As predicted - Study shows Seattle $15 min wage result is less hours and 5000 less jobs

[NYcarbineer]

What's better?

One job at 15 dollars an hour, or 3 jobs at 5 dollars an hour?

At that level they can barely do one job and you're asking about three at the same time? What's wrong with you?

Pay attention. The subject of this thread is jobs.

If businesses spend 15 an hour on labor, is it better that one person get a 15 dollar an hour job, or that three get the same job for 5 dollars an hour?

One scenario produces 1 job. The other produces 3. Which is better?

You're question isn't an honest one then. You are assuming you'd get the same level of quality regardless of the wage. That isn't how the real world works.

Dictating wages does not help business, if liberals could only learn that the better business in general does, the better the economy does. Business is the engine of an economy. The better the economy the more business done the more they need to pay for decent employees.

I've lived through it, I remember when businesses had to compete for workers. Now they can offer you shit, if you don't like it 1,000 guys are behind you in line. Libs think they can micro-manage economies like they want to micro-manage our lives.

You can't answer the question because we know your answer is 3 for 5 bucks.

Let me make it clearer.

If the current minimum wage is 7.50 and you raise it to 15, that doubles the cost of a minimum wage job.

You believe 7.50 is better because you think that results in 2 jobs for 15 bucks instead of one.

So why not lower the minimum wage to 5 bucks and get 3 jobs?

Or to 3 bucks and get 5 jobs?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2015

In 2015, 78.2 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.5 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 870,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 2.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.3 percent of all hourly paid workers.

The percentage of hourly paid workers earning the prevailing federal minimum wage or less declined from 3.9 percent in 2014 to 3.3 percent in 2015. This remains well below the percentage of 13.4 recorded in 1979, when data for hourly-paid were first collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)

This report presents highlights and statistical tables describing workers who earned at or below the federal minimum wage in 2015. The data are obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a national monthly survey of approximately 60,000 households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Information on earnings is collected from one-fourth of the CPS sample each month.

The CPS does not include questions on whether workers are covered by the minimum wage provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or by individual state or local minimum wage laws. The estimates of workers paid at or below the federal minimum wage are based solely on the hourly wage they report, which does not include overtime pay, tips, or commissions. See the accompanying technical notes section for more information, including a description of the source of the data and an explanation of the concepts and definitions used in this report.

Highlights
The following are highlights from the 2015 data:

Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 11 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 2 percent of workers age 25 and older. (See tables 1 and 7.)

Gender. Among workers who were paid hourly rates in 2015, about 4 percent of women and about 3 percent of men had wages at or below the prevailing federal minimum. (See table 1.)

Race and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. The major race and ethnicity groups had similar percentages of hourly workers paid wages at or below the federal minimum. About 3 percent of White, Asian, and Hispanic or Latino workers earned the federal minimum wage or less. Among Black workers, the percentage was about 4 percent. (See table 1.)

Education. Among hourly paid workers age 16 and older, about 6 percent of those without a high school diploma earned the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of those who had a high school diploma (with no college), 3 percent of those with some college or an associate degree, and about 2 percent of college graduates. (See table 6.)

Marital status. Of those paid an hourly wage, never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely (5 percent) than married workers (2 percent) to earn the federal minimum wage or less. (See table 8.)

Full- and part-time status. About 7 percent of part-time workers (those who usually work fewer than 35 hours per week) were paid at or below the federal minimum wage, compared with about 2 percent of full-time workers. (See tables 1 and 9.)

Occupation. Among major occupational groups, the highest percentage of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage was in service occupations, at about 9 percent. Almost two-thirds of workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2015 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and serving related jobs. (See table 4.)

Industry. The industry with the highest percentage of workers earning hourly wages at or below the federal minimum wage was leisure and hospitality (15 percent). Nearly three-fifths of all workers paid at or below the federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, the vast majority in restaurants and other food services. For many of these workers, tips may supplement the hourly wages received. (See table 5.)

