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

[NYcarbineer]

Let's pretend that the study is accurate and Seattle loses 5000 jobs when the minimum wage gets to 15 dollars.

In the meantime, all of the rest of the jobs between the old minimum wage and 15 dollars are now UP to 15 dollars an hour.

How many jobs do you suppose that represents?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Let's pretend that the study is accurate and Seattle loses 5000 jobs when the minimum wage gets to 15 dollars.

In the meantime, all of the rest of the jobs between the old minimum wage and 15 dollars are now UP to 15 dollars an hour.

How many jobs do you suppose that represents?

Did you miss this part:

"Low-wage workers on average now clock 9 percent fewer hours and earn $125 less each month than before the Pacific Northwest city set one of the highest minimum wages in the nation, the University of Washington research paper said."

 

[The Derp]

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!

So then you will admit that letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy didn't lead to any negative consequences? So if that's the case, then why would raising their rate again produce negative consequences? If you're saying that letting the cuts expire in 2012 didn't lead to the doom-and-gloom predicted, then wouldn't raising the rate even higher also not result in the doom-and-gloom?

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

He did reduce deficits. Obama left office with a deficit lower than the one he inherited. That was partially due to letting the Bush Tax Cuts

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's pretend that the study is accurate and Seattle loses 5000 jobs when the minimum wage gets to 15 dollars.

In the meantime, all of the rest of the jobs between the old minimum wage and 15 dollars are now UP to 15 dollars an hour.

How many jobs do you suppose that represents?

Did you miss this part:

"Low-wage workers on average now clock 9 percent fewer hours and earn $125 less each month than before the Pacific Northwest city set one of the highest minimum wages in the nation, the University of Washington research paper said."

Did you miss where I rejected the study outright because it failed to include large employers?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Let's pretend that the study is accurate and Seattle loses 5000 jobs when the minimum wage gets to 15 dollars.

In the meantime, all of the rest of the jobs between the old minimum wage and 15 dollars are now UP to 15 dollars an hour.

How many jobs do you suppose that represents?

Did you miss this part:

"Low-wage workers on average now clock 9 percent fewer hours and earn $125 less each month than before the Pacific Northwest city set one of the highest minimum wages in the nation, the University of Washington research paper said."

Did you miss where I rejected the study outright because it failed to include large employers?

"The Washington researchers said they couldn’t track multisite employers because those businesses don’t identify the specific locations where their employees report to work. However, in separate surveys, where the researchers talked to both types of business, the ones with multiple locations were actually more likely than single-site employers to say they had cut jobs and hours when the wage went up. That suggests that there may have been an even greater job loss for low-paid workers in those bigger businesses."

 

[The Derp]

"Low-wage workers on average now clock 9 percent fewer hours and earn $125 less each month than before the Pacific Northwest city set one of the highest minimum wages in the nation, the University of Washington research paper said."

So the problem with this is that when a low-wage worker gets a pay increase, they are no longer low-wage workers. So of course they would see fewer hours and pay because many of them transitioned into better-paying jobs.

Are you talking full time low wage workers, or part time low wage workers?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Google

Looks good to me.

 

[NightFox]

Snowflakes must sleep through their economics classes.

Yeah no kidding

Law of Demand: all else being equal when price increases demand (in the case the demand for labor) decreases; which is why the demand curve is downward sloping
Couple that with the fact that price floors above the market equilibrium price cause economic dead weight loss (aka forgone wealth creation)

Leaving the only question remaining:
Is the lost economic surplus caused by the imposition of a minimum wage (aka a binding price floor) worth the social benefit (the answer is probably NO, which indicates that all society gets out of the deal is less wealth created and a less efficient economy).

Of course the politicians benefit because minimum wages are a good way to buy votes using other peoples money.

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

IMHO not an increase in revenue an increase in output (productivity), wage increases are justified when the marginal product increases for each input in question (in this case labor); in a nut shell if each unit of input (labor) is producing more over a fixed period of time then you can afford to pay more each input unit because your average variable cost is spread over more units of output, up to a point when marginal diminishing returns begins to outweigh the marginal benefits.

 

[Timmy]

And yet, there are still min wage jobs in the want adds ! Why? Cause they are always available !!!

No. No they are not "always" available, snowflake. Just ask the former employees in California who were pushed out of their jobs due to the extremely idiotic labor laws you support. Walmart in Oakland was shut down after the $15 an hour was passed after the city had fought really hard to bring Walmart there. After that, a restaurant in California became the first to go live with automation for the same reason.

All of this people lost their minimum wage jobs thanks to people like you.

Are they stupid, or is there a hidden agenda to expand the welfare rolls?

You are the idiot ! It does the opposite.

Right now , min wage workers quality for welfare . So the state is subsidizing these companies workforce . If they are paid a living wage , they no longer qualify for welfare .

 

[The Derp]

Right now , min wage workers quality for welfare . So the state is subsidizing these companies workforce . If they are paid a living wage , they no longer qualify for welfare .

Bingo! Kudos! You win the internet today.

