Breaking News: Restaurants Closing All Over Seattle As $15 Minimum Wage Mandate Starts April 1st.

[Iceweasel]

My opinion does not hinge on that one example. But you can read about it hear. Forbes is not some kind of liberal type news source. Pretty sure it is a pro business conservative mouthpiece. If even they call the story bull crap and go through the trouble of explaining why it is a lie you can probably safely assume the Seattle story is bull crap.

forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2015/03/22/minimum-wage-increase-killing-seattle-restaurants-anatomy-of-a-lie-from-inside-the-bubble/

Post the relevant portion. If you can't figure it out, I understand.

The link I provided is a three page article. Explanation for the closures by all four of the the restaurants used in the original fraudulent article are given by the owners beginning at the bottom of page 2 and continue into page 3. If you are to lazy to read the link you will just have to stay stupid, or at least pretend to be. The owners have given detailed reasons for the restaurant closings. None of them claim the coming wage increases. In fact, one of them mocks the idea.

The stupidity and laziness is all yours. If you want to make a point, go for it but don't expect others to pick up your slack. The issue is about more than four restaurants and it would serve you well to read your own source.

One of the owners said this:

The Rumpus Over Seattle s 15 Minimum Wage And Restaurant Closures - Forbes
A couple of days back I gleefully leapt on the story about restaurant closures in Seattle and the effects of that city’s higher minimum wage. There has been a certain pushback from various people to that idea and we might now be able to raise this from a discussion to a rumpus. Who knows, we might get lucky, a few more people join in and we can upgrade it to a brouhaha.

The most significant piece of the pushback comes from the Seattle Times who were kind enough to point out their piece to me:

As it stands now, the claim that these restaurants closed over the minimum-wage issue is false.

That is, they went and asked the owners of the restaurants that closed whether they had done so over the minimum wage and got the answer “No”. This isn’t, however, quite as much of a gotcha as one might think. Simply because the original article (as the Seattle Times itself points out) did not claim that these specific restaurants had closed as a result of the minimum wage. Rather, it used the fact that the restaurants were closing as a lead in to a discussion of the effects that a rise in the minimum wage would have. Which is also what I did, my major statement being this:

Please do note though what is the prediction. Not that there’s going to be a wiping out of employment opportunities, nor that the economy of Seattle is going to become a howling wasteland. Rather, that less human labor will be employed at $15 an hour than would have been employed if the minimum wage had not risen to that amount.

Do please note something very important here. When we say “fewer jobs as a result of a higher minimum wage” we mean two distinct things. One is that some jobs will be destroyed by the higher wage. The second, and the more important, is that some jobs will not be created as a result of it. So it is not necessary to show that restaurants close, or that the number of restaurant jobs does not fall. If the number of jobs does not rise as we would expect it to given all other changes (ie, population, wealth and so on) then that is a sufficient proof of the contention.

 

[paulitician]

I'm not frightened.

I do not and will not argue a liveable wage number because it's irrelevant.

I do not subscribe to your school of thought that one job from one employer must be enough for a person to support themselves

Well, that's where you're going wrong. It's actually very relevant. Personally, i feel an average American needs to make at least $11 - $15 an hr to make it in today's America. It's far from being wealthy, but it's a decent start.

And who says that the 600 a week you "feel" people need has to come from one employer or one 40 hour a week job?

What that $600 a week should cover?

If you share apartment with couple of roommates, or living in moms basement, you could live on much less. It's still livable wage.

Now that's irrelevant.

If is irrelevant what $600 should cover, how did you get to $600 magic number?

So just throw a number out there. What do you think is a decent livable wage overall, for an average American Worker? I already put some numbers out there. I said between $11 - $15 an hr. Certainly isn't wealth, but it's a reasonable start. One could get by somewhat.

 

[paulitician]

My opinion does not hinge on that one example. But you can read about it hear. Forbes is not some kind of liberal type news source. Pretty sure it is a pro business conservative mouthpiece. If even they call the story bull crap and go through the trouble of explaining why it is a lie you can probably safely assume the Seattle story is bull crap.

forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2015/03/22/minimum-wage-increase-killing-seattle-restaurants-anatomy-of-a-lie-from-inside-the-bubble/

Post the relevant portion. If you can't figure it out, I understand.