State of residence. The states with the highest percentages of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage were in the South: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Virginia (all were about 6 percent). The states with the lowest percentages of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage were in the West: Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington (all were about 1 percent). It should be noted that some states have laws establishing higher minimum wage rates than the federal minimum wage. (See tables 2 and 3.)

 

[Iceweasel]

Wrong. You act like government grants us freedoms and privileges like kings.

You're the one who said that it was a "privilege to work".

Government works for us. Nothing in the constitution provides incomes, that happens via the marketplace. Businesses do fail, others don't. It isn't up to you or government to decide our fate.

The government isn't doing that. If you are telling me you cannot operate a business and pay livable wages, then you shouldn't own a business and it's entitlement to think you should.

I don't recall saying it's a privilege to work but you see everyone that disagrees with you as a singular entity. What one person says applies to the other. It is true though, you work at the owner's request, you have no right to a job. You are badly confused between the private and public sector though. If an owner wants to act like a king, and some do, it's up to them how it all plays out. People can and do quit. When the government acts like a king we can't simply walk away.

You dishonestly use the term livable wage over and over while disregarding the fact that entry level jobs don't support families, homes, cars, etc. The you apply your ill thought beliefs to business owners as being incompetent or evil. Like I said before, you couldn't run a lemonade stand. You simply have no concept of how the grown up world works.

 

[Iceweasel]

What's better?

One job at 15 dollars an hour, or 3 jobs at 5 dollars an hour?

At that level they can barely do one job and you're asking about three at the same time? What's wrong with you?

Pay attention. The subject of this thread is jobs.

If businesses spend 15 an hour on labor, is it better that one person get a 15 dollar an hour job, or that three get the same job for 5 dollars an hour?

One scenario produces 1 job. The other produces 3. Which is better?

You're question isn't an honest one then. You are assuming you'd get the same level of quality regardless of the wage. That isn't how the real world works.

Dictating wages does not help business, if liberals could only learn that the better business in general does, the better the economy does. Business is the engine of an economy. The better the economy the more business done the more they need to pay for decent employees.

I've lived through it, I remember when businesses had to compete for workers. Now they can offer you shit, if you don't like it 1,000 guys are behind you in line. Libs think they can micro-manage economies like they want to micro-manage our lives.

You can't answer the question because we know your answer is 3 for 5 bucks.

Let me make it clearer.

If the current minimum wage is 7.50 and you raise it to 15, that doubles the cost of a minimum wage job.

You believe 7.50 is better because you think that results in 2 jobs for 15 bucks instead of one.

So why not lower the minimum wage to 5 bucks and get 3 jobs?

Or to 3 bucks and get 5 jobs?

I just answered your question. Someone obviously needs to walk you through it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey....but heres the thing.......if the intentions are good, just gotta do it right??!!! Who gives a rats ass if the results suck. Its just another example of progressives inability to connect the dots.

All you have to do is read the above goofball logic from NYCaribineer..........HOLY MOTHER OF GOD. Simpleton is ghey.

 

[The Derp]

Show me how revenue grows when the same workforce now costs 30% more.

It's not on me to do that, it's on you because you're devising the scenario. You're just not counting things that may undermine your point. Sort of what Rogoff and Reinhart did with their "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper in 2010. I don't know how much revenue grows from a wage increase. But we know there is revenue growth because states that raised their MW saw their unemployment rates decline. So at the very least, the premise that raising wages kills jobs is false. We can debate whether or not raising it creates jobs, and the empirical evidence sure seems to indicate it does.

You say more minimum wage workers will have extra money to spend. Minimum wage workers account for about 1% of the overall work force.

So this is deceptive sophism. Of course, only that many make the federal minimum wage but you know of course that states have their own MW that may be higher than the federal one in some cases. If you raise the MW to $15/hr, you are raising wages for those 1M who make $8.25, but you're also raising wages for everyone in between. So how many millions of workers make up to $15/hr? According to BLS, $15/hr is the 42nd income percentile, which means 42% of all workers make up to $15/hr. So that's significant as it's nearly half of all consumers.

It's odd for you to assume people will instantly spend their minimum wage raise in your restaurant.

