Seattle hates jobs

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:58 pm

Kraken wrote:
I was under the impression that the wage angle in Seattle had been firmly debunked,

It was never really bunked in the first place.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:09 am

To be fair - there are definitely going to be trade-offs involved, but the People of Seattle went in with eyes open, and appear to have tried to give themselves a way to back out/slow down if the negative outweighs the positive.

However, anyone who claims that anything happening now is proof of anything is selling something.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:34 am

Ivar's plans to raise wages directly to $15, eliminate tips, and increase prices at one of it's locations. Will be interesting to see how that works.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:04 am

hitbyambulance wrote:as an actual Seattle resident, two things:

- i can affirm that many, many restaurants are constantly closing AND opening all the time here! i can't even keep track of them.

Anyone familiar with the food service industry would understand this. It's a rough market to succeed in, but a never ending supply of people willing to try. Sometimes successful restaurants fail eventually just because they are no longer in fashion (I say this only as an example of how tough it is to stay profitable, even successful restaurants can go out of business).

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:05 am

Kraken wrote:
hitbyambulance wrote: - i can affirm that many, many restaurants are constantly closing AND opening all the time here! i can't even keep track of them.
True in any healthy city.

Crap. What he (kraken) said.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:19 pm

Oakland minimum-wage hike puts child caregivers in a jam
(You can read the article by googling the headline and clicking on the 2nd link.)

Organizations like the Salvation Army depend on fixed subsidies from the state, which won’t adjust in response to changes in city law. Both the state-funded programs and their private counterparts are bound by strict state ratio requirements, which mandate that a certain number of employees be present with the children each day. For every four infants, for example, the law requires that centers provide one child care worker.

So traditional staff-cutting isn’t an option for day care centers.

“That’s one of the unintended consequences” of Oakland’s Measure FF, the November ballot measure that raised the city’s minimum wage from $9 an hour, said Richard Winefield, executive director of the nonprofit child care referral service Bananas. “A lot of (centers) are run on very narrow margins, and when they increase the hourly rate on their employees, they need to pass that on in tuition costs, so families need to fork over more money.”

But many families don’t have the wherewithal to pay more, Winefield said. And as a result, they’re getting priced out.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:27 pm

Seems to me that the state better start coughing up some bucks. Or they can stop funding I guess. If that's what they want. There's no point in sending funding into something that can no longer provide the services they exist to provide.

I guess what I'm saying is that the state needs to absorb the cost of employing these people in a state run facility. That would be the case for any other increased cost of operations, including wages. Or make some tough decisions.

As for the private centers, I have some sympathy, but I'd like to see their books before I start crying for them.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:57 am

Somehow, our economy survived the abolition of slavery. It will survive the abolition of slave wages, too.

If the cost/benefit of a particular product or service is no longer viable, then perhaps the perpetrators need a new business plan. Raising up the minimum wage can't continue to be an occasional thing though, or soon enough everything will settle to the same as it ever was, $15 per hour providing the same purchasing power as $10 does now. It needs to have a annual COL increase commensurate with non-minimum wage jobs.

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:14 pm

I admit I haven't read the law, but are the slaves that were previously making say $13 an hour getting a raise to just $15 or are they getting a raise proportional to the difference between the previous and new minimum wage?

As a real life example, I took a second job as a slave at The Home Depot for a few years to fill in the gaps in our families' insurance. I made I think $11/$12 per hour. The department heads were hourly slaves that usually had several more years experience under the yoke than a newcomer (like me). As a result they typically made $3-$4 more dollars and hour than me. If I suddenly got bumped up to $15 / hour would they still sit at $16?

THD may not be a good example because they regularly gave profit sharing checks to anyone that had been working the fields for at least 90 days. And 2 weeks paid vacation.

