Seattle raises minimum wage to $15/hr

[no.1IrishFan]

I also wonder about an influx of unskilled, uneducated workers in the area. Just get to Seattle, any job you can find starts at 15/hr.

 

[ulukinatme]

 

[Buster Bluth]

Who wants to pay $7 for a Big Mac or Whopper?

McDonalds and other huge corporations are (quietly) in favor of many minimum wage adjustments because it harms small businesses. An increase in the minimum wage would result in a mere fraction of McDonalds profit being lost.

You, as a taxpayer, should be upset that these corporations are paying their employees so little that they received government aid while the corporation profits immensely. In these situations, welfare and such are as much of a handout to the 1% as they are to the bottom X%.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Do people realize that raising the minimum wage only raises prices? So in reality, you're not going anywhere just printing more money.

This is untrue.

These people are already receiving the money, it just comes from the government. While they might make $8/hr from their employer, they are making (total guess) ~$15/hr once the food stamps and welfare kick in. They are not, at all, "just printing more money."

Furthermore, raising the minimum wage puts more money into the pockets of the poor that doesn't have government strings attached. The poor people do not save money, at all, they spend it all to make ends meet. Translation: it's a minor economic stimulus.

 

[Buster Bluth]

What we really need is a Guaranteed Minimum Income. Fuck all this minimum wage tug-of-war malarkey.

Libertarians (Milton Friedman) and the right are supporting it because it eliminates redundant government programs, simply giving the individual the money to spend as they wish. Who knows better how to spend your money efficiently and wisely, you or the dozens of government bureaucrats?

Socialists and the left are supporting it because in the age of severe automation unskilled jobs are dominating job growth and the future only looks more bleak in that regard.

Many also argue that it creates a real market scenario for wage negotiations. If you can afford to walk away from your low-paying job, you will not be treated as a wage-slave.

 

[Junkhead]

I thought everyone who worked in Seattle threw fish for a living anyway.

 

[Fbolt]

They had to raise the wage so the locals could afford to buy coffee.

 

[dshans]

So, Boeing is going to move it's Seattle operations in protest to a (graduated) pay increase to its minimum wage workers? Who would those might be? Cafeteria line workers? Janitorial staff? Mail delivery staff? [Do they still exist???] Parking garage attendants?

Gimme a break! The expense incurred in picking up and moving its facilities, lock stock and barrel, would far outweigh the cost of paying the small percentage of their employees at minimum wage a bit more.

Sheesh!

Maybe a Starbucks employee could afford a triple mocha latte grande Amaretto espresso fizz.

 

[Wild Bill]

So, Boeing is going to move it's Seattle operations in protest to a (graduated) pay increase to its minimum wage workers? Who would those might be? Cafeteria line workers? Janitorial staff? Mail delivery staff? [Do they still exist???] Parking garage attendants?

Gimme a break! The expense incurred in picking up and moving its facilities, lock stock and barrel, would far outweigh the cost of paying the small percentage of their employees at minimum wage a bit more.

Sheesh!

Maybe a Starbucks employee could afford a triple mocha latte grande Amaretto espresso fizz.

Maybe you're right. Their employees probably make more than $15/hour so why would they care? Labor unions have been pushing minimum wage legislation over the last fifty years yet all of their members earn much more than the minimum wage. Strange, huh?

I suspect Boeing's executives are bright enough to see the writing on the wall. When a"socialist party" becomes strong enough to push this legislation through, it's time to pack up your business and leave.

 

[peoriairish]

This blows my mind. The Athletic Trainers that I work with who have post-graduate educations, don't make $15 an hour. Raising this minimum wage only decreases the buying power of the middle class. This is an unfortunate consequence of people thinking they are owed something. So if the national minimum wage is increased to $15/hr is my salary at my small business, rural, private practice physical therapy clinic going to double? Yeah flippin' right.

 

[AvesEvo]

Why is everyone getting mad at the poor people?

 

[AvesEvo]

This is untrue.

These people are already receiving the money, it just comes from the government. While they might make $8/hr from their employer, they are making (total guess) ~$15/hr once the food stamps and welfare kick in. They are not, at all, "just printing more money."

Furthermore, raising the minimum wage puts more money into the pockets of the poor that doesn't have government strings attached. The poor people do not save money, at all, they spend it all to make ends meet. Translation: it's a minor economic stimulus.