Whether they spend it in your restaurant or another retail establishment, they are spending. And the increase in spending leads to an increase of overall demand, which leads to an increase in hiring, which leads to an increase in wages.

 

[The Derp]

DERP, how is your marketing plan coming along?
How are you increasing your sales to cover your overnight increase in labor costs?
You said you would be increasing your advertising to target minimum wage workers?
Is that all? You were not very specific. Be specific.

The sales increase because I produce a desirable product and market it well. So when consumers have more to spend, they will come to my business.

 

[dannyboys]

I guess the question is, how do the businesses that DO stay in business and pay the minimum wage, stay in business? And why wouldn't the rest do that?

And why now do conservatives not want the marketplace to work as it should?




Why indeed are there interstate highways in Hawaii. The world, may never know.

Why don't you ask some of these business owners who are still in business? 100% of them will tell you they have done a combination of lowering the quality of what they are selling, reducing the man hours they are paying their employees, eliminating jobs, raising the price of their product/s. NONE of these measures in any way is what any sane person would call a 'positive' move forward.

 

[The Derp]

Your assumption is that correlation equals causation. You fit data into your belief system. It is more likely the states are doing better for other reasons, resources, tech boom, etc. and you dishonestly attribute it to a wage hike on the bottom end of the scale, where only a tiny fraction of the work force exists.

Like I said, I am totally open to debating whether or not the MW increase creates jobs. I think that's a valid debate to have. What isn't a valid debate is that raising the MW kills jobs, as the empirical evidence shows it doesn't. So we have to start the debate accepting that fact. It's not a debate as to whether raising the MW kills jobs, it's a debate as to whether it creates jobs. So the debate is does raising the MW create jobs or not, not does raising the MW kill jobs.

 

[Iceweasel]

we all did, huh genius?

Yes. You all did. Just like you all said Obamacare would kill jobs (it didn't), just like you all said the Stimulus would lead to hyperinflation (it didn't), just like you all said that raising the MW would kill jobs (it doesn't). Now the chickens are coming home to roost, and you got nothing. 7 years of bad rhetoric is now catching up to you and the best you can do is write shit like that? Come on. Where's the effort?

Obama was only able to cut the very top percent, no doubt he wanted to do more but the do nothing Republicans stopped him. You are arguing against a cartoon that exists in your mind.

???? Obama let the cuts expire on income above $400K. The result was deficit reduction of about $85B in 2013 alone. 2013 was also one of the best years for job growth under Obama. Which is why Conservatives shut the government down that fall...they needed to harm the economy to make Obama look bad. And they succeeded by costing the economy about $25B.

You're liar and a very unclever one at that. Go back up your claims and find my post where I said so. I have nothing? Your little maggot brain has nothing.

Republicans cut deficit spending, how does cutting the top income tax rates do that? Conservatives want to save and boost the economy, it's why they cut SPENDING GROWTH. I don't share your religious views, they are stupid and dishonest.

 

[The Derp]

It is true though, you work at the owner's request, you have no right to a job.

And you don't have a right to own a business either. That is also a privilege.

You are badly confused between the private and public sector though. If an owner wants to act like a king, and some do, it's up to them how it all plays out. People can and do quit. When the government acts like a king we can't simply walk away.

How is the government acting like a king? Are they taking Prima Nocta or something? Get a grip. These hysterical exaggerations are partly why I can't take you people seriously.

ou dishonestly use the term livable wage over and over while disregarding the fact that entry level jobs don't support families, homes, cars, etc.

First of all, a low-wage job is not an "entry-level" job. You've made that crystal clear in your posts. Secondly, anyone who works a job full time should be paid enough that they don't qualify for income-based benefits. Because that's just subsidizing corporate profits, by providing things like SNAP to full-time workers of Walmart, costing taxpayers about $6.2B in welfare benefits all-in. Walmart's profits last year? $14B. So nearly half of Walmart's profits were subsidized by taxpayers because Walmart doesn't pay its workers a livable wage. You don't seem to have a problem with corporate welfare, yet you have a problem with individual welfare. Hypocrisy much?