Setting aside my hyperbolic response I'm curious if the example above holds for Seattle and other places? My guess is no because that would require a fair bit of forethought when planning a law like this but like I said I have no idea.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:31 pm

Anything over the minimum wage is going to require a response by the companies, same as it does any other time. If they fail to raise the levels there sufficiently, there will be a shortage of people willing to put up with the extra headache. It's not unexpected with the lead time that they're given, nor is it rocket surgery.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:43 pm

To a degree, the idea is that a rising tide lifts all boats. Those people will ask for raises and is they don't get then, go somewhere where they can get them, or get some other benefits such as health care or a retirement plan

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:34 pm

Except the boats of the unskilled or less experienced workers who will now have a harder time finding work. The money for the increase will come from one of two places: owner's pockets or consumer's pockets.

I know it's en vogue to rail on the evil fat cat business owner and the concept of profit but if a business owner only clears 50-60k a year they won't be able to simply absorb the increase. They will have to raise prices or they can just go out of business because they have 'a shItty business plan.'

And the truly poor and unemployed will receive exactly zero benefit from this.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 10:36 pm

Redfive wrote:Except the boats of the unskilled or less experienced workers who will now have a harder time finding work. The money for the increase will come from one of two places: owner's pockets or consumer's pockets.

I know it's en vogue to rail on the evil fat cat business owner and the concept of profit but if a business owner only clears 50-60k a year they won't be able to simply absorb the increase. They will have to raise prices or they can just go out of business because they have 'a shItty business plan.'

And the truly poor and unemployed will receive exactly zero benefit from this.

But...those are just sound bites. You've said nothing new, that we haven't heard before. Unless you're in favour of no minimum wage at all (and to be fair, some people support this position) then you agree that pay below a certain grade is too little. As the saying goes "we've established what you are, now we're just negotiating the price".

What is the exact right dollar value that minimum wage should be, and under what conditions (if any) should it be changed? That's the discussion being had. Apparently, some people in a position to change it, agree that it needs to change and are therefore changing it.

If you answer "there shouldn't be a minimum wage", well, most of the population disagrees with you and your position is an outlier and we can start ignoring you right now. Otherwise, welcome to the discussion and we are eager to hear what you think should be an acceptable minimum wage.

No one here that I am aware of refers to small business owners as "evil fat cats". Those guys are on Wall street, and minimum wage doesn't enter their vocabulary, unless they're talking about how much to pay their pool boy. Several members here are small business owners, and one of the most vocal is geezer.

I wish you wouldn't suggest we have a problem with capitalism, because I for one would not give it up for any other system.

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 12:47 am

Except they aren't just sound bites.

Seriously, what places other than an owner or a consumer are there to find money to raise the minimum wage? Please don't say some kind of govt. subsidy--I haven't seen anyone say that here but it's not beyond the pale to think the govt. should pick up the slack.

The evil fat cat comment wasn't addressed at you GG or anyone in this forum. Just listen to radio and tv commercials. How many times do you hear the selling point 'we're owned by members, not shareholders so we aren't out to make a profit'

It really boils down to pretty much one thing. Are members of a community willing to pay more for products across the board so that wages can be raised in some cases as much as 66%(Seattle)? If the answer is yes--or the cynical side of me says most people don't have a clue that it will come from them--then raising the minimum wage is a good thing.

I'm not a small business owner (yet), but I'm second in the company to the owner so I see just about everything. If our company was forced to drastically raise the wage that workers are paid then it is a very simple and plain fact that we just aren't going to hire people without proven skills. The lower skilled helpers would just get passed over to their detriment.

The minimum wage here in TX is $7.25. Our company pays higher than most and our market supports an entry wage ($13-$14) not far under double the minimum for our industry. We wouldn't be hit very hard if the minimum were raised to $15, but that's only for entry level. Suddenly, we'd have several workers with years of experience working for $2-$3 over minimum. They (rightfully IMO) wouldn't accept that so we'd have to raise wages to compensate and that would get passed directly to the customers. The company would cease to exist if it had to absorb the increase without raising prices.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:01 am

The other piece you are missing Redfive is that if more people have more money in their pockets (or are having their health care costs picked up by businesses rather than having that cost pushed onto taxpayers - which is a huge part of this plan - as it is a minimum wage OR health care law), then there will be more money to spend on other things.