The link I provided is a three page article. Explanation for the closures by all four of the the restaurants used in the original fraudulent article are given by the owners beginning at the bottom of page 2 and continue into page 3. If you are to lazy to read the link you will just have to stay stupid, or at least pretend to be. The owners have given detailed reasons for the restaurant closings. None of them claim the coming wage increases. In fact, one of them mocks the idea.

Thanks.

 

[Ame®icano]

Well, that's where you're going wrong. It's actually very relevant. Personally, i feel an average American needs to make at least $11 - $15 an hr to make it in today's America. It's far from being wealthy, but it's a decent start.

And who says that the 600 a week you "feel" people need has to come from one employer or one 40 hour a week job?

What that $600 a week should cover?

If you share apartment with couple of roommates, or living in moms basement, you could live on much less. It's still livable wage.

Now that's irrelevant.

If is irrelevant what $600 should cover, how did you get to $600 magic number?

So just throw a number out there. What do you think is a decent livable wage overall, for an average American Worker? I already put some numbers out there. I said between $11 - $15 an hr. Certainly isn't wealth, but it's a reasonable start. One could get by somewhat.

Livable wage is socialist utopia. There is no number I can put on it since I don't believe in it.

If you need $600 a week to live, go out and earn it. If $8 an hour, 40 hours a week doesn't get you there, find higher paying job, or work more hours or find part time... or you can replace your car with bike or public transportation, find a roommate or move back to your parents, eat peanuts instead of pistachios...

You're saying it's reasonable start. For what? Reasonable start is at the bottom, from where you earn your way up.

 

[paulitician]

And who says that the 600 a week you "feel" people need has to come from one employer or one 40 hour a week job?

What that $600 a week should cover?

If you share apartment with couple of roommates, or living in moms basement, you could live on much less. It's still livable wage.

Now that's irrelevant.

If is irrelevant what $600 should cover, how did you get to $600 magic number?

So just throw a number out there. What do you think is a decent livable wage overall, for an average American Worker? I already put some numbers out there. I said between $11 - $15 an hr. Certainly isn't wealth, but it's a reasonable start. One could get by somewhat.

Livable wage is socialist utopia. There is no number I can put on it since I don't believe in it.

If you need $600 a week to live, go out and earn it. If $8 an hour, 40 hours a week doesn't get you there, find higher paying job, or work more hours or find part time... or you can replace your car with bike or public transportation, find a roommate or move back to your parents, eat peanuts instead of pistachios...

You're saying it's reasonable start. For what? Reasonable start is at the bottom, from where you earn your way up.

Well, that's what your problem is. You don't care, nor 'believe' in it. And that's exactly why Workers have to stand up for themselves. If they don't, who will? You? Ha, i'm pretty sure that ain't gonna happen.

 

[Camp]

My opinion does not hinge on that one example. But you can read about it hear. Forbes is not some kind of liberal type news source. Pretty sure it is a pro business conservative mouthpiece. If even they call the story bull crap and go through the trouble of explaining why it is a lie you can probably safely assume the Seattle story is bull crap.

forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2015/03/22/minimum-wage-increase-killing-seattle-restaurants-anatomy-of-a-lie-from-inside-the-bubble/

Post the relevant portion. If you can't figure it out, I understand.

The link I provided is a three page article. Explanation for the closures by all four of the the restaurants used in the original fraudulent article are given by the owners beginning at the bottom of page 2 and continue into page 3. If you are to lazy to read the link you will just have to stay stupid, or at least pretend to be. The owners have given detailed reasons for the restaurant closings. None of them claim the coming wage increases. In fact, one of them mocks the idea.

The stupidity and laziness is all yours. If you want to make a point, go for it but don't expect others to pick up your slack. The issue is about more than four restaurants and it would serve you well to read your own source.

One of the owners said this:

The Rumpus Over Seattle s 15 Minimum Wage And Restaurant Closures - Forbes
A couple of days back I gleefully leapt on the story about restaurant closures in Seattle and the effects of that city’s higher minimum wage. There has been a certain pushback from various people to that idea and we might now be able to raise this from a discussion to a rumpus. Who knows, we might get lucky, a few more people join in and we can upgrade it to a brouhaha.