The you apply your ill thought beliefs to business owners as being incompetent or evil. Like I said before, you couldn't run a lemonade stand. You simply have no concept of how the grown up world works.

Stop playing a victim and whining about the "woe is me" business owners who cannot seem to pay their workers a livable wage and maintain profits. If you cannot do both, then you are not a successful business owner. Period.

 

[Iceweasel]

Your assumption is that correlation equals causation. You fit data into your belief system. It is more likely the states are doing better for other reasons, resources, tech boom, etc. and you dishonestly attribute it to a wage hike on the bottom end of the scale, where only a tiny fraction of the work force exists.

Like I said, I am totally open to debating whether or not the MW increase creates jobs. I think that's a valid debate to have. What isn't a valid debate is that raising the MW kills jobs, as the empirical evidence shows it doesn't. So we have to start the debate accepting that fact. It's not a debate as to whether raising the MW kills jobs, it's a debate as to whether it creates jobs. So the debate is does raising the MW create jobs or not, not does raising the MW kill jobs.

Many hours have been cut and many businesses can't handle the increase so your "empirical data" is bullshit. Nor do I let some little asshole on the internet tell me what I can and can't discuss to make my point. You can't argue the points because you have no real world experience.

 

[danielpalos]

Snowflakes must sleep through their economics classes.

If there is a forced wage increase without a commensurate increase in revenue, jobs and/or hours will be cut.

Here you go, snowflakes, from your bible.

How a Rising Minimum Wage Affects Jobs in Seattle

Still taking credit for normal market volatility?

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment every time something changes.

Short term losses are expected until demand from better paid labor start convincing Mr. Say, to hire more labor to increase supply.

 

[The Derp]

You're liar and a very unclever one at that. Go back up your claims and find my post where I said so. I have nothing? Your little maggot brain has nothing.

So you mean to tell me that if we hopped in a DeLorean and went back to December 2012, you wouldn't be making predictions that letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the rich would lead to job loss, a recession, and/or a market collapse? Come on, dude. You're not serious, are you?

Republicans cut deficit spending,

No they didn't. Republicans increased deficit spending. That's why the surplus turned into a deficit by Bush's second year. Only Obama and Clinton left a deficit lower than the one they inherited. Conservatives are the ones who increase the deficit. Like what happened in Kansas.

how does cutting the top income tax rates do that? Conservatives want to save and boost the economy, it's why they cut SPENDING GROWTH. I don't share your religious views, they are stupid and dishonest.

LOL! You want to grow the economy so you cut spending? Stupid.

 

[The Derp]

hours have been cut and many businesses can't handle the increase so your "empirical data" is bullshit.

No, your anecdotes are bullshit. Empirical evidence cannot be bullshit because it's, you know, empirical evidence. Conservatives relay second- or third-hand anecdotes, informed by bias, and expect it to be taken the same as empirical data. Try making an argument without that shit. I don't think you can. But if you want to play that game, fine...I've heard from several business owners the exact opposite! So what are we to do? We both hear conflicting things from people, so how do we know what's true and what isn't? By looking at empirical data. You can invent as many of these folks as you wish, and I can do the same thing. It's the facts where we have to debate, not anecdotes.

Nor do I let some little asshole on the internet tell me what I can and can't discuss to make my point. You can't argue the points because you have no real world experience.

Not only am I arguing the points, but I'm smacking them out of the park. That's why your posts seem to devolve into this ad hominem, personal attacks that are really just a projection of the insecurity you have in your weak argument. You ignore data for anecdotes. That's no way to debate, pal.

 

[Iceweasel]

It is true though, you work at the owner's request, you have no right to a job.

And you don't have a right to own a business either. That is also a privilege.

You are badly confused between the private and public sector though. If an owner wants to act like a king, and some do, it's up to them how it all plays out. People can and do quit. When the government acts like a king we can't simply walk away.

How is the government acting like a king? Are they taking Prima Nocta or something? Get a grip. These hysterical exaggerations are partly why I can't take you people seriously.

ou dishonestly use the term livable wage over and over while disregarding the fact that entry level jobs don't support families, homes, cars, etc.

