Seattle hates jobs

[geezer]

Interesting read people!

Greengoo, can you expand on why you believe a government agency coming in and telling a business how much to pay workers is not a form of social assistance? I am not saying it's bad, or good; I just want understand your position better. Can you give me a definition (not a personal definition but a real definition) of social assistance?

Regulations are not cash give aways using tax payer money. That's like saying seat belt laws are a form of social assistance. Car makers are required by law to spend money on seat belts. Or having a restriction of hours worked per week is a form of social assistance. i.e. in the US it is illegal to work your employees to death. Other countries? Depends on the country. Is that a form of social assistance?

Social assistance requires tax money to actually assist, socially. Typically by literally giving tax revenue to people in the form of cash, food stamps, rental subsidies.

For minimum wage to be a form of social assistance, the government would have to actually pay part of the salary. Requiring businesses to behave responsibly (like, don't maximize your profit by dumping toxic shit into the water table, don't maximize your profit by using tainted food, don't maximize your profit by paying your employees less than a certain wage) is not a form of social assistance. It's a form of regulation that require businesses to operate responsibly.

Minimum wage isn't social assistance, it's a (regulated) cost of doing business.

Again, I fundamentally agree with you. BUT - I can see that argument that the government is legislating on behalf of a certain class, and forcing wealth transfer from one group to another. The difference being that the government doesn't play the middleman.

A more Tea-partyish person than myself might make the argument that additional payroll taxes will be generated, but I think that's a step (or three) to far down the rabbit hole

[Jaymann]

Interesting read people!

Greengoo, can you expand on why you believe a government agency coming in and telling a business how much to pay workers is not a form of social assistance? I am not saying it's bad, or good; I just want understand your position better. Can you give me a definition (not a personal definition but a real definition) of social assistance?

em2nought, should Wal-mart be able to accept food stamps when they hire people at such wages that they can only afford to shop at Wal-mart with their food stamps? (which some say is a form of corporate welfare the only reason the company can survive is because it can sorta double dip into food stamp benefits) Would you support workers at Wal-mart to go on strike to ask for higher wages over a government agency forcing Wal-mart to pay their workers more?

Walmart is the modern equivalent of indentured servitude. A couple notches up from the coal mines and railroads of old, but reminiscent of, "I owe my soul to the company store."

[Binktopia]

Hmm, interesting.

So how much regulated cost of doing business is acceptable and how much is too much? As Geezer seems to believe, this kind of cycle is never ending. It is a band-aid in many ways. We may keep raising the min wage, but so will the standard of living. Which means the bottom will always be the bottom. At least that is what I get from him.

There should be raises on pace of inflation. That isn't happening for much of the middle class many people say, which is unfortunate and people should be mad about if true. But min wage will always be the bottom. How do we make sure min wage is and still is a living wage even after inflation, and the prices of food and services goes up?

[GreenGoo]

<snip discussion of operating costs>

I agree geezer. This will impact businesses, some more than others. I touched on this earlier though, and that is that policy has to look at all factors, not just whether an employee can pay his rent or just whether some businesses are going to experience major difficulties adjusting.

There are a lot of sides to this balancing act, and (I would hope) that the people implementing the new minimum wage have done their homework. Also as I mentioned earlier, those employing people at minimum wage have had their wage costs fixed for years. You run a business, what are your fixed costs year after year? I don't mean what costs exist year after year, but which costs are identical year after year. Those paying minimum wage have had years with wages being fixed. Now those costs have gone up (just like every other cost of running a business) and businesses need to adjust, just like they need to anticipate and plan for changes in supply costs, building costs and everything else. You're the business owner here so I know you know what I mean.

It might not seem fair to have your (general you, not specifically you) operating costs go up seemingly at random based on government whim, but costs change constantly due to natural disasters, strikes, inflation etc etc.

I sympathize Geezer, I really do. But if we let minimum wage fall too far behind real buying power, we might get eaten by the poor. I don't like that idea either.

[noxiousdog]

As someone who is liberal in bent, but understands intimately the pressures and issues of wage costs, it's very hard to find a solution that is equitable all around. I know some folks don''t care about that - some believe, as above, that employees should just "live cheaper" or "work harder," which is, to be blunt, a damn stupid response. OTOH, there are plenty of people who think that business owners are rolling in dough and trying to squeeze every penny they can from their exploited workers, and that is equally simplistic and, well, wrong.