The most significant piece of the pushback comes from the Seattle Times who were kind enough to point out their piece to me:

As it stands now, the claim that these restaurants closed over the minimum-wage issue is false.

That is, they went and asked the owners of the restaurants that closed whether they had done so over the minimum wage and got the answer “No”. This isn’t, however, quite as much of a gotcha as one might think. Simply because the original article (as the Seattle Times itself points out) did not claim that these specific restaurants had closed as a result of the minimum wage. Rather, it used the fact that the restaurants were closing as a lead in to a discussion of the effects that a rise in the minimum wage would have. Which is also what I did, my major statement being this:

Please do note though what is the prediction. Not that there’s going to be a wiping out of employment opportunities, nor that the economy of Seattle is going to become a howling wasteland. Rather, that less human labor will be employed at $15 an hour than would have been employed if the minimum wage had not risen to that amount.

Do please note something very important here. When we say “fewer jobs as a result of a higher minimum wage” we mean two distinct things. One is that some jobs will be destroyed by the higher wage. The second, and the more important, is that some jobs will not be created as a result of it. So it is not necessary to show that restaurants close, or that the number of restaurant jobs does not fall. If the number of jobs does not rise as we would expect it to given all other changes (ie, population, wealth and so on) then that is a sufficient proof of the contention.

Now you are just double downing on deception and dishonestly. The quotes you are using and claiming came from my source is written by a different author on an earlier date. You could not discredit the Forbes link I provided so you found an earlier article from Forbes written by a different writer before the expose of the story being a lie was published.

 

[Ame®icano]

What that $600 a week should cover?

If you share apartment with couple of roommates, or living in moms basement, you could live on much less. It's still livable wage.

Now that's irrelevant.

If is irrelevant what $600 should cover, how did you get to $600 magic number?

So just throw a number out there. What do you think is a decent livable wage overall, for an average American Worker? I already put some numbers out there. I said between $11 - $15 an hr. Certainly isn't wealth, but it's a reasonable start. One could get by somewhat.

Livable wage is socialist utopia. There is no number I can put on it since I don't believe in it.

If you need $600 a week to live, go out and earn it. If $8 an hour, 40 hours a week doesn't get you there, find higher paying job, or work more hours or find part time... or you can replace your car with bike or public transportation, find a roommate or move back to your parents, eat peanuts instead of pistachios...

You're saying it's reasonable start. For what? Reasonable start is at the bottom, from where you earn your way up.

Well, that's what your problem is. You don't care, nor 'believe' in it. And that's exactly why Workers have to stand up for themselves. If they don't, who will? You? Ha, i'm pretty sure that ain't gonna happen.

No man, that's not my problem at all. Your bills and lifestyle are your problem.

At my first full time job I worked over 11 years, started at the bottom and earned my way up. Before I got married I lived in the same apartment with my brother to lower the cost. Back then I was young so I also worked two part time jobs to make enough to support myself and my family. I left because in that company I reached their limit and new company gave me much better offer. After few years I left for reasons that were not money related. In the next place, where I came with knowledge and experience I stayed 8 years and I still built my way up. To cut it short, I changed jobs two times in past 14 months because I grabbed opportunity to earn more for less work and less travel.

I never demanded more money because I can't pay my bills. When I couldn't pay, I worked more, or I got the job that pays more. Sometimes I had to be away from the family, sometimes I had to work 80 or 90 hours a week, sometimes I had to cut on expenses. But the bottom line is, I worked it out on my own and I earned every penny of it.

You're right. I don't care about your NEEDS because of the way you're trying to gain for it. I would care and probably would help you if I see that you're trying hard, working hard and if you're honest. But you're not. You're retarded, lying SOB, and leach to me and to whole society.

 

[Iceweasel]

My opinion does not hinge on that one example. But you can read about it hear. Forbes is not some kind of liberal type news source. Pretty sure it is a pro business conservative mouthpiece. If even they call the story bull crap and go through the trouble of explaining why it is a lie you can probably safely assume the Seattle story is bull crap.

forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2015/03/22/minimum-wage-increase-killing-seattle-restaurants-anatomy-of-a-lie-from-inside-the-bubble/

Post the relevant portion. If you can't figure it out, I understand.