It isn't untrue because not everyone in that income bracket receives aid. So yes, as the floor goes up so does the ceiling. What needs to happen is that the ceiling needs to be lowered and locked in place.

 

[ulukinatme]

This blows my mind. The Athletic Trainers that I work with who have post-graduate educations, don't make $15 an hour. Raising this minimum wage only decreases the buying power of the middle class. This is an unfortunate consequence of people thinking they are owed something. So if the national minimum wage is increased to $15/hr is my salary at my small business, rural, private practice physical therapy clinic going to double? Yeah flippin' right.

You have to expect that salaries will skew somewhat with an increase in minimum wage. It's only logical. Take for instance my wife, we've already had this discussion when the top of the $15 minimum wage came up. She makes something like $16/hour as an LPN Nurse. If the minimum wage is raised to $15/hour and her wage isn't increased, do you think she or many of these other nurses are going to stick around if they really don't enjoy their job? Sure, some will, but some will trade the responsibility that comes with being a nurse in a heartbeat. Why stress about having people's lives in your hands when you can flip burgers for basically the same pay? It's less work and often times better hours/working conditions.

Now, if theres a major flux in nurses leaving practices like this, it's not like hospitals and other private companies can just hire more nurses. Some locations are short staffed as it is with no other options. Maybe they keep the pay low for awhile, but eventually they'll be forced to raise their pay to entice the nurses to come back. What such an increase would be, who can say? I'm sure it would be the same in other lines of work as well. Bottom line is if minimum wage is substantially increased, you can expect other professions with greater than minimum wages to increase their pay at least slightly over time.

 

[Black Irish]

It isn't untrue because not everyone in that income bracket receives aid. So yes, as the floor goes up so does the ceiling. What needs to happen is that the ceiling needs to be lowered and locked in place.

Are you saying there needs to be a limit on how much money someone can earn? And if so, how is that enforced?

 

[AvesEvo]

Are you saying there needs to be a limit on how much money someone can earn? And if so, how is that enforced?

Yes, that is what I am saying. One way would be a 100% tax above a certain point, FDR, I believe proposed a 98% tax for everything above $20,000. Another would be that if a company receives any sort of government assistance, the highest paid employee can't make more than X times the lowest paid employee.

 

[IrishLion]

Ima move to Seattle, get work at a McDonald's, and move my way up the corporate ladder.

Why use my degree and make just over $15 an hour in a specialized field, when I can learn how to cook fast food and make the same money, but with an easier path to raises and better positions?

 

[Domina Nostra]

Should people really be able to make a comfortable living ($27,000) flipping burgers? You can literally watch TV every moment of your life, plug your ears and hum for 12 years at school, never do a second of homework, and smoke pot every night, and you will be completely prepared to master your craft.

I agree that a society has a right to create the conditions that allow families to support themselves, but does that really mean you should be able to support yourself doing anything you want? What ever happened to crummy jobs for teenagers and burn-outs?

 

[Wild Bill]

Yes, that is what I am saying. One way would be a 100% tax above a certain point, FDR, I believe proposed a 98% tax for everything above $20,000. Another would be that if a company receives any sort of government assistance, the highest paid employee can't make more than X times the lowest paid employee.

Yes, more regulation is exactly what we need.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Yes, that is what I am saying. One way would be a 100% tax above a certain point, FDR, I believe proposed a 98% tax for everything above $20,000. Another would be that if a company receives any sort of government assistance, the highest paid employee can't make more than X times the lowest paid employee.

Workers of the world, unite! FDR was dealing with a depression and a world war.

I just don't see why anyone would do anything difficult in that situation. Why work hard or innovate for no reward?

Why does it have to be so extreme? Why 98% and 20,000? Why not some level that achieves redistribution while still encouraging work?

As far as governemnt money, the governement can manipulate things so that you are forced to take its money. It's not that simple.

Remember, greed and envy are flip sides of the same coin!!!

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

A lot of the job losses that you guys are harping about aren't really going to happen. Some jobs will be lost to automation, and some places will have to increase prices, true. But it's not like McDonalds is going to stop moping its floors if wages go up. Hotels aren't going to stop doing housekeeping and laundry.

Prices will go up, but the wages of minimum wage workers are a pretty low percentage of the cost of most businesses. Even in fast food, the cost of construction, overhead, ingredients, HVAC, taxes, etc are a massive portion of the cost of business.