I was mulling this whole situation over in my head, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, if all the gains are eaten by rent. People with with excess cash tend to spend it on housing, and they are all going to be competing for the same general area inside Seattle proper. Every $5/hr increase is roughly $800/month, and you could -very- easily have half that eaten by rent increases with no corresponding upgrade in quality of housing.

[LordMortis]

As someone who is liberal in bent, but understands intimately the pressures and issues of wage costs, it's very hard to find a solution that is equitable all around. I know some folks don''t care about that - some believe, as above, that employees should just "live cheaper" or "work harder," which is, to be blunt, a damn stupid response. OTOH, there are plenty of people who think that business owners are rolling in dough and trying to squeeze every penny they can from their exploited workers, and that is equally simplistic and, well, wrong.

I was mulling this whole situation over in my head, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, if all the gains are eaten by rent. People with with excess cash tend to spend it on housing, and they are all going to be competing for the same general area inside Seattle proper. Every $5/hr increase is roughly $800/month, and you could -very- easily have half that eaten by rent increases with no corresponding upgrade in quality of housing.

It's hard to say. People working rent free won't see it that way and I'd imagine a lot of minimal wage workers kids living with mom and dad.

That's where I have issues with minimum wage sets. Not all work living wage work (which is not imply that I think $15 an hour is a living wage, even if it may have been in the 90s)

I'm also surprised that this hasn't shown here, being a company based in Seattle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/busin ... -year.html

[Jaymann]

I am not sure exactly when it happened, but minimum wage decoupled from "living wage" some time ago. This is why you see many children returning to live with their parents, or cramming 10 people in a house designed for 4.

[GreenGoo]

I am not sure exactly when it happened, but minimum wage decoupled from "living wage" some time ago. This is why you see many children returning to live with their parents, or cramming 10 people in a house designed for 4.

Analysis of real buying power shows that the minimum wage has actually decreased since it was originally implemented, despite being "hiked" several times since then.

The original minimum wage had more real buying power than the current minimum wage.

To clarify, we pay minimum wage workers less now than when minimum wage first became a "thing".

[ImLawBoy]

Those paying minimum wage have had years with wages being fixed.

Point of clarification - this applies not just to those currently making minimum wage, but also to those who are currently between the old minimum wage and the new minimum wage. I'm not sure if that has an impact on the analysis in the long run, but this doesn't only apply to those employers who have been content to pay their employees the lowest wage permissible under current law.

[GreenGoo]

Those paying minimum wage have had years with wages being fixed.

Point of clarification - this applies not just to those currently making minimum wage, but also to those who are currently between the old minimum wage and the new minimum wage. I'm not sure if that has an impact on the analysis in the long run, but this doesn't only apply to those employers who have been content to pay their employees the lowest wage permissible under current law.

Agreed. The change in minimum wage applies to anyone paying employees between (and including) the former minimum wage and the new minimum wage, although I was specifically referring to those who only pay minimum and thus have not had wage cost increases beyond increasing or decreasing staff levels,

[Rip]

Interesting read people!

Greengoo, can you expand on why you believe a government agency coming in and telling a business how much to pay workers is not a form of social assistance? I am not saying it's bad, or good; I just want understand your position better. Can you give me a definition (not a personal definition but a real definition) of social assistance?

em2nought, should Wal-mart be able to accept food stamps when they hire people at such wages that they can only afford to shop at Wal-mart with their food stamps? (which some say is a form of corporate welfare the only reason the company can survive is because it can sorta double dip into food stamp benefits) Would you support workers at Wal-mart to go on strike to ask for higher wages over a government agency forcing Wal-mart to pay their workers more?

Walmart is the modern equivalent of indentured servitude. A couple notches up from the coal mines and railroads of old, but reminiscent of, "I owe my soul to the company store."

A corporation who once had Hillary Clinton on the board.

Nice.

[geezer]

As someone who is liberal in bent, but understands intimately the pressures and issues of wage costs, it's very hard to find a solution that is equitable all around. I know some folks don''t care about that - some believe, as above, that employees should just "live cheaper" or "work harder," which is, to be blunt, a damn stupid response. OTOH, there are plenty of people who think that business owners are rolling in dough and trying to squeeze every penny they can from their exploited workers, and that is equally simplistic and, well, wrong.