The link I provided is a three page article. Explanation for the closures by all four of the the restaurants used in the original fraudulent article are given by the owners beginning at the bottom of page 2 and continue into page 3. If you are to lazy to read the link you will just have to stay stupid, or at least pretend to be. The owners have given detailed reasons for the restaurant closings. None of them claim the coming wage increases. In fact, one of them mocks the idea.

The stupidity and laziness is all yours. If you want to make a point, go for it but don't expect others to pick up your slack. The issue is about more than four restaurants and it would serve you well to read your own source.

One of the owners said this:

The Rumpus Over Seattle s 15 Minimum Wage And Restaurant Closures - Forbes
A couple of days back I gleefully leapt on the story about restaurant closures in Seattle and the effects of that city’s higher minimum wage. There has been a certain pushback from various people to that idea and we might now be able to raise this from a discussion to a rumpus. Who knows, we might get lucky, a few more people join in and we can upgrade it to a brouhaha.

The most significant piece of the pushback comes from the Seattle Times who were kind enough to point out their piece to me:

As it stands now, the claim that these restaurants closed over the minimum-wage issue is false.

That is, they went and asked the owners of the restaurants that closed whether they had done so over the minimum wage and got the answer “No”. This isn’t, however, quite as much of a gotcha as one might think. Simply because the original article (as the Seattle Times itself points out) did not claim that these specific restaurants had closed as a result of the minimum wage. Rather, it used the fact that the restaurants were closing as a lead in to a discussion of the effects that a rise in the minimum wage would have. Which is also what I did, my major statement being this:

Please do note though what is the prediction. Not that there’s going to be a wiping out of employment opportunities, nor that the economy of Seattle is going to become a howling wasteland. Rather, that less human labor will be employed at $15 an hour than would have been employed if the minimum wage had not risen to that amount.

Do please note something very important here. When we say “fewer jobs as a result of a higher minimum wage” we mean two distinct things. One is that some jobs will be destroyed by the higher wage. The second, and the more important, is that some jobs will not be created as a result of it. So it is not necessary to show that restaurants close, or that the number of restaurant jobs does not fall. If the number of jobs does not rise as we would expect it to given all other changes (ie, population, wealth and so on) then that is a sufficient proof of the contention.

Now you are just double downing on deception and dishonestly. The quotes you are using and claiming came from my source is written by a different author on an earlier date. You could not discredit the Forbes link I provided so you found an earlier article from Forbes written by a different writer before the expose of the story being a lie was published.

The author was one of the restaurant owners. And it was an op-ed piece, just because Forbes, unlike liberal sources, gives free voice to opposing opinions doesn't mean it's an official endorsement of Forbes.

He did a pretty good job of presenting the opposing view. From your link:

"Given that I am directly mentioned in this piece readers might be interested in my follow up piece published a few days ago.

The Rumpus Over Seattle s 15 Minimum Wage And Restaurant Closures - Forbes"

 

[Iceweasel]

Well, that's what your problem is. You don't care, nor 'believe' in it. And that's exactly why Workers have to stand up for themselves. If they don't, who will? You? Ha, i'm pretty sure that ain't gonna happen.

I've been a worker all my life, you make it sound like a us verses them scenario. You can stand up for your rights but you don't have the right to the earnings you desire.

 

[Ame®icano]

The author was one of the restaurant owners. And it was an op-ed piece, just because Forbes, unlike liberal sources, gives free voice to opposing opinions doesn't mean it's an official endorsement of Forbes.

He did a pretty good job of presenting the opposing view. From your link:

"Given that I am directly mentioned in this piece readers might be interested in my follow up piece published a few days ago.

The Rumpus Over Seattle s 15 Minimum Wage And Restaurant Closures - Forbes"

It explain it all. Will he read any of it? We'll see.

 

[Iceweasel]

It explain it all. Will he read any of it? We'll see.

Why read something you already know is false.

 

[Camp]

The author was one of the restaurant owners. And it was an op-ed piece, just because Forbes, unlike liberal sources, gives free voice to opposing opinions doesn't mean it's an official endorsement of Forbes.

He did a pretty good job of presenting the opposing view. From your link:

"Given that I am directly mentioned in this piece readers might be interested in my follow up piece published a few days ago.

