Minimum Wage Cranks: Wrong About Seattle

[PosPosPos]

If your trying to live off minimum wage your doing something wrong anyway, get a real skill and job.

Which world do you live in that has more CEO positions than all the entry-level ones?

[schwarzkopf]

and how much did restaurants have to increase their prices?

What - you mean restaurants have to charge the customers instead of the waitresses doing it via tips.

HOW shocking.

Minimum wage here in Australia is $18.93/hr, and we have universal health care as well. Things are just fine.

[SinR]

What - you mean restaurants have to charge the customers instead of the waitresses doing it via tips.

HOW shocking.

Minimum wage here in Australia is $18.93/hr, and we have universal health care as well. Things are just fine.

and that roughly translates to 10/hr in USD

[PosPosPos]

and that roughly translates to 10/hr in USD

And? I love how you tried to make this a gotcha moment while conveniently leaving out that 10 usd goes much further in Australia than in the US. That and the fact that a big part of the US doesn't even come close to 10 usd/hr in minimum wage anyway.

[NihilSustinet]

Many serious pundits predicted doom for the Seattle Economy after the city dared to raise minimum wages.
Seattle's minimum wage, which was loudly declared a job destroyer, wasn't. The reality is now clear: there has been no visible hit to employment in the restaurant sector, where you'd expect to see one if anywhere.



But there's persistent claims, in spite of the evidence, that minimum wage hikes do too kill jobs. BAsically an industry of minimum-wage skeptic literature that continues no matter how strong the evidence gets.

What Minimum-Wage Foes Got Wrong About Seattle

The dire warnings about minimum-wage increases keep proving to be wrong. So much so that in a new paper, the authors behind an earlier study predicting a negative impact have all but recanted their initial conclusions. However, the authors still seem perplexed about why they went awry in the first place.

Seattle, like some other thriving West Coast cities, a few years ago passed an ordinance raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour in a series of steps. The law was a partial response to rising income inequality and poverty in the city, which began its post-crisis economic boom well before the rest of the country.

The reaction was immediate, strident — and deeply wrong. The increase was an “economic death wish” that was going to tank the expansion and kill jobs, according to the sages at conservative think tanks. The warnings were as unambiguous as they were specific: Expect restaurants to close in significant numbers and unemployment to rise, all because of this foolish attempt to raise living standards.

Alas, if only the critics has done their homework first, instead of using scare tactics.

it leads to a very short period where business get scared and lay people off because they are worried about payroll, then once everyone makes a living wage, and every business gains millions of new prospective customers, the economy actually starts flowing (remember the economy depends on people both having money, and spending it) and the vast majority of business see record grown and generally end up needing MORE employees.

[schwarzkopf]

and that roughly translates to 10/hr in USD

Around $15 ...

[laplacedemon]

and that roughly translates to 10/hr in USD

Can also take a look at "real minimum wage": https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/employ..._data-00656-en

Australian minimum wage is worth around ~50% more.

[PC2]

Missouri, but they've since passed a law to raise it statewide the next few years.
Ohio
Alabama but it seems the courts might have overturned this one.

There are a bunch more.

Here's a site that shows more details: https://www.epi.org/preemption-map/

Dang a lot of states don't allow it. Tying the state and local ordinance together is nonsensical. The whole point of the US allowing for decentralization is that it will be used to let each place be different, then people can vote with their feet in terms of crossing over a city/county/state line.

[Kasierith]

I mean... sorry for being a naysayer, but of course industries with a much higher profit margin for products sold and with linear profit based on number of consumers is going to do very well in a situation where everyone has more money to eat out. I'm more interested in how businesses with more fixed numbers, like pharmacies or research, do. In other words, I fail to see how using a single piece of information about the economic wellbeing of a single part of the overall economy that is distinct from how plenty of other parts function is "proof" of anything.

[Bullettime]

Dang a lot of states don't allow it. Tying the state and local ordinance together is nonsensical. The whole point of the US allowing for decentralization is that it will be used to let each place be different, then people can vote with their feet in terms of crossing over a city/county/state line.

Because many state governments are Republican controlled due to the heavy population centralization and they don't want one locale to pass it and have it take off with a domino effect.

Also, where government politicians tend to be lawyers, state and local legislators tend to be businessmen who don't always fully divest from their businesses. So this leads to state and local legislators pushing legislation that benefits their own companies or companies for the special interest groups who fund them.

It creates a weird system where in a state like Virginia with commonwealth law, everyone is okay with running their counties with their own laws when it comes to things like discrimination, tax rates, etc but they go up the chain and have things like minimum wage raises killed at a state level to prevent the first domino from every falling.

[PC2]

Because many state governments are Republican controlled due to the heavy population centralization and they don't want one locale to pass it and have it take off with a domino effect.

Also, where government politicians tend to be lawyers, state and local legislators tend to be businessmen who don't always fully divest from their businesses. So this leads to state and local legislators pushing legislation that benefits their own companies or companies for the special interest groups who fund them.

It creates a weird system where in a state like Virginia with commonwealth law, everyone is okay with running their counties with their own laws when it comes to things like discrimination, tax rates, etc but they go up the chain and have things like minimum wage raises killed at a state level to prevent the first domino from every falling.