Think like Henry Ford - if his workers couldn't afford to buy his cars, he couldn't make as many, etc...

It is a very complex equation - yes, some businesses will struggle more with a higher minimum wage - but they will also get more business - as their customers will have more money in their pockets. Will it balance out - nobody really knows. There are plenty of places which do just fine with minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage.

E.g. In'n'out burger starts at over $10/hr in CA and probably has a much better per store profit margin than McDonalds or some other Fast Food joints which pay minimum wage - less turnover, less training costs, better customer service, better product. McDonalds employees make $14.50 (US) in Australia and $12 (US) in France. It is by no means given that a higher minimum wage means a lower standard of living or less jobs.

There is also the historical fact that inflation adjusted federal minimum wage is actually less than it was in 1968.

You are also missing the point that the minimum wage is not 'drastically going up' the increases are being phased in, and companies which are paying for health care already, do not have to raise their wages. The ones which are leeching off of taxpayers however...

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:58 am

Thanks for the response Pyperkub--I'm aware of the argument that more money will be available to spend to those that have their wages increased and I was also aware that it would be phased in.

It still will have to come out of other pockets and I still believe the number of jobs overall will suffer.

Like I said earlier if a community votes for it you would hope they are aware of all the effects.

For the record, there is no way in hell a person can make a living wage at the minimum in TX. Even with the lower cost of living compared to where many of you live. That said from my experience you don't need much of a skill set to make more than the minimum. And I think an employer is going to really struggle with hiring a teenager living at home with no work experience for $15/hr. I'm sure we will see how this bears out and then we will know.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:44 am

Redfive wrote:I'm sure we will see how this bears out and then we will know.

How long do you think it will take for the damage to appear?

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:52 pm

Alefroth wrote:
Redfive wrote:I'm sure we will see how this bears out and then we will know.
How long do you think it will for the damage to appear?

I don't know. 5 days ago?

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:09 pm

Then there's this. Not guaranteed damage yet, but serious concern for (Pho?) sure.

Pham says they will hold on to current prices — $7.75 for a small bowl, according to the restaurant’s website — as long as possible. Like so many others pho proprietors, their restaurant is not designed to be an Ethan Stowell or Tom Douglas establishment where customers expect to pay premium prices.

“It’s hard for people to pay $15 for a ‘to pho,’ ” Pham says, referring to the Vietnamese translation of a bowl of soup. “The culture of Vietnamese restaurants means we have to be price aggressive.”

Pham says they are considering scaling down employment, possibly ending sit-down service and transitioning to a “fast-casual” concept to cut down on labor costs.

Mayor Ed Murray says employees of the city’s Office of Labor Standards will work “vigorously” with businesses on implementation and outreach, “particularly to minority communities.”

They’d better. As Murray’s Income Inequality Advisory Committee formed the new rules last year, it largely ignored the concerns of an ethnic coalition of business owners.

Taylor Hoang, owner of five Pho Cyclo Cafe restaurants, says the coalition requested a training wage or an exemption for microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees.

They got nothing.

Anxiety is widespread, Hoang says, because the city is still releasing and translating information for non-English-speaking communities. For her, increasing the price on a product like pho is harder than it seems.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:12 pm

Redfive wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
Redfive wrote:I'm sure we will see how this bears out and then we will know.
How long do you think it will for the damage to appear?
I don't know. 5 days ago?

Paid vacation for restaurant employees? Either this is limited to a very few establishments or Seattle is insane.

Also, the minimum wage now applies to tipped jobs?

At Icon Grill, $1 an hour of tips is now reported as the hourly wage for servers. The rest of the wage is covered by a pay increase from the restaurant. Musser says he supports better wages but believes there should be certain exceptions to support restaurants employing tipped employees.

"The reality is is my servers make $32 an hour on average," said Musser. "Why do I need to pay them $15? Why do I need to pay them $10? They're already making $32."