 

[P@triot]

Right now , min wage workers quality for welfare . So the state is subsidizing these companies workforce . If they are paid a living wage , they no longer qualify for welfare .

Yeah...and the idiotic "living wage" that you support just lowered their monthly income by $125.

 

[NightFox]

And yet, there are still min wage jobs in the want adds ! Why? Cause they are always available !!!

No. No they are not "always" available, snowflake. Just ask the former employees in California who were pushed out of their jobs due to the extremely idiotic labor laws you support. Walmart in Oakland was shut down after the $15 an hour was passed after the city had fought really hard to bring Walmart there. After that, a restaurant in California became the first to go live with automation for the same reason.

All of this people lost their minimum wage jobs thanks to people like you.

Are they stupid, or is there a hidden agenda to expand the welfare rolls?

You are the idiot ! It does the opposite.

Right now , min wage workers quality for welfare . So the state is subsidizing these companies workforce . If they are paid a living wage , they no longer qualify for welfare .

Er..umm.. and if you impose a binding price floor (aka minimum wage) EVERYBODY is subsidizing them forever because of the economic dead weight loss, in other words all participants in the affected markets get poorer because of the foregone wealth creation (lost economic surplus), not to mention the fact that if you artificially increase the price of labor the demand for labor will fall so you're basically pricing the least qualified sellers out of the labor market which of course FORCES THEM ONTO STATE WELFARE ROLLS.

You really want to help workers? figure out a way(s) to make them more productive which is what drives higher wages without the need to increase the price of outputs.

 

[The Derp]

not to mention the fact that if you artificially increase the price of labor the demand for labor will fall

But if your Sales revenue is increasing, then that would indicate increased demand, which would call for more labor in order to fill the supply. When people get wage increases, do you think they don't spend more? Explain to me then how cutting taxes results in increased spending, yet raising wages doesn't?

 

[P@triot]

not to mention the fact that if you artificially increase the price of labor the demand for labor will fall

But if your Sales revenue is increasing, then that would indicate increased demand, which would call for more labor in order to fill the supply. When people get wage increases, do you think they don't spend more? Explain to me then how cutting taxes results in increased spending, yet raising wages doesn't?

Sales revenue will decrease. The business owner has to raise prices to cover the increased labor costs. Which means people either buy less of the product or none of it. This is just basic economics.

 

[NYcarbineer]

not to mention the fact that if you artificially increase the price of labor the demand for labor will fall

But if your Sales revenue is increasing, then that would indicate increased demand, which would call for more labor in order to fill the supply. When people get wage increases, do you think they don't spend more? Explain to me then how cutting taxes results in increased spending, yet raising wages doesn't?

Sales revenue will decrease. The business owner has to raise prices to cover the increased labor costs. Which means people either buy less of the product or none of it. This is just basic economics.

So ideally, people working for free would be the best scenario for business...

 

[The Derp]

Sales revenue will decrease. The business owner has to raise prices to cover the increased labor costs. Which means people either buy less of the product or none of it. This is just basic economics.

Uhhh, no, because if people have more to spend, then they are going to spend more. Which is precisely what we saw when 13 states + DC raised their MW in 2014, and when Seattle raised theirs in 2015. In 2014, those 13 states saw job growth rates better than the 37 states that didn't raise their MW. And in the case of Seattle, the current unemployment rate is nearly 1 full point lower than it was when the MW hike was first done in April 2015.

So you have theory, and I have facts.

Only one of us can be right.

 

[The Derp]

So ideally, people working for free would be the best scenario for business...

Conservatives will not be happy until they turn our country into a theocratic serfdom.

 

[The Derp]

The business owner has to raise prices to cover the increased labor costs.

You say this as if it's conventional wisdom. Well, I'm all about shattering conventional wisdom. And to that point, I submit the below from the University of Washington:

From April 21st, 2016, one year into Seattle's MW hike:

After A Year, Seattle’s New Minimum Wage Hasn’t Raised Retail Prices
Business owners did a bunch of handwringing about how damaging to the economy the wage increase would be. But so far, they’re wrong.
...
In a new report, researchers from the University of Washington presented data that showed “little or no evidence” of price increases in most sectors. Before the minimum wage law took effect, most retailers said they would have to charge more–and most low-wage workers were worried that they would have to spend more for necessities. So far, that hasn’t happened.
​

So you start your argument off from a faulty premise. And because you do that, it undermines everything you say from there on out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So ideally, people working for free would be the best scenario for business...

Conservatives will not be happy until they turn our country into a theocratic serfdom.

Widening the gap between rich and poor is their primary goal.

 

[The Derp]

Sales revenue will decrease. The business owner has to raise prices to cover the increased labor costs. Which means people either buy less of the product or none of it. This is just basic economics.

Clinging to outdated, debunked, bullshit theory isn't going to save you in this argument. You say this stuff, as if it's conventional wisdom or "basic economics", yet you ignore all the evidence that proves your conventional wisdom is just bullshit, and that you don't really understand economics. If people get a wage increase, they spend that money. So you cannot argue that tax cuts create growth and wage increases don't.