It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seattle approves $15 minimum wage

page: 11
26
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: doobydoll
I assumed the 'free food' she was provided with was a free meal whilst at work, is this not the case? Or was the restaurant giving free shopping away to all it's minimum pay workers before the pay rise?


Technically it is not free on two levels. First the establishment has paid for the food so it comes out of their expenses. Second the government does not consider it free but part of your wages and wants the employer to collect taxes on any food that is consumed.





edit on 4-6-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Ok I think got it.

So the 'free' food she mentions was actually part of her pay anyway, and wasn't free at all? And now she has a pay rise, she is paid in all cash instead of a combination of cash, food, and parking space?

But she now has $7 an hour extra to do all that with. If she works 4 hours a day x 5 = $140 extra per week. Would 5 lunches and 20 hours a week parking amount to as much? I would guess she's in front by a mile.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: doobydoll
So the 'free' food she mentions was actually part of her pay anyway, and wasn't free at all? And now she has a pay rise, she is paid in all cash instead of a combination of cash, food, and parking space?

Technically, it was 'free' to her.

But she now has $7 an hour extra to do all that with. If she works 4 hours a day x 5 = $140 extra per week. Would 5 lunches and 20 hours a week parking amount to as much? I would guess she's in front by a mile.

I wouldn't say that she is all that far ahead.

She just lost access to an economy of scale.

She just increased her uncompensated work load.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArchPlayer
a reply to: Mamatus
Mamatus, you do realize that in a lot of places now, kids are BEING ARRESTED FOR SELLING LEMONADE, right? It isn't that easy anymore to have a hustle; get caught and you are out of thousands of dollars for may a couple hundred profit margin. My aunt use to be a peanut girl. Stand in the middle of intersections and sell peanuts for 5 bucks a bag. Made a great living at it, bought a house. This was the 60s, 70s, and 80. Guess what, in the 90s, the city started instituting a PEDDLERS LICENSE. She went for it, it was 100 bucks, no biggie. 10 years later the cost was 1200 a YEAR.

Whiners is not the word for a slave wager. Desperate would be more concise. Or teenager, elderly.



You make some good points. I forget just how stacked the deck is against having some ingenuity and making "tax free" money is these days.

Back in the mid 90's I operated a portable bicycle repair stand on the bike path in SoCal. Set it up with little more than $200.00 out of pocket and a portable Blackburn stand. Called it the Squeak Stop and plopped it right on the bridge Playa and Marina del Rey. Charged half f shop rates with no business license or permits. It was a magic spot and since I would fix any safety issues for free they let me be. That was pretty wonderful as I made a couple hundred a day cash.....

Doubt I would get away with it these days. Kinda sad really.
edit on 4-6-2014 by Mamatus because: Gwammer and speeeeling



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Before that kicks in, your right about one thing.....






posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ScreenBogey

No, minimum wage workers who live outside their means and are trying to support a family receive food stamps. Why is it McDonald's problem that he has so may bills or cant afford cable or a cell phone. Why should he get more for doing the same job same skill set as a teenager who has no bills and doesn't receive food stamps.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ldyserenity
Sure, anyone could change their own oil if they want to and have the time. When business was booming, it was more economical to pay someone else to do it, than to waste my own time doing it.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL

Everybody has at least one day off. Even when the economy is good, most have 2 days off. Just saying. Plus it's something my bf does undercutting those places to bring extra cash in our household. He charged $25-$30 and they still save money plus we have extra cash too.

There's always someone who will do it for less. Until the government starts messing with those guys, too. I had my alternator fixed for barter (put a new one in) and the guy got anything I left at the place because I was moving and the bf was already at the state (far away) from where I was living at the time Iwas moving back to my hometown.
edit on 2014/6/4 by ldyserenity because: add

edit on 2014/6/4 by ldyserenity because: fix sentence



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: doobydoll
So the 'free' food she mentions was actually part of her pay anyway, and wasn't free at all? And now she has a pay rise, she is paid in all cash instead of a combination of cash, food, and parking space?


From what I read it was not part of her pay but was being comped by the employer. They now are no longer doing that due to the increase.


But she now has $7 an hour extra to do all that with. If she works 4 hours a day x 5 = $140 extra per week. Would 5 lunches and 20 hours a week parking amount to as much? I would guess she's in front by a mile.


She stated she was actually making less.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ldyserenity
You have to get a license to hunt. What will you do when the license is in the thousands?
You may need a license to grow food. With S520 C passed Nov. 30 2010 remember its a illegal felony for American citizens to grow their own food. What will you do if it is enforced.
How will you eat so fine when hunting is potentially outlawed? Digital satellites are going to have a field day tracking you.

What is your contengency plan since your current plan still requires permission from TPTB.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ldyserenity
You have to get a license to hunt. What will you do when the license is in the thousands?
You may need a license to grow food. With S520 C passed Nov. 30 2010 remember its a illegal felony for American citizens to grow their own food. What will you do if it is enforced.
How will you eat so fine when hunting is potentially outlawed? Digital satellites are going to have a field day tracking you.

What is your contengency plan since your current plan still requires permission from TPTB.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ldyserenity
You have to get a license to hunt. What will you do when the license is in the thousands?
You may need a license to grow food. With S520 C passed Nov. 30 2010 remember its a illegal felony for American citizens to grow their own food. What will you do if it is enforced.
How will you eat so fine when hunting is potentially outlawed? Digital satellites are going to have a field day tracking you.