I was mulling this whole situation over in my head, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, if all the gains are eaten by rent. People with with excess cash tend to spend it on housing, and they are all going to be competing for the same general area inside Seattle proper. Every $5/hr increase is roughly $800/month, and you could -very- easily have half that eaten by rent increases with no corresponding upgrade in quality of housing.

I think that's absolutely one likely outcome. Ironically, the fact that the increase is phased over seven years may make the lack of standard-of-living increase MORE likely. If everyone looking at bottom-tier housing was immediately given an 800/month wage increase, there would likely be a period of time (at a minimum the time between now and when a given lease expires) that the wage-earner would have a real and tangible benefit vs. housing costs. Instead, the slow phase in will result in costs moving almost in lock-step with wage increases (IMHO).

What I don't know is, what % of the workforce is this going to impact, and what % of employers are currently paying what % of employees minimum wage (or a age between minimum and $15/hr)?

[LawBeefaroni]

Those paying minimum wage have had years with wages being fixed.

Point of clarification - this applies not just to those currently making minimum wage, but also to those who are currently between the old minimum wage and the new minimum wage. I'm not sure if that has an impact on the analysis in the long run, but this doesn't only apply to those employers who have been content to pay their employees the lowest wage permissible under current law.

Agreed. The change in minimum wage applies to anyone paying employees between (and including) the former minimum wage and the new minimum wage, although I was specifically referring to those who only pay minimum and thus have not had wage cost increases beyond increasing or decreasing staff levels,

I'm sure it also has some effect up the chain for those close to, but above, the new minimum. I mean if the minimum wage is $10, let's say, and I'm making $16, if it gets bumped up to $15, I'm going to want something in the $21-$24 range. You don't go from 60% above the minimum wage to $1 above it and stay very happy.

[LordMortis]

I'm sure it also has some effect up the chain for those close to, but above, the new minimum. I mean if the minimum wage is $10, let's say, and I'm making $16, if it gets bumped up to $15, I'm going to want something in the $21-$24 range. You don't go from 60% above the minimum wage to $1 above it and stay very happy.

Irrespective of being happy, you also likely go from semi motivated to keep your job to not caring about your employment so much. You presumably make more than minimum wage because you have something that the employer values and you want to be retained and they want to retain you. If they don't demonstrate they value you and you can hop disposable jobs for the same income, then why not take a disposable job over one with responsibility at what is basically the same wage?

[GreenGoo]

As someone who is liberal in bent, but understands intimately the pressures and issues of wage costs, it's very hard to find a solution that is equitable all around. I know some folks don''t care about that - some believe, as above, that employees should just "live cheaper" or "work harder," which is, to be blunt, a damn stupid response. OTOH, there are plenty of people who think that business owners are rolling in dough and trying to squeeze every penny they can from their exploited workers, and that is equally simplistic and, well, wrong.

I was mulling this whole situation over in my head, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, if all the gains are eaten by rent. People with with excess cash tend to spend it on housing, and they are all going to be competing for the same general area inside Seattle proper. Every $5/hr increase is roughly $800/month, and you could -very- easily have half that eaten by rent increases with no corresponding upgrade in quality of housing.

I think that's absolutely one likely outcome. Ironically, the fact that the increase is phased over seven years may make the lack of standard-of-living increase MORE likely. If everyone looking at bottom-tier housing was immediately given an 800/month wage increase, there would likely be a period of time (at a minimum the time between now and when a given lease expires) that the wage-earner would have a real and tangible benefit vs. housing costs. Instead, the slow phase in will result in costs moving almost in lock-step with wage increases (IMHO).

What I don't know is, what % of the workforce is this going to impact, and what % of employers are currently paying what % of employees minimum wage (or a age between minimum and $15/hr)?

Hmm, we have rent control that makes it difficult to suddenly jack up rent by a significant amount. For those looking to maximize their money (any big corps, but little old ladies maybe not) raise the rent by the legally allowed amount each year.

You need to jump through some hoops to boost rent significantly. It can be done, but it's not as simple as "this year I think I'll double the rent".

It might be wide open for you guys. Free markets and all that.

[Jaymann]

Interesting read people!