Also, if you can't pay someone a wage that doesn't force the federal government to subsidize the worker through food stamps, Medicaid, etc, than that job probably shouldn't exist.

 

[AvesEvo]

Workers of the world, unite! FDR was dealing with a depression and a world war.

I just don't see why anyone would do anything difficult in that situation. Why work hard or innovate for no reward?

Why does it have to be so extreme? Why 98% and 20,000? Why not some level that achieves redistribution while still encouraging work?

As far as governemnt money, the governement can manipulate things so that you are forced to take its money. It's not that simple.

Remember, greed and envy are flip sides of the same coin!!!

Those numbers are from FDR's time so that $20k is about $350k today. As far as encouraging work, I don't understand why people would stop working if there was a maximum wage. I would argue that having to work a couple of minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet discourages work more than this would. I wouldn't say there would be no reward, why wouldn't the innovation be reward enough? Innovating solely for the sake of money is a problem imo.

 

[Wild Bill]

A lot of the job losses that you guys are harping about aren't really going to happen. Some jobs will be lost to automation, and some places will have to increase prices, true. But it's not like McDonalds is going to stop moping its floors if wages go up. Hotels aren't going to stop doing housekeeping and laundry.

Prices will go up, but the wages of minimum wage workers are a pretty low percentage of the cost of most businesses. Even in fast food, the cost of construction, overhead, ingredients, HVAC, taxes, etc are a massive portion of the cost of business.

Also, if you can't pay someone a wage that doesn't force the federal government to subsidize the worker through food stamps, Medicaid, etc, than that job probably shouldn't exist.

So, for example, I have two secretaries. One is single, no children, college degree, a model employee and assists me with generating revenue an estimated five times her annual pay. The other, single, three children (no father), high school education, below average employee, and at best, she can generate revenue an estimated two times her pay. Under your theory, I should disregard their skills and value, and base their income solely on whether or not they'd qualify for government aid. So, the moron with three kids should make more. Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Wild Bill]

Those numbers are from FDR's time so that $20k is about $350k today. As far as encouraging work, I don't understand why people would stop working if there was a maximum wage. I would argue that having to work a couple of minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet discourages work more than this would. I wouldn't say there would be no reward, why wouldn't the innovation be reward enough? Innovating solely for the sake of money is a problem imo.

I've come to the conclusion that money is the greatest motivator in the workplace. I can't find a close second.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

This blows my mind. The Athletic Trainers that I work with who have post-graduate educations, don't make $15 an hour. Raising this minimum wage only decreases the buying power of the middle class. This is an unfortunate consequence of people thinking they are owed something. So if the national minimum wage is increased to $15/hr is my salary at my small business, rural, private practice physical therapy clinic going to double? Yeah flippin' right.

I repped Buster and dshans.

I am glad someone made sense instead of repeating (often incorrectly) the same old platitudes!

One of the problems we have here is English drift. The English economy was the greatest in the world in the early days of the industrial revolution. And with the seafaring component, the English economy was solid for all subjects (unless they were Irish.) Then insurance and commodities, banking and leasing took over. The real output looked like it stayed high. Instead, you had a few large companies profit immensely, and overall jobs and wages stagnated. So the average contribution of the working person to the economy declined.

The same thing is beginning here. For all the bitching I have heard about out of control union wages, those with a level head and their senses about them, regret the loss of income that these workers can no longer inject into the economy.

News flash. Immigrants are no longer coming to this country to work dangerous, or substandard jobs like they did in the past. Show someone who built a fortune in a labor intense industry, and I will show you where labor abuses took place.

Now to today. If you think one company of any size is going to hurt over minimum wage hikes (any) you are silly. Those who say the most recent minimum wage hikes are actually supported by the large companies, are right. There is ancillary proof that if the process is skewed, it can be used by the big guy to keep down competition from the little guy.

If you want to see how a properly instituted minimum wage works look at Austraila, Belgim, Ireland, Netherlands, and even Sweeden. Though Sweeden has no actual minimum wage their voluntary unskilled effective wage minimum actually translates to par with any of these countries, and their skilled wage effective minimum exceeds all others. All of these countries exceed France which has been the gold standard for minimum and guarantee standards at the equivalent of US $22.5 K. Great Brittan deserves the dunce award coming in at roughly $19K US, with two former colonial territories, Australia and Ireland exceeding it, with nary an additional economic trouble, (over Brittan.)