What is your contengency plan since your current plan still requires permission from TPTB.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ArchPlayer

That's not true it's not illegal to grow your own food. Never will happen. And if hunting become outlawed, I'd raise chickens and poach if I have to.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


Another detail and this one is never discussed or mentioned, and it bears to mention here. All of those people who this law will benefit, they are going to get the biggest shock of all. This is not going to be the win fall that they think it is going to be, but is going to work against them when it comes to the federal income tax. The more you make, the more the federal government is going to take, and it moves all of these people into another income tax bracket. Those who were getting public assistance, could very well see the loss of said assistance.

But this is the whole point of working for a living isn't it?

Increasing their pay doesn't just benefit the workers, it benefits the country. The fact that they'll be off benefits and paying taxes means not only will they no longer be a drain on the taxpayer, but it gets better because they will now be CONTRIBUTING. Isn't that what everyone wants? Or would you prefer that they continue to claim benefits?

It seems to me that the lowest paid workers can't do right for doing wrong. They're hated for relying on government help, and they're hated for not relying on government help. Moan at them for not earning enough and moan at them when they do.

You lot don't know what you want.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Can we not have a system where minimum wage is decided on tiers depending on how much profit a company makes? For example: A private family owned restaurant will have the lowest tier minimum wages since their profits fit in the lowest tier, and a corporate owned restaurant will have a higher tier minimum wage for their workers. Just my 2 cents,I'm not an economist but I really wanted to join ATS and this was a great chance for me to jump in and do it.

-Katmanreef



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Part of the problem with this wage increase is that it isn’t state wide but for the Seattle area only. Prices will be higher for businesses within that area and it may also force price increases for franchises outside the Seattle area as well but where employees are not benefiting from wage increases, causing a greater burden on lower income earners.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Here's my .35 cents (hyperinflated also)....
I went to college, then into the USAF, then to the phone company. I have extensive training in communications and IT and I am worth my pay however jobs like working the counter at McNasties are not worth more than $7 or $8 an hour. Those types of jobs are meant as beginner jobs for teens, not jobs to support a family for 20 plus years.
My question is this, when the burger flippers get bumped up to $15 an hour does my pay get bumped to $50 an hour ? Now actually I own my own company and work for myself but hopefully you get the point.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: doobydoll
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Ok I think got it.

So the 'free' food she mentions was actually part of her pay anyway, and wasn't free at all? And now she has a pay rise, she is paid in all cash instead of a combination of cash, food, and parking space?

But she now has $7 an hour extra to do all that with. If she works 4 hours a day x 5 = $140 extra per week. Would 5 lunches and 20 hours a week parking amount to as much? I would guess she's in front by a mile.




Well depending on if she purchases a meal or brings one, average lunch is at least $6.00 and many parking lots have a two hour min and anything over is a daily rate and could be anywhere from 9-20 bucks so she could potentially lose anywhere from 90-130 dollars a week. Add in her transportation costs and she could potentially be working for very little wages. Yes, it adds up fast.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux




Part of the problem with this wage increase is that it isn’t state wide but for the Seattle area only.

Inflation is running at 2% for the rest of the state and country, it would appear that Seattle's 7% wage inflation will provide more buying power for Seattle citizens outside Seattle. If this were a country wide phenomena the US dollar would drop in value similar to Uganda's currency, Uganda is experiencing 7.1% annual inflation.

Maybe some businesses in Seattle like Walmart will absorb the 7% wage increase cut back hours etc. The cost of doing business will not rise 7% for most companies, there is a lot more to overhead than just the minimum wage payments so local prices may only rise 3% instead of 2%. Thats not enough to justify driving out of town very far to take advantage of the competition. In a few years it will be interesting to see what effect this will have on neighboring towns.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: doobydoll
Increasing pay is not a bad thing; however, this is not just one state, but just a city. And the entire country is going to watch and see what happens. There are many questions and problems that will come of this. And it will reflect in different areas.

The first area will be the unemployment rate. What impact and change to it that will occur? As I stated, many businesses will have tough decisions to make, and this could either make or break the city. What if it backfires, does the city have a backup plan?
What if businesses close up, could or would people be happy with say another Detroit Michigan, where businesses pack up and leave, because they refuse to pay their employees 15 an hour? Big and small businesses have some decisions that they are going to have to make, and with good reason.

Who should get paid more, a person who went to college and is able to program a computer, or a janitor who just cleans the toilet? Do you think those who are currently working, do you think those with the skills are going to be so willing to accept that now someone who is unskilled makes the same rate as they do? Or do you think that they will start sending their resumes out to other companies and move away, further making things hard on the area?

And small business are going to have to make decisions that will also affect the area as well. To either raise the price of goods and services to cover the costs or close their doors.

There are no real answers, and thus this is why Seattle is going to be watched. People are going to watch to see how things go, and what happens. If it succeeds or fails, it is going to be highly politicized, and pointed to.

Personally I think that the city went too far, and that this is going to back fire, that the unemployment rate is going to go up, as many of the small businesses will either close their doors, or lay off employees to cover costs, as the owners are not going to want to pay that much. It means that there will be a changing dynamic in the city and some industries will simply raise the price for their goods and services to cover the costs of such. And employment will ultimately stagger for a bit, when this goes into effect. And that is if the law survives the law suits up to the Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court decides in favor of this law.

I also believe, if it was a raising up to say 9 an hour, it would have been a lot better all around, as then it would have been more gradual and easier to adjust to.
Only time will tell and show.




top topics



 
26
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join