Greengoo, can you expand on why you believe a government agency coming in and telling a business how much to pay workers is not a form of social assistance? I am not saying it's bad, or good; I just want understand your position better. Can you give me a definition (not a personal definition but a real definition) of social assistance?

em2nought, should Wal-mart be able to accept food stamps when they hire people at such wages that they can only afford to shop at Wal-mart with their food stamps? (which some say is a form of corporate welfare the only reason the company can survive is because it can sorta double dip into food stamp benefits) Would you support workers at Wal-mart to go on strike to ask for higher wages over a government agency forcing Wal-mart to pay their workers more?

Walmart is the modern equivalent of indentured servitude. A couple notches up from the coal mines and railroads of old, but reminiscent of, "I owe my soul to the company store."

A corporation who once had Hillary Clinton on the board.

Nice.

She just locked in my vote!

[Jaymann]

We have always started people above minimum wage, but some people are under the mistaken assumption that if minimum wage goes up 50 cents they automatically get a 50 cent bump. Nope. However, in California salaried employees are required to make at least double the minimum wage. We have had some automatic increases under that provision.

[noxiousdog]

Hmm, we have rent control that makes it difficult to suddenly jack up rent by a significant amount. For those looking to maximize their money (any big corps, but little old ladies maybe not) raise the rent by the legally allowed amount each year.

You need to jump through some hoops to boost rent significantly. It can be done, but it's not as simple as "this year I think I'll double the rent".

It might be wide open for you guys. Free markets and all that.

It depends on the locale, but I'm not talking about forced increases. I'm talking about, "I have more money, I need to look for a new place!" Then tack on any yearly rent increases after that.

[Pyperkub]

People with with excess cash tend to spend it on housing

I don't know if this is actually going to lead to "excess cash", nor that it will go to housing. As noted before, the option is for the employer to pay for health care or raise the minimum wage.

To a degree, some of this is going to be offset by health care costs (having to buy, subsidized or not, or be taxed), and it's also very likely that a fair amount of the people who have been earning minimum wage currently are living paycheck to paycheck, with no savings and probably accumulating debt along the way.

They could well be stepping up from Ramen to Kraft Mac & Cheese before upgrading rent, or getting some health care for their kids which has been put off, etc. Going to deferred maintenance, in other words.

Some of the people earning minimum wage now (especially at a part time job), are likely on SNAP:

If your assistance unit (AU) meets all other eligibility requirements for Basic Food, your AU must have income at or below the limits in column B and C to get Basic Food, unless you meet one of the exceptions listed below. The maximum monthly food assistance benefit your AU could receive is listed in column D.

The Maximum Gross Income for 1 person to be eligible is $1,265 (which would be a little over 120 hours @ $10/hr or about 30 hours/week) - I'm not sure whether that Gross income is after (payroll) taxes or not. It goes up for supporting others.

[GreenGoo]

Hmm, we have rent control that makes it difficult to suddenly jack up rent by a significant amount. For those looking to maximize their money (any big corps, but little old ladies maybe not) raise the rent by the legally allowed amount each year.

You need to jump through some hoops to boost rent significantly. It can be done, but it's not as simple as "this year I think I'll double the rent".

It might be wide open for you guys. Free markets and all that.

It depends on the locale, but I'm not talking about forced increases. I'm talking about, "I have more money, I need to look for a new place!" Then tack on any yearly rent increases after that.

Maybe. I think they'd spend it on incidentals, but maybe they'd upgrade their living space. Obviously everyone is different, from kids working after school jobs to a guy trying to raise a family. In general...I have no idea how the money will be spent. Hopefully on improved standard of living. That might include a new place to live. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing anyway. Maybe they can afford to move over one neighbourhood where they don't have to worry about stepping on discarded needles as much.

Who knows. At that income level you can be damn sure most of it is going right back into the economy though.

[em2nought]

Push comes to shove: Free at last from slave wages http://consumerist.com/2015/04/16/walma ... -problems/

[LawBeefaroni]

Push comes to shove: Free at last from slave wages http://consumerist.com/2015/04/16/walma ... -problems/

If they were all built by the same builder it's quite possible that there was the same plumbing defect in all 5 stores. Who knows? But at this point there's no sense in guessing since they'll either get permits or they won't and the truth will be known.

Unless they pay to replace plumbing that doesn't really need fixing just to keep people out of work (except contractors and plumbers).

[GreenGoo]

Push comes to shove: Free at last from slave wages http://consumerist.com/2015/04/16/walma ... -problems/

Who gives a shit? Walmart pulled out of Quebec completely when their workers unionized.