The Rumpus Over Seattle s 15 Minimum Wage And Restaurant Closures - Forbes"

It explain it all. Will he read any of it? We'll see.

I read both the stories. The one I posted and the one I did not post, but Iceweasel seems to be stuck on insisting I did. Doesn't make a difference as to the facts. Just a method and way to muddy up the story and make it appear there was some validity to the original story that has been labeled by a major conservative business publication as a lie, making a bunch of big names conspiratorial liars, include Rush and FOX. The article in question gives a blow by blow detailed description on how lies are invented and propagated by the extreme right wing. It has become so blatant and obvious that legitimate conservatives are distancing themselves from the most extreme of the corporatist and kleptocrats.

This article was meant to counter and explain the previous articles alleging restaurants closing due to the new minimum wage law, including the previous article published in Forbes with the "Rumpus" title written by a different author. Obviously Forbes did not want to be associated with the fraudulent story and decided to publish a new and more factual based story. They went through the effort of calling the story an "anatomy of a lie inside bubble".
forbes.com/sites/rickunger/2015/03/22/minimum-wage-increase-killing-seattle-restaurants-anatomy-of-a-lie-inside-the-bubble/

 

[Ame®icano]

It explain it all. Will he read any of it? We'll see.

Why read something you already know is false.

It's been decided it's false before was even written.

Anyways, there is a restaurant in Philly that start using new business model based on paying workers $15 per hour. How he does it you can read about it here - Restaurant pays every worker $15 an hour.

 

[dblack]

Well, that's where you're going wrong. It's actually very relevant. Personally, i feel an average American needs to make at least $11 - $15 an hr to make it in today's America. It's far from being wealthy, but it's a decent start.

And who says that the 600 a week you "feel" people need has to come from one employer or one 40 hour a week job?

What that $600 a week should cover?

If you share apartment with couple of roommates, or living in moms basement, you could live on much less. It's still livable wage.

Now that's irrelevant.

If is irrelevant what $600 should cover, how did you get to $600 magic number?

So just throw a number out there. What do you think is a decent livable wage overall, for an average American Worker? I already put some numbers out there. I said between $11 - $15 an hr. Certainly isn't wealth, but it's a reasonable start. One could get by somewhat.

It shouldn't be up to you, or to me, or to government to decide what someone else's minimum acceptable wage should be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't think they're doing it to good customers. Now if you're an asshole to them, then you should worry.

Trust me, you really do want happy & prosperous workers waiting on you in restaurants especially. But happy & prosperous workers make for better workers overall. They're proud of their work and happy to serve.

You never told us how much is a fair wage. Lets say that everyone is doing exactly the same job, how much should they be paid? Is it the same in NYC as in Fargo ND? Is it the same for a single guy living with his parents as for a married guy with 4 kids? Is it the same for a teenager working for pocket money as for a single mom?

And finally, who decides what is a fair wage? Who is this omnipitant wage setter?

How about no less than 60x less than the CEO takes home. Or whatever is a living wage. Its all just funny money anyways.

How about just forgetting about the CEO .................

What he makes is irrelevant to what nay worker makes ...................

Just the skill set alone sets most CEO's apart from the regular laborer, the fact they have a BRAIN and actually understand how business works and how greedy, skill less workers think they are any way equal or have any right to base their pay expectations with them(CEO) in mind.

Workers aren't asking for riches. They're just asking to be paid a decent livable wage. And i don't think that's too much to ask in the richest nation on earth.

They're not asking "the nation". They're asking their specific, private-sector employer, for whom they are doing a job that could be done equally well by a kid in junior high school. Translated, that means they're demanding that the government reach into their employer's pocket and give them his money for a job which is not valuable enough to warrant it.

 

[Camp]

Trust me, you really do want happy & prosperous workers waiting on you in restaurants especially. But happy & prosperous workers make for better workers overall. They're proud of their work and happy to serve.

You never told us how much is a fair wage. Lets say that everyone is doing exactly the same job, how much should they be paid? Is it the same in NYC as in Fargo ND? Is it the same for a single guy living with his parents as for a married guy with 4 kids? Is it the same for a teenager working for pocket money as for a single mom?

And finally, who decides what is a fair wage? Who is this omnipitant wage setter?

