Seattle and the $15/hr Minimum Wage

[Husar]

I want nothing more than a minimum wage hike in all historic and liberal municipalities. If it works without shedding jobs, great. My hope though is that these municipalities with stagnate economically and constantly be out-competed by others. I want to see the Northeast accelerate their taxes and shrink their economic prowess. This, I believe will help that happen. Republicans should abstain From voting in these areas. If they defeat the measure, the Democrats will use it against them successfully: "remember when the dastardly GOP stopped us from entering paradise?". Let them do itSo that they have to own it and buy stock in less developed citied in the South and mid-west.

You are aware that it is not good for evil secret plans when you tell them to everyone?

[HoreTore]

You are aware that it is not good for evil secret plans when you tell them to everyone?

Haven't you watched a single James Bond-movie, Husar?

The evil villain always reveals his evil plot when there's still enough time to prevent it.

[Montmorency]

Typical evil plan: Destroy the world.

Unfortunately for these masterminds, destroying the world invalidates all their goals and makes them unreachable.

Such is the case with this one...

[Brandy Blue]

"Larger how? # of employees? Total revenues? Net revenues? Profit amount? Profit margin?

I like the idea that a "one size fits all" answer isn't the best route -- classic problem solving point that one."

Well, I admit you've got me there Seamus. I used up the tiny part of my brain that deals with economics by coming up with the not-one-size-fits-all suggestion. I assume that "larger" in this context means big enough not to get massively damaged by a higher minimum wage rate. I guess that means you would judge by net revenue, or maybe net revenue divided by number of employees. But I can't come up with a specific formula. I just don't know enough.

[Xiahou]

Why do the heartless jerks want to stop at $15/hr? Legislators, in their wisdom and generosity, should set minimum wage at $50/hr. Then no one anywhere would have to need for anything. While they're at it, they may as well set the maximum wage at $50/hr too. Everyone can make a comfortable income and no one will make "too much".

[Papewaio]

Seattle would be one of the more expensive cities in the world to live in wouldn't it?

[Montmorency]

Why do the heartless jerks want to stop at $15/hr? Legislators, in their wisdom and generosity, should set minimum wage at $50/hr. Then no one anywhere would have to need for anything. While they're at it, they may as well set the maximum wage at $50/hr too. Everyone can make a comfortable income and no one will make "too much".

Why pay workers wages at all? They should just be slaves, good for nothing but their life's-blood and the runts they can stud out.

The government's role should be to prop up existing big business with unlimited free labor and the force to back it up; once one wave of servile scum dies out, the next is ushered in.

And if one of the un-poor should fall into troubles, then they get to join the stinking heaps of bodies in the abattoirs of laziness, the bastions of true and honest work (that is also worthless and fungible of course).

God Bless the 'free' 'market'.

[Xiahou]

Why pay workers wages at all? They should just be slaves, good for nothing but their life's-blood and the runts they can stud out.

Take an economics class and get back to me.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why do the heartless jerks want to stop at $15/hr? Legislators, in their wisdom and generosity, should set minimum wage at $50/hr. Then no one anywhere would have to need for anything. While they're at it, they may as well set the maximum wage at $50/hr too. Everyone can make a comfortable income and no one will make "too much".

Because that is what the standard of living is nowadays in that area. Don't pretend as if people are just pulling numbers out of their ass.

[Xiahou]

Because that is what the standard of living is nowadays in that area. Don't pretend as if people are just pulling numbers out of their ass.

I think that's exactly what they're doing.

In Seattle, a single person can make $21/hr working full-time and still be eligible for public housing. Why not set minimum wage to that level? Surely, someone who is working hard, full-time should make enough to afford a place to live, right?

If raising the wage to $15 is good, why isn't $21 better? Why not $50?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree. $50 minimum wages for everyone! Honestly, I'm all for it. More reason to fire workers and automate. Maybe it will even convince my boss to move the company out of State which has been my agenda the entire time. Let's do it! NY first.

I really don't understand what the hold up is. Why won't they just vote on it already? P!us the health care plan requirements, it just gets better and better. I personally think that they are blustering, because they know that they would have to vote for it. I promise, I will even vote for it myself if it gets NY dems to enact the higher minimum

[Papewaio]

I think that's exactly what they're doing.

In Seattle, a single person can make $21/hr working full-time and still be eligible for public housing. Why not set minimum wage to that level? Surely, someone who is working hard, full-time should make enough to afford a place to live, right?

If raising the wage to $15 is good, why isn't $21 better? Why not $50?

So taxpayers subsidize businesses that aren't paying their employees a living wage for the location they operate in.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think that's exactly what they're doing.

In Seattle, a single person can make $21/hr working full-time and still be eligible for public housing. Why not set minimum wage to that level? Surely, someone who is working hard, full-time should make enough to afford a place to live, right?

If raising the wage to $15 is good, why isn't $21 better? Why not $50?

If 80% of the median income is $21 an hour then the standard of living will accordingly reflect that in housing prices among other things. WHat you have just pointed out is not that the demands are outrageously high, but indeed that in some areas, what they are asking for is still not enough.

Btw, the minimum wage in 1969 is equivalent to ~$10.00 in 2013 currency. Is it unreasonable in your eyes to even ask the government to match that?

EDIT: I really think you need a reality check when you honestly make a statement that getting $15 an hour in an area is unreasonable where (by definition) half of everyone is already making more than $26.25 an hour.

[Husar]

Take an economics class and get back to me.