First of all, a low-wage job is not an "entry-level" job. You've made that crystal clear in your posts. Secondly, anyone who works a job full time should be paid enough that they don't qualify for income-based benefits. Because that's just subsidizing corporate profits, by providing things like SNAP to full-time workers of Walmart, costing taxpayers about $6.2B in welfare benefits all-in. Walmart's profits last year? $14B. So nearly half of Walmart's profits were subsidized by taxpayers because Walmart doesn't pay its workers a livable wage. You don't seem to have a problem with corporate welfare, yet you have a problem with individual welfare. Hypocrisy much?

The you apply your ill thought beliefs to business owners as being incompetent or evil. Like I said before, you couldn't run a lemonade stand. You simply have no concept of how the grown up world works.

Stop playing a victim and whining about the "woe is me" business owners who cannot seem to pay their workers a livable wage and maintain profits. If you cannot do both, then you are not a successful business owner. Period.

Aw, little Pussyhurt is now chopping up the posts. OK, if you act like a pussy you will be treated a such. My words are in blue, yours in pink.

And you don't have a right to own a business either. That is also a privilege.

How does a license prove me wrong when I say you don't have the right to a job? When you can't back up your nonsense you simply hurl more feces. Government needs a reason to treat you differently though. They must issue a license (and not all businesses everywhere require one) if Joe Bob got one given the same circumstances. They work for us, remember?

How is the government acting like a king? Are they taking Prima Nocta or something? Get a grip. These hysterical exaggerations are partly why I can't take you people seriously.

They do it quite often. Fining bakers for not producing gay themed cakes. Charging to higher tax rates for being on a city bus line when no bus ever comes by. Mandating minimum wages, you know, the topic of the thread? Maybe you should read more and play with your butthole less?


Stop playing a victim and whining about the "woe is me" business owners who cannot seem to pay their workers a livable wage and maintain profits. If you cannot do both, then you are not a successful business owner. Period.

As I said numerous times, you're a liar. It's what you do to hold your beliefs. I didn't whine, I pointed out your stupidity. Those are two different things altogether. I've had a business now for 32 plus years, I don't need your validation or definition of success. If government acts like a king and mandates starting wages then the business is not free to budget according to the marketplace. You don't get it but you're a proven inexperienced butthurt moron.

 

[Iceweasel]

You're liar and a very unclever one at that. Go back up your claims and find my post where I said so. I have nothing? Your little maggot brain has nothing.

So you mean to tell me that if we hopped in a DeLorean and went back to December 2012, you wouldn't be making predictions that letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the rich would lead to job loss, a recession, and/or a market collapse? Come on, dude. You're not serious, are you?

Republicans cut deficit spending,

No they didn't. Republicans increased deficit spending. That's why the surplus turned into a deficit by Bush's second year. Only Obama and Clinton left a deficit lower than the one they inherited. Conservatives are the ones who increase the deficit. Like what happened in Kansas.

how does cutting the top income tax rates do that? Conservatives want to save and boost the economy, it's why they cut SPENDING GROWTH. I don't share your religious views, they are stupid and dishonest.

LOL! You want to grow the economy so you cut spending? Stupid.

So you mean to tell me that if we hopped in a DeLorean and went back to December 2012, you wouldn't be making predictions that letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the rich would lead to job loss, a recession, and/or a market collapse? Come on, dude. You're not serious, are you?

You can't back up your claims that I said any such thing so now it's a what if time machine question? LOL, what a stupid little girl you are!

No they didn't. Republicans increased deficit spending. That's why the surplus turned into a deficit by Bush's second year. Only Obama and Clinton left a deficit lower than the one they inherited. Conservatives are the ones who increase the deficit. Like what happened in Kansas.

We were talking about Obama and your lie about him reducing deficits so you pivoted to Bush, Clinton and Kansas. LOL

 

[Iceweasel]

hours have been cut and many businesses can't handle the increase so your "empirical data" is bullshit.