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:41 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:Also, the minimum wage now applies to tipped jobs?
At Icon Grill, $1 an hour of tips is now reported as the hourly wage for servers. The rest of the wage is covered by a pay increase from the restaurant. Musser says he supports better wages but believes there should be certain exceptions to support restaurants employing tipped employees.

"The reality is is my servers make $32 an hour on average," said Musser. "Why do I need to pay them $15? Why do I need to pay them $10? They're already making $32."

Washington is one of several states to require employers to pay the full minimum wage before tips. The new law in Seattle actually give employers a tiny bit of a break on that front during the phase-in, by allowing them to count $1/hr of tips against the minimum wage.

During the current phase-in period, the real minimum wage for tipped workers has gone up by $0.53/hr -- from $9.47 to $10.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:00 pm

Redfive wrote:I'm sure we will see how this bears out and then we will know.

I agree and that was sort of decided in this thread a year ago when it was first posted. But then someone made up some lies and every other conservative media jumped on the "told you so" and here we are having the same discussion again like there is something new to talk about. But there isn't anything new to talk about, the changes haven't been implemented yet and we are still waiting to see the results.

See you in another year or so.

Also you didn't tell me what the right amount is for minimum wage. When you can answer that, or at least give a reasoned response to minimum wage in general I'll take your warnings to heart. Otherwise, you're just fear mongering about "change".

How do we know that *THIS* is the exact right minimum wage that the market can handle and any movement away from it will have dire consequences to the economy? The last time minimum wage increased this exact conversation happened. Are you advocating going back to the previous minimum wage? If not, why not? All your worries existed then too, and yet here we all are. Minimum wage hasn't even kept up with inflation, so the current minimum wage doesn't have the same buying power that minimum wage had in 1984. By that standard (and I think it's a pretty good measure) businesses are paying their minimum wage employees less than ever. every year that minimum wage stagnates employers are getting a break on their operating costs (real cost of salaries drops). They should probably save some money for when they aren't getting free breaks on their operating costs, or at least not plan for it to last forever, because it's not going to (this is your shitty business plan you mentioned).

That's why Jeff V calls them slave wages, and that's why it needs a boost.

This isn't a unique event. We have decades of economic data. This is not the first time nor will it be the last time minimum wage is raised. I hope the Pho industry will pull through somehow. I love Pho.

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:25 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Also you didn't tell me what the right amount is for minimum wage. When you can answer that, or at least give a reasoned response to minimum wage in general I'll take your warnings to heart. Otherwise, you're just fear mongering about "change".

If there has to be a minimum wage then the answer should be whatever the market will support. Maybe this will work out. I don't have a clue but I suspect that no matter the result this really isn't an experiment--Seattle surely isn't going to go back to something less.

I'm not fear mongering about anything. I stated my concerns simply because to me the prevailing message seems to be that this money is just laying around to give out with no consequences to anyone except possibly the business owners, who often as not gained it off the backs of 'slave wages.' I find that mildly offensive since I know from personal experience my boss and my family (who owned a small business until earlier this year) have literally been unable to sleep at night trying to make sure that their workers, and by extension the workers' families, get a paycheck--even if it meant not taking one for themselves.

I said it a year ago and again recently: If the people of Seattle are prepared to pay more for goods and services to support this then more power to them.

There are consequences and they aren't all positive.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:35 am

GreenGoo wrote:If you answer "there shouldn't be a minimum wage", well, most of the population disagrees with you and your position is an outlier and we can start ignoring you right now.

I like the sound of "outlier", sounds like something from the Langoliers creeping up on you. I can't help but wish disaster on Seattle, but then I'm still pretty bitter about the whole WPPSS thing.

Maybe y'all can issue restaurant bonds to pay the higher wages, and then default on them at your leisure. F' the evil bond holders, they've got money(or had money).

If there are some that aren't lazy enough to return to their parents couches after losing their jobs, I think Florida is starting to need construction trades again, get ready to hang drywall. P.S. Please don't drop your nails and screws on the highway.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:42 am

Redfive wrote:
If there has to be a minimum wage then the answer should be whatever the market will support.

How would you determine what government legislated wage the market could support?