All these countries are doing okay, as is Switzerland (working on minimum guaranteed income, and Germany. Germany does not have a minimum, but its law terms low wages "immoral." So courts generally consider less than 75 per cent of the average wage an illegal payment. Their labor numbers work out favorably on the list.

So show me proof that increasing bottom end wages actually cause any problem and don't cycle more money that can be used immediately back into the economy, except in the case of some idiots who don't know how to set things up, or in the case of some large companies manipulating the system for their own gain.

PS. Buster is 100% right that welfare isn't just welfare for the poor. It gives the worst of the oligopolistic predators unfair labor and wage advantages over their smaller competitors! It is the bull shit that people that act like they are educated on the topic, don't want to talk about.

 

[peoriairish]

Not sure if you were commending me at the beginning of that or not due to quoting my post, but I'm not saying that it would hurt my clinic, but I'm just saying that raising this minimum wage to the same amount as someone who has their post-graduate degree, it's just frustrating.

Athletic trainers are first responders to your kids on the athletic field and often are responsible for a life save and they will be be paid the same as someone who has to do something as mindless as flip burgers? Or as much as a college kid who works in the library? This is nonsense and if you think that a small business owner is going to raise wages on a comparative scale, you are sorely mistaken.

It's hard enough to get our owner to approve repairs on a piece of fitness equipment because we keep getting reimbursement for treatment cut by insurances, he's certainly not going to be able to raise 20 employees wages to keep up with the raise in minimum wage.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Dear Seattle,

Enjoy the massive unemployment you're about to face among entry-level workers. I'm sure that in a couple of years a lot of those people would gladly accept an $8/hr job over a non-existent $15/hr job. Lots of new businesses simply won't locate to your area. Lots of existing businesses will relocate. Kiss those jobs goodbye.

Yours Truly,

Anyone who's ever taken ECON 101

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Not sure if you were commending me at the beginning of that or not due to quoting my post, but I'm not saying that it would hurt my clinic, but I'm just saying that raising this minimum wage to the same amount as someone who has their post-graduate degree, it's just frustrating.

Athletic trainers are first responders to your kids on the athletic field and often are responsible for a life save and they will be be paid the same as someone who has to do something as mindless as flip burgers? Or as much as a college kid who works in the library? This is nonsense and if you think that a small business owner is going to raise wages on a comparative scale, you are sorely mistaken.

It's hard enough to get our owner to approve repairs on a piece of fitness equipment because we keep getting reimbursement for treatment cut by insurances, he's certainly not going to be able to raise 20 employees wages to keep up with the raise in minimum wage.

Anybody smart enough to put money in everybody's pocket could come up with a system. One country does it by age. Another by degree and certification. One simply splits skilled and unskilled labor. In many countries a minimum is just that; not an absolute. Some countries pride themselves in being smart enough to pay their workers well, and take care of them for the long run. (You know treat them with, what's that word, humanity.)

Thanks for getting the hint that I wasn't dawging you dog! Just using that as a point to get into the discussion. There are thousands of possible solutions for objections to raising the status of the American work force, including mental health treatment for those who don't think American presents a dynamic workforce competitive with anyone.

And I agree, technical and professional accomplishment should be rewarded!

 

[RDU Irish]

Bogs - Europe has been stagnating with enormous youth unemployment. Your points would be valid if not for reality.

To the Grave - Unemployed are a much bigger drain on resources than underemployed, first of all. As for "not really seeing any job losses". Holy shite. You think the LPNs making barely over the new wage won't be asked to do more of the dirty work for CNAs that are priced out of the market? As you see currently, inexperienced workers suffer worst in poor economic times AND when wages are raised beyond their worth. I don't get how someone can't comprehend more qualified applicants squeezing out less qualified applicants? BASIC S/D dynamics here. Higher minimum draws more supply of labor for the same job. Those drawn in are mostly those who don't HAVE to work but choose to work to subsidize higher discretionary spending. You already see youth and uneducated squeezed out of the job market, they are unable to build any experience b/c any rational employer will gladly deal with the early forced early retirement 60 year old over the HS dropout. Or the general contractor who couldn't get work b/c homeowners are doing it themselves or hiring black market b/c $15/hour to paint isn't worth it to them.