It's an authoritarian thing of trying to enforce conformity. In this case yes Republican states are the larger offenders, for other issues it will be left wingers trying to push a policy from the top down.

[Endus]

And that was nearly 100 years ago, minimum wage these days should only effect kids doing menial temporary jobs, not adults trying to make a living.

So how are you going to ensure that, by mandating an even higher minimum wage for people over 25? By mandating regular pay increases for employees? Because the reality is that a hell of a lot of people work minimum wage jobs, even into middle age, because they can't get anything better. Unless you change that, your complaint here is just at odds with reality itself.

[buck008]

I mean... sorry for being a naysayer, but of course industries with a much higher profit margin for products sold and with linear profit based on number of consumers is going to do very well in a situation where everyone has more money to eat out. I'm more interested in how businesses with more fixed numbers, like pharmacies or research, do. In other words, I fail to see how using a single piece of information about the economic wellbeing of a single part of the overall economy that is distinct from how plenty of other parts function is "proof" of anything.

In any case in recent history, a raise in a local minimum wage has never once resulted in an economic downturn. More money in the hands of more people is always a net positive in an economy that is constructed as ours is.

But that's just the pragmatic piece. I think people that run companies should be made to accept a reality in which it is ok for them to "only" make $1.4 billion instead of the $1.6 billion they could have made if they paid each of their employees a pittance with as few benefits as possible to prevent a higher turnover than is acceptable. I think we should, as consumers, only shop with companies that move in this direction. I'm so sick of seeing people sit there and defend billionaires that already have everything and would still be billionaires if they paid their people enough to survive instead of as little as people will actually accept before quitting. What kind of fucked up priorities do we have as a nation.

- - - Updated - - -

And that was nearly 100 years ago, minimum wage these days should only effect kids doing menial temporary jobs, not adults trying to make a living.

Case in point.

[Ragedaug]

I'm just upset they didn't make the minimum $50 an hour. If making it $15 an hour was good, it seems it would have been better for the employees to push it up higher. The economy would boom like crazy with all that new capital in everyone's hands.

[buck008]

I'm just upset they didn't make the minimum $50 an hour. If making it $15 an hour was good, it seems it would have been better for the employees to push it up higher. The economy would boom like crazy with all that new capital in everyone's hands.

Yes, because asking for a wage that resides above the poverty line is the same as asking for a six figure salary. I don't have an appropriately dismissive thing to say without going too vulgar even for me. So I'll leave it with a simple, fuck off with that.

[Alteiry]

It's almost like trickle down is bullshit and the number 1 economy booster and job creator is the average population having money to spend.

But if the poor have money to spend it means that money isn't rotting in some billionaire's bank account!

[Ragedaug]

I mean... sorry for being a naysayer, but of course industries with a much higher profit margin for products sold and with linear profit based on number of consumers is going to do very well in a situation where everyone has more money to eat out. I'm more interested in how businesses with more fixed numbers, like pharmacies or research, do. In other words, I fail to see how using a single piece of information about the economic wellbeing of a single part of the overall economy that is distinct from how plenty of other parts function is "proof" of anything.

Yeah, small businesses would be my point on concern. Curious how they are doing. Anecdotally speaking, every small business owner I've know (not all that many) have struggled to pay employees minimum wage. And considering how many small businesses fail, it seems like the increased minimum wage would hurt them first. Another step to kill off the mom-and-pops while the big corporations "ride out the storm".

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, because asking for a wage that resides above the poverty line is the same as asking for a six figure salary. I don't have an appropriately dismissive thing to say without going too vulgar even for me. So I'll leave it with a simple, fuck off with that.

You'll have to explain to me how if pushing the minimum to $15 is good, that setting it to $50 wouldn't be better.

- - - Updated - - -

But if the poor have money to spend it means that money isn't rotting in some billionaire's bank account!

Bank account!?? No, more likely it's in their back yard gold vault.

[buck008]

You'll have to explain to me how if pushing the minimum to $15 is good, that setting it to $50 wouldn't be better.

You know why and you're being deliberately obtuse, so I'm going to go ahead and pass on this one, chief.

[Ragedaug]

You know why and you're being deliberately obtuse, so I'm going to go ahead and pass on this one, chief.

I'm not trying to be obtuse. Using the same logic that justifies forcing $15 minimum wage and it seems like it would have been better to keep pushing it. If $15 is good, why wouldn't it be better to have a higher minimum wage, so those people can do more than just subsist?

[buck008]

I'm not trying to be obtuse. Using the same logic that justifies forcing $15 minimum wage and it seems like it would have been better to keep pushing it. If $15 is good, why wouldn't it be better to have a higher minimum wage, so those people can do more than just subsist?

Because if there's a minimum wage than there are lots of people who make more than that and if wages scale too high, no one can afford to hire anyone. But you knew that. So you either want me to say that I think everyone should make the same amount, and therefore I'm a filthy commie and I can be safely ignored. Or you want me to say that businesses should just take whatever I say they earn after paying their employees whatever outrageous wages I demand. Then I'm a nut and can be safely ignored.

No. I'm telling you that if you can not afford to pay your employees a wage that is above the poverty line, then you can not afford to be in business. We should not accept that it is just fine that a full time employee anywhere in any industry can put in 40+ hours and still not afford the bills. Period.