'Real Change for Workers': Living Wage Backers Declare Victory in Local Election

[Uncensored2008]

The point is that the labor cost was already more than the minimum wage , (i.e. it had no impact on the labor costs in the analysis), thus disqualifying the minimum itself as any real catalyst for the move to self-service.

And I ignored your usher example because it's a load of shit. My cinema has a many of them.

Not true.

What you fail to account for is that labor is a commodity.

If Minimum is $7.25 and there is a manufacturing shop, paying $9 to start for production labor. Because the work is hot and hard, the shop must pay more to attract qualified workers.

Raise minimum to $9 an hour, and you would claim this has no impact on the manufacturing firm - but you're wrong. Because the labor pool will gravitate to McDonalds where it's air conditioned and they don't have to work very hard, considering the pay is now the same. The manufacturing shop will have no choice but to increase wages, which will roll into the cost of the product. And of course upstream shops will also have to raise wages and prices. Murray Rothbard demonstrated that it takes about 3 years to shake out, but the purchasing power of the minimum wage earner will return to what it was before the raise - in fact MUST return, based on the laws of equilibrium.

Raising the minimum wage is done to buy votes, it does absolutely nothing to improve the fortunes of the wage earner.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Higher minimum wage = less welfare. A winner for republicans!

So, less availible jobs results in less welfare?

There is a reason you're a leftist, spunky....

 

[DiamondDave]

How loud are they going to complain when their Venti 1 pump caramel, 1 pump white mocha, 2 scoops vanilla bean powder, extra ice frappuchino with 2 shots poured over the top (apagotto style) with caramel drizzle under and on top of the whipped cream, double cupped price goes up?

?

It is not the sole reason for price increases.. but wage increases at the floor mean price increases..

You are an idiot bitch

 

[clevergirl]

except it will end up in court

Because right-wingers hate it when courts legislate against the will of the people.

First, there is a proper procedure for changing WA state minimum wage- which is 9.13 and set to increase Jan. 1st to 9.32.

Second, service industry jobs are typically un-skilled labor and are in place so those who have not the skill can be employable. They are a necessary vehicle to self sufficiency for millions of Americans.

Thirdly, yes, right wingers cannot abide usurping, or going around, procedural steps to effect change. The courts WOULD be properly engaged in challenging this vote. The fact that you think it's not a valid use, is disturbing, in that it shows you to be a low information voter...how many more of you are out there???

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic".
-- Benjamin Franklin

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[clevergirl]

This is why Setac's vote will be rescinded.


Why and when does the minimum wage change and how is it calculated?

Initiative 688, approved by Washington voters in 1998, requires L&I to make a cost-of-living adjustment to its minimum wage each year based on the federal Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). This measures the average change in prices on a fixed group of goods and services such as food, shelter, medical care, transportation and other goods and services people purchase for day-to-day living. L&I recalculates the state's minimum wage in September, and it takes effect the following year on January 1.

 

[Contumacious]

Higher minimum age = more unemployed therefore more welfare.

Statist morons like Matthew think gov't can legislate laws of economics out of existence.

Rabbi would you support going back to the 1890s-1900s with businesses allowed to grow as big as they damn well please? Low standards of work conditions and child labor.

If you're against government being in the economy this is what it means.

Yo Retardo, how were conditions PRIOR to the industrial revolution?

Did Government End Child Labor?

The notion that some “golden age” of simple life and harmony existed in England before it industrialized was first conjured by socialist philosophers Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx.

How did children and workers fare under industrialism by contrast? In Human Action (1949) economist Ludwig von Mises reminds readers that, low as factory wages initially were, “they were nonetheless much more than these paupers could earn in any other field open to them. It is a distortion of facts to say that the factories carried off the housewives from the nurseries and the kitchen and the children from their play,” he writes. “These women had nothing to cook with and to feed their children. These children were destitute and starving. Their only refuge was the factory. It saved them,” according to Von Mises, “in the strictest sense of the term, from death by starvation.” Yet this future offered to them, nineteenth century socialists denounced as “inhuman” and “cruel”?