How about no less than 60x less than the CEO takes home. Or whatever is a living wage. Its all just funny money anyways.

How about just forgetting about the CEO .................

What he makes is irrelevant to what nay worker makes ...................

Just the skill set alone sets most CEO's apart from the regular laborer, the fact they have a BRAIN and actually understand how business works and how greedy, skill less workers think they are any way equal or have any right to base their pay expectations with them(CEO) in mind.

Workers aren't asking for riches. They're just asking to be paid a decent livable wage. And i don't think that's too much to ask in the richest nation on earth.

They're not asking "the nation". They're asking their specific, private-sector employer, for whom they are doing a job that could be done equally well by a kid in junior high school. Translated, that means they're demanding that the government reach into their employer's pocket and give them his money for a job which is not valuable enough to warrant it.

Wonder how long you would last standing on a concrete kitchen floor in 120 degree heat for 6, 8 hours or more every day.

 

[Redfish]

You never told us how much is a fair wage. Lets say that everyone is doing exactly the same job, how much should they be paid? Is it the same in NYC as in Fargo ND? Is it the same for a single guy living with his parents as for a married guy with 4 kids? Is it the same for a teenager working for pocket money as for a single mom?

And finally, who decides what is a fair wage? Who is this omnipitant wage setter?

How about no less than 60x less than the CEO takes home. Or whatever is a living wage. Its all just funny money anyways.

How about just forgetting about the CEO .................

What he makes is irrelevant to what nay worker makes ...................

Just the skill set alone sets most CEO's apart from the regular laborer, the fact they have a BRAIN and actually understand how business works and how greedy, skill less workers think they are any way equal or have any right to base their pay expectations with them(CEO) in mind.

Workers aren't asking for riches. They're just asking to be paid a decent livable wage. And i don't think that's too much to ask in the richest nation on earth.

They're not asking "the nation". They're asking their specific, private-sector employer, for whom they are doing a job that could be done equally well by a kid in junior high school. Translated, that means they're demanding that the government reach into their employer's pocket and give them his money for a job which is not valuable enough to warrant it.

Wonder how long you would last standing on a concrete kitchen floor in 120 degree heat for 6, 8 hours or more every day.

if you don't like kitchen work, find another job. No one is forcing you to do that kind of work.

 

[Dragonlady]

They're not asking "the nation". They're asking their specific, private-sector employer, for whom they are doing a job that could be done equally well by a kid in junior high school. Translated, that means they're demanding that the government reach into their employer's pocket and give them his money for a job which is not valuable enough to warrant it.

If an employer is paying wages so low that his/her full-time employees have to use social assistance to put a roof over their heads or feed their families, then that employer is asking the taxpayers to subsidize their business. That's hardly fair to the tax payers.

MacDonald's and Walmart are recording record profits and paying their executives millions, and their shareholders are getting fat dividends, tax payers are subsidizing each Walmart store to the tune of $400K. Walmart should be paying the employees who recorded those record profits before the shareholders. Instead, their personal departments help them apply for food stamps and Medicaid. If they paid those employees, $100 per week more, they wouldn't qualify for taxpayer funded assistance. But then Walmart's profits, while still in the billions, would be somewhat less than the second highest in the US.

 

[Iceweasel]

Wonder how long you would last standing on a concrete kitchen floor in 120 degree heat for 6, 8 hours or more every day.

Try doing it underway in a ship's engine room and get back to me.

 

[Iceweasel]

If an employer is paying wages so low that his/her full-time employees have to use social assistance to put a roof over their heads or feed their families, then that employer is asking the taxpayers to subsidize their business. That's hardly fair to the tax payers.

MacDonald's and Walmart are recording record profits and paying their executives millions, and their shareholders are getting fat dividends, tax payers are subsidizing each Walmart store to the tune of $400K. Walmart should be paying the employees who recorded those record profits before the shareholders. Instead, their personal departments help them apply for food stamps and Medicaid. If they paid those employees, $100 per week more, they wouldn't qualify for taxpayer funded assistance. But then Walmart's profits, while still in the billions, would be somewhat less than the second highest in the US.

That's a lie. It isn't the employers fault if someone tries to live beyond their means, and unless they voted for a liberal they aren't responsible for the government subsidizing poor choices.