

People in prison don't count, but it's nearly impossible for people with any criminal record to get employed. Minor drug charges count against you, traffic charges, all the way up to felonies. Employers also run credit scores these days. It's getting a bit unreal.

[Orange Joe]

You don't have some of the same demographic and cultural problems within that demographic that we do.

? I'm American.


What is so different that a $15 dollar min wage can work there but not here?

[Aboubacar]

$10 an hour, 40 hours a week (good luck getting full time at minimum wage, your employers are required to pay benefits then) = $400 a week.

That equals $20,800 a year. That's fine for an individual (the poverty line is around $11k) but it isn't enough to pay for a family.

The problem is that employers purposefully keep hours low to not pay benefits, and force a person to work a second job or literally be under the poverty line. And, the poverty line is pretty low already.

That's before taxes... Don't net anywhere near 20k on $10 per hr. In my state I haven't seen anyone that pays the actual minimum anymore. They used to five years ago, but most cities are paying 10-12 starting for unskilled labor. Walmart literally has a giant banner advertising 11/hr like it's the most amazing thing ever.

[Vynestra]

Correlation does not equal causation.

But you have an agenda to spread ignorant information, so...that doesn't matter to you clearly.

[cubby]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst.../#24304327331b


hmmmmm...shocking (sarcasm)

This is an interesting little tale which illustrates the other side of the minimum wage story. Around here at least the standard side is that when you raise the price of something people buy less of it. Increase the minimum wage and employers will economise on minimum wage labour. This is a terribly simple point and yet people will twist themselves into ever more improbable positions to try to deny it. However, today’s part is about the other side of the story. Raise the price of something through legislation and more people will be willing to supply it. If we pass a law that apples are $2 each and no kidding then apple trees will spring up in every suburban garden and we’ll be buried under a glut of fruit that no one wants to buy at that price but people are absolutely delighted to sell if only they could find a buyer. The same really does happen with labour too as California is showing us:

/snip (incipiently unrelated bullshit)

Both the earlier pieces are stating that the higher wages have called more labour supply into the market. Which is fine, no problems with that at all. Yet unemployment is defined those looking for a job but cannot find one. Thus an increased labour supply at this higher labour rate leads to more unemployment

So a net increase in jobs but raising wages caused unemployment to rise? And throughout the country, too, right? Or is your causation bullshit also narrow minded?

[melodramocracy]

Around here at least the standard side is that when you raise the price of something people buy less of it.

Which (ironically) explains housing prices in California, amirite?

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that California has too much labor. So a wage rise is inappropriate

Everywhere has always had a 'too much labor' problem. I don't think unemployment has ever been 0.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure if you realize this, but businesses are pretttty greedy.

They will not think twice to fire an employee if they have to pay more for wages.

They're free to do so. They're also free to eventually fold when they don't have the manpower required to turn the income they used to. See that? Working exactly as intended.

[Spectral]

1. Which decade was this in?

2. $10/hour is enough if you're in Mississippi, but otherwise nope.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

This would have been circa ~2008.

This wage is sufficient in many other areas as well by the lights of the link you provided. For example, here's Eau Claire, WI, a pretty middle of the road American city. Here's Fort Collins, CO at $10.80; this is a delightful town by almost any measure. Here's Eugene, OR at $10.18.

If we're looking for a baseline that provides an acceptable living standard, it looks like $10/hour is a lot more realistic as a national figure than $15/hour. That $15/hour figure is only necessary for very expensive locales - why not just allow those locales to adjust accordingly rather than applying this universally?

[Shadowferal]

Your realism is a nice fantasy for everyone else.

So basically if you want to make ends meet you need more rural areas to move to...o but wait, in those areas you'd be lucky to get a job making the current minimum wage ($7.25/hr) let alone get $10.
Most live near big cities, and that means $10 just isn't cutting it at all.

[Spectral]

Your realism is a nice fantasy for everyone else.

So basically if you want to make ends meet you need more rural areas to move to...o but wait, in those areas you'd be lucky to get a job making the current minimum wage ($7.25/hr) let alone get $10.
Most live near big cities, and that means $10 just isn't cutting it at all.