Most of the books I've read on the subject (company/HR management) suggest that workers should get a fair compensation for their work to keep the morale high. Would you say the morale of these workers is high? Do they look happy to you? Obviously the management has failed to heed all good advice for managing employees and should get fired.
IMO the employees should all quit if they do not like the wage and if there is no social safety net they can find other ways to survive, such as robbing grandmas or so, maybe they can even band together to improve their chances. There is nothing that should stop a creative person in the land of opportunity.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Economics should not take precedent over basic human decency and responsibility. This is why we have regulations in the first place.

[Raz]

Economics should not take precedent over basic human decency and responsibility. This is why we have regulations in the first place.

Never mind the humans, stop trying to take muh freedoms!

[HopAlongBunny]

There is nothing that should stop a creative person in the land of opportunity.

Fortunately we have at least 2 real world examples of that precise dictum:

The Hell's Angels and the Mafia; better examples of the application pure free market principles simply do not exist :p

[Montmorency]

Take an economics class and get back to me.

If you're going to write mindless rubbish, at least have the grace not to pretend that it's well-informed.

[HoreTore]

If you're going to write mindless rubbish, at least have the grace not to pretend that it's well-informed.

Slaves don't make economic sense; they produce less wealth for the owner than a free employee.

Unfortunately, the same is true of an underpaid employee, as proven by Smith.

[Montmorency]

Yes, and infinite minumum wages also don't make economic sense.

Was I being too subtle? I definitely wasn't being subtle...

[HopAlongBunny]

What!? Are there no work houses!?

[HoreTore]

What!? Are there no work houses!?

Let's all remember that being poor is a choice people make. Nobody is forcing them to make that choice.

[Sarmatian]

So everyone in the restaurant is paid minimum wage or was the article being disingenuous?

$13 a burger. Third in labour. So it takes half an hour of total effort to take an order, make a burger and clean up?
So from $4.5 in cost it goes up to $7.50 in costs. Actual rise if the reports are correct and all are on minimum wage the burger would move from $13 to $16. So when they casually inflate the costs by 20-25% and probably overestimate work effort it would seem like a factually insufficient article.

No, the math is correct. A third of the restaurant's cost is labour. The other two thirds also include someone's labour, someone has to feed and take care of a cow, kill it, skin it, clean, grind the meat, freeze it and transport it. Wages of those people also go up as, presumably, some of them also work for a minimum wage. Additional dollar or two increase is probably accurate assessment, provided he doesn't buy his meat out of state.

One would have to wonder if that burger comes with Xbox One included to be priced 13$, though.

How would you feel if you had to work 1.5hrs to afford a burger?

That's easy, like someone who's working in Serbia.

[Papewaio]

What!? Are there no work houses!?

Isn't that the prison system?

[Beskar]

If raising the wage to $15 is good, why isn't $21 better? Why not $50?

Why not thousand or a million?! Infact, take it further to a billion!

We sure told them their argument is wrong for wanting a meagre increase. Let's scrap welfare and minimum wage all together, those plebs should be working for $1 per hour and like it. Who cares about having to basics to survive, lets reinvest the welfare money in law enforcement to shoot on sight anyone who might steal a loaf of bread to prevent themselves and their family starving to death as well. Silly poor people.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

According to the living wage folks, two adults in Seattle need 40 hours of work at $14.85 for a living wage. Saving for retirement is NOT factored in. This presumes recreational spending at about $75/person/month.

In retirement, they'll need about $14/hour for a living wage, since transportation costs are reduced. Social Security will pay roughly $19,500 in today's dollar terms, leaving them about $9k short per annum, resulting in a near-poverty existence.

[Xiahou]

According to the living wage folks, two adults in Seattle need 40 hours of work at $14.85 for a living wage. Saving for retirement is NOT factored in. This presumes recreational spending at about $75/person/month.

In retirement, they'll need about $14/hour for a living wage, since transportation costs are reduced. Social Security will pay roughly $19,500 in today's dollar terms, leaving them about $9k short per annum, resulting in a near-poverty existence.

So... raise Social Security payments by 40%?

Why not thousand or a million?! Infact, take it further to a billion!

We sure told them their argument is wrong for wanting a meagre increase. Let's scrap welfare and minimum wage all together, those plebs should be working for $1 per hour and like it. Who cares about having to basics to survive, lets reinvest the welfare money in law enforcement to shoot on sight anyone who might steal a loaf of bread to prevent themselves and their family starving to death as well. Silly poor people.

I love how you try to mock a reductio ad absurdum argument.... and then make one yourself.

[Beskar]

I love how you try to mock a reductio ad absurdum argument.... and then make one yourself.

Fighting Fire with Fire.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So... raise Social Security payments by 40%?

I would rather not have a bloated Federal government be responsible for paying out even more money to essentially subsidize the wages that companies should be paying.

[Papewaio]

Cost of living is somewhat cheaper in cities compared with countryside. However some parts of cities will be very expensive to live in.

If the government has to subsidize those in high cost areas who have access to more and better services that is hardly an equatable arrangement and if anything is an inverse redistribution of resources. It's almost as bad as corporate welfare, which this is a single step away from.

Companies should either pay for a living wage in their region or cease to exist.

If the cost of living is so high that your nurses, fireman, police, garbage collectors, baristas, shop staff and others in the essential and/or service industries can't afford to live in an area then either have the end users pay more or stop overheating the local economy and have these services moved to another area.

It should not be taxpayers footing the bill for outlier high cost of living areas that are high cost because a wage earner segment is out of sync with the rest of the economy. So let the high wage earners pay more for a coffee or a band aid and pass so that the service workers can afford to live.