The more Walmarts closed the better off we all are.

[gbasden]

The more Walmarts closed the better off we all are.

Amen, brother.

[Moliere]

The more Walmarts closed the better off we all are.

Amen, brother.

I know. It's so annoying having a lot of inexpensive goods on hand. If only I could pay more and travel to 10 different stores for the same things.

[GreenGoo]

The more Walmarts closed the better off we all are.

Amen, brother.

I know. It's so annoying having a lot of inexpensive goods on hand. If only I could pay more and travel to 10 different stores for the same things.

Right. That's what we're talking about. We hate convenience.

[Moliere]

Pending $15 minimum wage forces Seattle pizza shop to close

“I've let one person go since April 1, I've cut hours since April 1, I've taken them myself because I don't pay myself. I've also raised my prices a little bit. Yeah, there's no other way to do it,” she said.

Small businesses in the city have up to six more years to phase in the new $15 an hour minimum wage.

But Shah Burnham says even though she only has one store with 12 employees, she's considered part of the Z Pizza franchise so she has to give raises in just two years.

“I know that I would have stayed here if I had seven years, just like everyone else, if I had an even playing field. The discrimination I'm feeling towards my small business right now makes me not want to stay and do anything in Seattle,” she said.

The director of Now Seattle, which rallied for the minimum wage, had no comment, only saying "Restaurants open and close all the time, for various reasons."

[Isgrimnur]

Add another anecdote to the pile.

She's having to pay $11/hour now, effective 4/1/15. $15 doesn't roll in for anyone until 1/1/17.

Washington minimum wage last year was $9.32, this year is $9.47. So she's closing up shop over $1.53/hour that's been in effect for 72 days.

Sounds like she was one bad month away from closing up shop anyway.

[PLW]

The more Walmarts closed the better off we all are.

Amen, brother.

I don't think there is any evidence to support that claim, at all. If you are really interested in what we actually know about the effects of Wal-mart on the economy, start here. It's pitched a general-undergrad level.

[gbasden]

I don't think there is any evidence to support that claim, at all. If you are really interested in what we actually know about the effects of Wal-mart on the economy, start here. It's pitched a general-undergrad level.

Not being an economist, I can only point to the gutting of my hometown for my visceral dislike. That and I've talked to numerous people who have had to work at a high level for the company and can attest to upper level management being complete asswipes. Well, and their borderline illegal anti-union activities.

Ugh...

[Rip]

Meh, just a department store.

[Isgrimnur]

One wonders if Woolworth's or Sears faced this kind of backlash during their heyday.

[Pyperkub]

Los Angeles hates jobs too!

[Enough]

One wonders if Woolworth's or Sears faced this kind of backlash during their heyday.

Interesting question, I am going to guess there was some backlash but since in the early days those businesses would have opened in the downtown area they were not as directly linked to the decline of downtown business districts in small towns like Walmart has been. Here's an interesting article on the backlash the A.& P. grocery chain faced when it was expanding back in the day.

[Isgrimnur]

Thanks for the link.

[Alefroth]

No. 5 isn't bad considering they hate jobs.

[Enough]

Los Angeles hates jobs too!

538's analysis:

But $10 is a more accurate reflection of what low-wage Angelenos will actually experience.

There are two reasons for this. The first is inflation: Los Angeles’s minimum wage won’t go up to $15 tomorrow. Instead, the hike will be phased in over the next five years. Assuming inflation holds more or less steady, $15 an hour in 2020 will be worth the equivalent of about $13.75 today.

But the bigger issue is that $15 doesn’t go as far in Los Angeles as it does in most of the rest of the country. Not even close. According to data from the Council for Community and Economic Research, it costs workers about 40 percent more to live in Los Angeles than in the average American community. That means that $15 in LA is the equivalent of less than $11 in the U.S. overall.

Put the two together and LA’s new minimum wage of $15 in 2020 is worth about $9.75 to the typical American worker today.

[Moliere]

Welcome to a higher minimum wage.

[Jaymann]

That much easier for the super AI takeover.

[Isgrimnur]

Jackin the Box was testing that in my area years ago. Like the Coke freestyle machines, it creates a backlog as people have to figure out how to work them. But honestly, if I can order food via Internet, I can order it via kiosk.

Every type of job that was ever created is not a license to always have it available.