None of those cities that I cited are "rural". They're all around 50K-100K people. I picked Eau Claire because I figured it was reasonably representative of my state and northern states more broadly and I picked Eugene and Fort Collins because they're such inarguably nice cities. FoCo is one of those towns that's constantly showing up on lists of best places to live.

Without diving into the specifics of the matter too much, if your argument is that big cities require more than $10/hour, why would you advocate this as a national policy rather than local?

[coodexgaming]

how is this a topic?

[Shadowferal]

None of those cities that I cited are "rural". They're all around 50K-100K people. I picked Eau Claire because I figured it was reasonably representative of my state and northern states more broadly and I picked Eugene and Fort Collins because they're such inarguably nice cities. FoCo is one of those towns that's constantly showing up on lists of best places to live.

Without diving into the specifics of the matter too much, if your argument is that big cities require more than $10/hour, why would you advocate this as a national policy rather than local?

I have little enough to stomach over your fantasy anymore.
I live in NJ
No one wants $10hr. Hell, no one wants $15 hr. Those are wages that get you stuck living week-to-week and you can't stop. Like swimming...can't stop because you'll drown.
People want a career, not a job. They want the American Dream© ; to afford that house, car, children (saving for their college) and have a little extra for play, and all on one income.

Fun fact; in a Philadelphia suburb during 1952, it took a factory worker one day to earn enough money to pay the closing costs on a new house, then selling for around $10k.
Everyone knows that the middle class is now in rapid shrinkage.

Outsourcing jobs and giving tax incentives to big businesses to leave the country was a shitty idea.

Unless a person is a politician, (No need to distinguish parties), or those among the top 3-4% wealthy, loony libertarians, including Ayn Rand disciples...(ok, that also means loony), or simply delusional...o hell...why bother.

[Spectral]

I have little enough to stomach over your fantasy anymore.
I live in NJ
No one wants $10hr. Hell, no one wants $15 hr. Those are wages that get you stuck living week-to-week and you can't stop. Like swimming...can't stop because you'll drown.
People want a career, not a job. They want the American Dream© ; to afford that house, car, children (saving for their college) and have a little extra for play, and all on one income.

Fun fact; in a Philadelphia suburb during 1952, it took a factory worker one day to earn enough money to pay the closing costs on a new house, then selling for around $10k.
Everyone knows that the middle class is now in rapid shrinkage.

Outsourcing jobs and giving tax incentives to big businesses to leave the country was a shitty idea.

Unless a person is a politician, (No need to distinguish parties), or those among the top 3-4% wealthy, loony libertarians, including Ayn Rand disciples...(ok, that also means loony), or simply delusional...o hell...why bother.

This is really ranty, but doesn't address any of my points.

If anything, your focus on some the most expensive parts of the country (New Jersey and Philly) is consistent with my point that you're turning a local issue into a federal one. Your inability to think outside of your narrow East Coast bubble is striking.

[Masark]

This wage is sufficient in many other areas as well by the lights of the link you provided. For example, here's Eau Claire, WI, a pretty middle of the road American city. Here's Fort Collins, CO at $10.80; this is a delightful town by almost any measure. Here's Eugene, OR at $10.18.

If we're looking for a baseline that provides an acceptable living standard, it looks like $10/hour is a lot more realistic as a national figure than $15/hour. That $15/hour figure is only necessary for very expensive locales - why not just allow those locales to adjust accordingly rather than applying this universally?

Except that you've just shown that $10 per hour is not sufficient, even in your cherry picked cities.

That $0.18/hour different means they're short almost $400 over the course of a year. That $0.80 is over $1600.

As for "Why not let the locales do it"? Because that's what you have been doing. They have not been adjusting it accordingly.

[MatadorMedia]

But unemployment in California increased to 5.4%, from 5.2% in May. The national unemployment rate also ticked up, to 4.9% in June from 4.7% in May.

Lol @ OP. So you're saying California's unemployment changes (+0.2%) are consistent with the national average change. That means there is no statistically significant change in CA. derp derp derp derp derp