No, your anecdotes are bullshit. Empirical evidence cannot be bullshit because it's, you know, empirical evidence. Conservatives relay second- or third-hand anecdotes, informed by bias, and expect it to be taken the same as empirical data. Try making an argument without that shit. I don't think you can. But if you want to play that game, fine...I've heard from several business owners the exact opposite! So what are we to do? We both hear conflicting things from people, so how do we know what's true and what isn't? By looking at empirical data. You can invent as many of these folks as you wish, and I can do the same thing. It's the facts where we have to debate, not anecdotes.

Nor do I let some little asshole on the internet tell me what I can and can't discuss to make my point. You can't argue the points because you have no real world experience.

Not only am I arguing the points, but I'm smacking them out of the park. That's why your posts seem to devolve into this ad hominem, personal attacks that are really just a projection of the insecurity you have in your weak argument. You ignore data for anecdotes. That's no way to debate, pal.

No, your anecdotes are bullshit. Empirical evidence cannot be bullshit because it's, you know, empirical evidence. Conservatives relay second- or third-hand anecdotes, informed by bias, and expect it to be taken the same as empirical data. Try making an argument without that shit. I don't think you can. But if you want to play that game, fine...I've heard from several business owners the exact opposite! So what are we to do? We both hear conflicting things from people, so how do we know what's true and what isn't? By looking at empirical data. You can invent as many of these folks as you wish, and I can do the same thing. It's the facts where we have to debate, not anecdotes.

My anecdotes? I know how to run a business and you don't. You think businesses can simply absorb a rise in overhead with no consequences or the public will happily pay. That's not how the grownup world works, nothing anecdotal about it. You "data" assumes an increase in a state's economy is based on low end wage increases while you choose to ignore any other possible factors, like resources, tech booms etc. Like I said, like a dishonest
child.

Not only am I arguing the points, but I'm smacking them out of the park. That's why your posts seem to devolve into this ad hominem, personal attacks that are really just a projection of the insecurity you have in your weak argument. You ignore data for anecdotes. That's no way to debate, pal.

You love to insult people and cry like a little girl when it comes back atcha. You stupid little thin skinned punk kid.

 

[Theowl32]

Don't think for one second that the democrats don't want this.

Meaning, they own the poor class with their fairy tales of robin hood. They are large blacks of automatic votes. Totally mesmerized by hollywood stars and hype.

 

[The Derp]

How does a license prove me wrong when I say you don't have the right to a job? When you can't back up your nonsense you simply hurl more feces. Government needs a reason to treat you differently though. They must issue a license (and not all businesses everywhere require one) if Joe Bob got one given the same circumstances. They work for us, remember?

So you didn't actually disprove what I said. Just as it's a privilege to have a job, it's also a privilege to own a business. And it's grotesque entitlement to expect your workers to accept low wages just so you can own a business.

They do it quite often. Fining bakers for not producing gay themed cakes. Charging to higher tax rates for being on a city bus line when no bus ever comes by. Mandating minimum wages, you know, the topic of the thread? Maybe you should read more and play with your butthole less?

So none of that is "kingly" and what you're complaining about are inconsequential to running a business. If a baker violates someone's civil rights, then they should be fined. You pay taxes for infrastructure you never use all the time. And the minimum wage is there so we don't have indentured servitude or slavery. If you are saying as a business owner that paying people a livable wage means your business isn't successful, then you are not a successful business owner. Period.

As I said numerous times, you're a liar. It's what you do to hold your beliefs. I didn't whine, I pointed out your stupidity. Those are two different things altogether. I've had a business now for 32 plus years, I don't need your validation or definition of success. If government acts like a king and mandates starting wages then the business is not free to budget according to the marketplace. You don't get it but you're a proven inexperienced butthurt moron.

I've been in business for 33 years, so because I've been in business longer than you it means that everything you say is trumped. By paying workers a wage so low they qualify for income-based benefits, you are taking welfare as a business owner because you are dependent on the government to make up the gap between what you pay someone, and what the livable wage is. That delta is between $8.25/hr and $14/hr.