I'm not saying that everything will come up roses, but there are bigger issues than whether a Pho shop can stay in business or not. If Joe the Plumber is going to be our economic compass for national or even statewide economic policy, we're already fucked.

Sure it's easy for me to say, since I'm not a Pho shop owner, but again, we can't possibly determine policy based on specific examples. If we did we could just as easily go in the opposite direction and lower wages until previously unsustainable business models suddenly became sustainable.

Even if it were reported that numerous businesses failed due to increased operational costs from the increased wages, I still wouldn't be convinced it's a bad idea unless the benefits of the changes failed to materialize. Since we've been doing this for awhile now, I'm thinking those benefits are going to show up just as they always have. Nothing is special about *this* time to make it catastrophic.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 10:37 am

em2nought wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:If you answer "there shouldn't be a minimum wage", well, most of the population disagrees with you and your position is an outlier and we can start ignoring you right now.
I like the sound of "outlier", sounds like something from the Langoliers creeping up on you. I can't help but wish disaster on Seattle, but then I'm still pretty bitter about the whole WPPSS thing. Maybe y'all can issue restaurant bonds to pay the higher wages, and then default on them at your leisure. F' the evil bond holders, they've got money(or had money).

If there are some that aren't lazy enough to return to their parents couches after losing their jobs, I think Florida is starting to need construction trades again, get ready to hang drywall. P.S. Please don't drop your nails and screws on the highway.

The thing is, we're already paying for low wages through Medicaid and all kinds of other assistance. Regardless of how you feel about that, the fact is that lowering wages or doing away with the minimum wage won't get the rest of us off the hook.

Me, personally, I'd rather pay a few bucks more for a meal to give someone a fair wage than skimp on the meal and bail that same worker out with tax dollars later.

Binktopia · Post by **Binktopia** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:29 pm

I wanted to say thank you to Redfive for his experiences and honesty.

Sometimes I feel these threads get too hopped on rhetoric and not enough on people's real experiences. I love progressive ideas as much as the next guy, but reality, like the idea that pho shops may be in economic danger because of the new laws, need to be highlighted too. Nothing is perfect and everything has a tradeoff, even if we don't see it immediately.

I hope Seattle's gambit pays off, I hope it is a solution that creates a brighter future for the people of Seattle, and hopefully this country.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 6:26 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:Me, personally, I'd rather pay a few bucks more for a meal to give someone a fair wage than skimp on the meal and bail that same worker out with tax dollars later.

I'd rather they all adapted to my way of thinking. Personal responsibility, self reliance, living within ones means(tiny houses are cute), working toward the things they want and then buying them, not buying them right now on credit, then they wouldn't need bailed out with tax dollars later. It's the way their great grandparents did it. Maybe that can't be done in Seattle, too expensive. Maybe they should move. Of course the gov't is again part of the problem, where are you going to be permitted to put that "tiny" house? Probably no where if gov't and your neighbors have a say.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:15 pm

Again, these are working people. They are not on welfare. Minimum wage is not some form of social assistance.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:22 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Minimum wage is not some form of social assistance.

It is if someone other than the employer sets the price.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 9:01 pm

Sometimes the government is the only organization that can protect society from predatory capitalists.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 9:24 pm

em2nought wrote:
GreenGoo wrote: Minimum wage is not some form of social assistance.
It is if someone other than the employer sets the price.

Says the robber baron.

No it isn't, and we have hundreds of years of history to show why it's required.

Also, this is an incredibly ignorant position. I'm not even sure how one comes to hold such a position.

I do like how the problem is no longer *just* the poor below the poverty line, but it's also those working who are paid the absolute minimum employers can legally get away with.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:53 pm

em2nought wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:Me, personally, I'd rather pay a few bucks more for a meal to give someone a fair wage than skimp on the meal and bail that same worker out with tax dollars later.
I'd rather they all adapted to my way of thinking. Personal responsibility, self reliance, living within ones means(tiny houses are cute), working toward the things they want and then buying them, not buying them right now on credit, then they wouldn't need bailed out with tax dollars later. It's the way their great grandparents did it. Maybe that can't be done in Seattle, too expensive. Maybe they should move. Of course the gov't is again part of the problem, where are you going to be permitted to put that "tiny" house? Probably no where if gov't and your neighbors have a say.