And McDonalds will be the first one with Roomba sweeping floors and automated ordering stations. If you have 10 people working 40 hours per week that are now required to be paid $6/hour more, that is $125K per year of extra expense. If you think it is just coming out of profits, you are just plain ignorant.

As someone else pointed out, people will move to Seattle seeking minimum wage jobs. This only means the current unskilled workers have more people to compete for the same jobs, leading to a tougher job market at the same time these same jobs start disappearing.

 

[Wild Bill]

I repped Buster and dshans.

I am glad someone made sense instead of repeating (often incorrectly) the same old platitudes!

One of the problems we have here is English drift. The English economy was the greatest in the world in the early days of the industrial revolution. And with the seafaring component, the English economy was solid for all subjects (unless they were Irish.) Then insurance and commodities, banking and leasing took over. The real output looked like it stayed high. Instead, you had a few large companies profit immensely, and overall jobs and wages stagnated. So the average contribution of the working person to the economy declined.

The same thing is beginning here. For all the bitching I have heard about out of control union wages, those with a level head and their senses about them, regret the loss of income that these workers can no longer inject into the economy.

News flash. Immigrants are no longer coming to this country to work dangerous, or substandard jobs like they did in the past. Show someone who built a fortune in a labor intense industry, and I will show you where labor abuses took place.

Now to today. If you think one company of any size is going to hurt over minimum wage hikes (any) you are silly. Those who say the most recent minimum wage hikes are actually supported by the large companies, are right. There is ancillary proof that if the process is skewed, it can be used by the big guy to keep down competition from the little guy.

If you want to see how a properly instituted minimum wage works look at Austraila, Belgim, Ireland, Netherlands, and even Sweeden. Though Sweeden has no actual minimum wage their voluntary unskilled effective wage minimum actually translates to par with any of these countries, and their skilled wage effective minimum exceeds all others. All of these countries exceed France which has been the gold standard for minimum and guarantee standards at the equivalent of US $22.5 K. Great Brittan deserves the dunce award coming in at roughly $19K US, with two former colonial territories, Australia and Ireland exceeding it, with nary an additional economic trouble, (over Brittan.)

All these countries are doing okay, as is Switzerland (working on minimum guaranteed income, and Germany. Germany does not have a minimum, but its law terms low wages "immoral." So courts generally consider less than 75 per cent of the average wage an illegal payment. Their labor numbers work out favorably on the list.

So show me proof that increasing bottom end wages actually cause any problem and don't cycle more money that can be used immediately back into the economy, except in the case of some idiots who don't know how to set things up, or in the case of some large companies manipulating the system for their own gain.

PS. Buster is 100% right that welfare isn't just welfare for the poor. It gives the worst of the oligopolistic predators unfair labor and wage advantages over their smaller competitors! It is the bull shit that people that act like they are educated on the topic, don't want to talk about.

It's a simple discussion, in my opinion. I wouldn't want to pay someone $15/hour if their skill and ability only justifies $10/hour. I suspect most employers will agree, and will try to find ways to eliminate jobs and employees that are worth less than $15/hour. Maybe I'm wrong, though. Maybe a company continues to pay for labor, even if it's in excess of what they're receiving in return. If so, I assure you that it won't be at the expense of the owner of a small business or the shareholders of a corporation. The rest of the employees, those worth much more than $15/hour, will probably absorb the hit. That doesn't strike me as fair.

Welfare eligibility isn't directly dependent on wages paid by corporations or any other employer. In Illinois for instance, a single person, working 40 hours per week and earning minimum wage would not be eligible for food stamps as their income would exceed the maximum gross income allowable. The maximum income increases in proportion to the size of the household...and I think you know where I'm going with this...

To be clear, I prefer living in a society that collectively helps citizens in need. Someone loses a job, gets sick, temporary income decreases resulting from an unexpected event, etc - please, take the aid and keep your head high. Get back on your feet, get to work and pay it forward. These people are not the problem. The problem is the lifelong welfare recipients. The burden shouldn't be shifted to employers to pay them according to their household size. The burden should be placed on the individual to make good choices and increase their capacity to earn.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Your points would be valid if not for reality.

This.

It's always some sort of pie in the sky Utopian solution that fails utterly when it meets reality.