.

.

 

[Redfish]

Statist morons like Matthew think gov't can legislate laws of economics out of existence.

Rabbi would you support going back to the 1890s-1900s with businesses allowed to grow as big as they damn well please? Low standards of work conditions and child labor.

If you're against government being in the economy this is what it means.

Yo Retardo, how were conditions PRIOR to the industrial revolution?

Did Government End Child Labor?

The notion that some “golden age” of simple life and harmony existed in England before it industrialized was first conjured by socialist philosophers Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx.

How did children and workers fare under industrialism by contrast? In Human Action (1949) economist Ludwig von Mises reminds readers that, low as factory wages initially were, “they were nonetheless much more than these paupers could earn in any other field open to them. It is a distortion of facts to say that the factories carried off the housewives from the nurseries and the kitchen and the children from their play,” he writes. “These women had nothing to cook with and to feed their children. These children were destitute and starving. Their only refuge was the factory. It saved them,” according to Von Mises, “in the strictest sense of the term, from death by starvation.” Yet this future offered to them, nineteenth century socialists denounced as “inhuman” and “cruel”?

.

.

thanks for that post. Liberals ignore history, or write their own versions of it.

 

[daveman]

This is the aim of the tea party in case you haven't noticed. Take us back to the good old days with robber barons, poor houses, and age of consent was 12 years old.

Oh, stop it. Stop repeating the stupid lies you progressives tell each other.

Because, really, you'll never find a TPer saying he wants the age of consent to be 12 years old. (That would the NAMBLA, the leftist pedophile organization.)

If you want to know what the TEA Party wants, ask them. Stop spreading your hate-based lies.

But, of course, you won't do it.

They can't. It's all they've got. Because their solutions bring us progressively to 1984. Not the year 1984, the book by Orwell where gov't controls everything. And I mean everything.
It is freedom vs control
It is growth vs stagnation
It is prosperity vs poverty
It is dignity vs dependence.

The big gov't types believe people are too stupid to know what to do. Thus we see the meme of "crap insurance policies." Because they know better than us what kind of insurance we need. Right?
Leftist policies bring poverty and suffering everywhere they have been tried. Without exception. People point to Scandanaivian countries. Those countries suffer from anemic growth, high structural unemployment, and languishing birth rates (except among the Muslims, who breed like rabbits and will destabilize them eventually). It is so bad Sweden jettisoned some of its statism to return to a more market economy.
Freedom brings prosperity. Freedom brings dignity to the individual. Freedom empowers people. That is the Tea Party. And the Democrats are opposed to all that. Think about that.

Indeed. People who DON'T think will bitterly cling to their lies about the TEA Party and congratulate themselves for being so superior for no apparent reason.

 

[daveman]

Rabbi would you support going back to the 1890s-1900s with businesses allowed to grow as big as they damn well please? Low standards of work conditions and child labor.

If you're against government being in the economy this is what it means.

Yo Retardo, how were conditions PRIOR to the industrial revolution?

Did Government End Child Labor?

The notion that some “golden age” of simple life and harmony existed in England before it industrialized was first conjured by socialist philosophers Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx.

How did children and workers fare under industrialism by contrast? In Human Action (1949) economist Ludwig von Mises reminds readers that, low as factory wages initially were, “they were nonetheless much more than these paupers could earn in any other field open to them. It is a distortion of facts to say that the factories carried off the housewives from the nurseries and the kitchen and the children from their play,” he writes. “These women had nothing to cook with and to feed their children. These children were destitute and starving. Their only refuge was the factory. It saved them,” according to Von Mises, “in the strictest sense of the term, from death by starvation.” Yet this future offered to them, nineteenth century socialists denounced as “inhuman” and “cruel”?

.

.

thanks for that post. Liberals ignore history, or write their own versions of it.