As someone who agrees with you on the basic premise that a legislated minimum wage adjustment is problematic, your "analysis" of the situation is way, way too simple. Not to mention seemingly taken directly from conservative sound bites.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:47 pm

em2nought wrote:
GreenGoo wrote: Minimum wage is not some form of social assistance.
It is if someone other than the employer sets the price.

No, it's not. The employer is also a part of the community, and if they are paying their employees too little to be a part of the community as well as shifting some of those costs to the community, then that employer is taking advantage of the community's hospitality.

I'm glad that you want to see people take personal responsibility, but don't pretend that the employer has no responsibility here themselves.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:24 am

The implication that people working full time aren't taking personal responsibility because the job they are working pays the least amount possible is incredibly insulting, ignorant and offensive.

"Hey you! Get a job you parasite!" "oh. You have a job? Get a better job and some personal responsibility. Leech"

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:26 am

geezer wrote: Not to mention seemingly taken directly from conservative sound bites.

...directed at welfare recipients. It makes no sense when applied to people gainfully employed.

gilraen · Post by **gilraen** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:46 am

Redfive wrote: Taylor Hoang, owner of five Pho Cyclo Cafe restaurants, says the coalition requested a training wage or an exemption for microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees.

News flash: when you have a chain of restaurants, you're not a "microbusiness". Maybe her business expansion plan shouldn't have been based on paying slave wages to the staff.

Binktopia · Post by **Binktopia** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:12 am

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?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:10 am

Binktopia wrote: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?

Well, Canada has something called a Social Assistance Act. It's a complex document. I'm pretty sure it doesn't contain anything on minimum wage. You're american. What do you guys have?

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.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:14 am

GreenGoo wrote:
geezer wrote: Not to mention seemingly taken directly from conservative sound bites.
...directed at welfare recipients. It makes no sense when applied to people gainfully employed.

Agreed. Here's the thing though, in some ways, money in a small business is a zero-sum game. By forcing an increase in the cost of doing business, whether by wage increases, additional regulatory issues, or a myriad of other things, costs will be cut somewhere else OR prices will rise. Both can be bad for the consumer, as well as the employees that the proposed wage increase was aiming to help. You can:

1) Cut employees. Obviously not good for the terminated employee, and not good for the business, as customer service will likely suffer (and consequently business will suffer - again, a long- and medium-term disadvantage to the employees as well as the employer)

2) Cut costs elsewhere - maybe ok by the employees, but mid- to long-term business may suffer, which will in turn affect both the owner and the employees.

3) Cut profit from the owner to compensate - the favorite amongst a certain group of people that see employers as inherently greedy. What many people don't realize, though, is that the cast majority of business owners aren't out there sitting on piles of money like Scrooge McDuck. Many of them have significant value and equity tied up in their businell, which has just been made both less valuable and less liquid by the forced cost increase, so while the increase in wages Can come from here, the disparity, especially in small businesses, isn't what proponents of a larger minimum wage wish it was.

4) Raise prices to compensate - the likely outcome, and the likely outcome for all businesses, across the board. The problem here should be obvious. Although the employees now have an extra $5/hr to spend, the think they need to spend that money on just got more expensive. Now maybe there's a period where the wage raise outstrips the cost increase, and if so, then the ownership will be squeezed a bit while the wage-earner sees a bit of good fortune, but eventually everything will return to equilibrium and we'll be having this same discussion again...

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 like that the Seattle law phases the increase in over 7 years for a small business - but I think ultimately its not going to be the solution that people hope, and it will cause some businesses to suffer distress (both real and imagined) in the process. Some employees will benefit, and some will not. Some employers will cope and find a new set point, and some will not. I guess some basic opinion on it, it's survivable, but ultimately not particularly important, except in the sense that it becomes a political issue.