Report finds Seattle's $15 minimum wage may hurting workers

a reply to: DerBeobachter

I disagree. The rich who have way more than they will ever need do not pay minimum wage. Their companies do not rely on much low income (maybe low skill) workforces. If they have a need for a low skill job, their company contracts that out. The problem is that the smaller companies that employ the low income workers cannot afford the higher payroll cost. The smaller companies will either not be able to compete with the larger companies or the market will not bear the mark up needed to survive.

I have always felt that it would be better to set a maximum wage than a minimum wage. There is no work that should be considered worth more than a million dollars per year. That is just greed. I don't care if you are an entertainer or a CEO. Other forms of entertainment can be created and a magic eight ball can be used to make tough decisions.

I again say that people are not willing to look at the detrimental side to an increase in the minimum wage. The people who will ultimately get hurt the worst are those on fixed incomes or those living off their savings. The inflationary effects will make the benefits for the low wage worker non existent in a very short period of time. Increasing the minimum wage is the same as a dog chasing its tail. You can't win.

The only way to make things better is to normalize the pay gradient and raising the minimum wage will not accomplish that goal. Instead the pay gradient will become larger for those on the high end of the scale.

originally posted by: feldercarb
a reply to: DerBeobachter

I disagree. The rich who have way more than they will ever need do not pay minimum wage. Their companies do not rely on much low income (maybe low skill) workforces. If they have a need for a low skill job, their company contracts that out. The problem is that the smaller companies that employ the low income workers cannot afford the higher payroll cost. The smaller companies will either not be able to compete with the larger companies or the market will not bear the mark up needed to survive.

I have always felt that it would be better to set a maximum wage than a minimum wage. There is no work that should be considered worth more than a million dollars per year. That is just greed. I don't care if you are an entertainer or a CEO. Other forms of entertainment can be created and a magic eight ball can be used to make tough decisions.

I again say that people are not willing to look at the detrimental side to an increase in the minimum wage. The people who will ultimately get hurt the worst are those on fixed incomes or those living off their savings. The inflationary effects will make the benefits for the low wage worker non existent in a very short period of time. Increasing the minimum wage is the same as a dog chasing its tail. You can't win.

The only way to make things better is to normalize the pay gradient and raising the minimum wage will not accomplish that goal. Instead the pay gradient will become larger for those on the high end of the scale.

Maximum wage is probably worse than a minimum. Who are you to say how much money someone can make? One million may be enough for your, but that may not be enough for someone else. If they have a skillset in demand enough that a company is willing to pay them $1 million/yr then more power to them.

a reply to: feldercarb

At the same time, we have the current benefits system that married us to employer based health insurance thanks to wage caps.

If companies cannot use higher pay to entice and keep better talent, they will find other means, and there will be unintended consequences from that ... just like employer based health insurance.

a reply to: ketsuko

The funny thing is that there are studies that suggest that a Pizza Party is more enticing than alot of other benefits that are offered.

But we still need to get the wage gap to shrink (not eliminate) and raising the minimum wage does not accomplish that goal.

a reply to: feldercarb

Trying to impose artificial limits on the market doesn't really do it all that well either.

It's been tried a lot and failed.

originally posted by: Edumakated


Maximum wage is probably worse than a minimum. Who are you to say how much money someone can make? One million may be enough for your, but that may not be enough for someone else. If they have a skillset in demand enough that a company is willing to pay them $1 million/yr then more power to them.

I just feel it is not good for society as a whole. Playing a game or singing a song are grossly overpaid professions. Likewise, being a CEO is overcompensated. The reason for the high pay is not talent but societal situation. Great scientist seldom make the money that their contributions deserve. The scientist works for a company that has the necessary equipment for research advancements. Thus, the company and its CEO have a tendency to get greater compensation than the scientist with the better skill set. We overpay for some skills that are not as societally beneficial skills as some skill sets.

a reply to: feldercarb

This is what we were trying to tell people that thought this was a good idea. It's basic economics that people will cut back on hours and employees when forced by government to overpay for their relative skill.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Other countries can pay their employees close to 15 an hour as minimum wage and yet their economy is doing better than the usa.

Unless the US is planning on making their laws and regulations the same as the other country, this is an irrelevant point.

Even State vs State comparisons, in the US, are difficult due to the discrepancies in this area.

a reply to: feldercarb

You say they're overpaid, but the people who pay to hear them are the ones who make that choice.

You want to feel like singing a song is grossly overpaid? Why don't you tell the average person to go do it for a living?

Yeah, that's because most of us can't do it and make ends meet. Singing a song like Katy Perry is more than just singing a song.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Other countries can pay their employees close to 15 an hour as minimum wage and yet their economy is doing better than the usa.

Unless the US is planning on making their laws and regulations the same as the other country, this is an irrelevant point.

Even State vs State comparisons, in the US, are difficult due to the discrepancies in this area.

This is correct, and those other countries also have much higher costs of living than the US too.

Being paid $15/hour isn't all that if you live in an area that costs a lot to live in.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: feldercarb

You say they're overpaid, but the people who pay to hear them are the ones who make that choice.

You want to feel like singing a song is grossly overpaid? Why don't you tell the average person to go do it for a living?

Yeah, that's because most of us can't do it and make ends meet. Singing a song like Katy Perry is more than just singing a song.

But it is not just Katy Perry's ability that makes her popular. It is the promotions department that can make or break a singer. There are plenty of good singers that never get that type of promotional help that a person like Perry gets. One person's success can be largely attributed to the hard work of others that may not get the same amount of compensation. I lot of different people's efforts can go into making just one person a success.

Thanks for the 15$ wage hike... now meet your replacement.

a reply to: feldercarb

Yeah sadly I believe it... you basically have to be a coder or IT specialist to work in Seattle.

a reply to: feldercarb

Arbitrarily raising the minimum wage to 15/hour has probably been one of the dumbest moves done by the moronic left.

Is anybody surprised? At the press conference announcing this dumbass policy, it was acknowledged it made no economic sense.

originally posted by: face23785
Is anybody surprised? At the press conference announcing this dumbass policy, it was acknowledged it made no economic sense.

Its all about feelings over facts.

When you push for $15 minimum wage, you feel like you are a hero because you care about people, and those against it, you feel are terrible for not liking poor people.

When the facts come out that you hurt poor people, and actually the people against the wage increase would have helped poor people....

It doesn't matter, because you FEEL like you were helping poor people, and you FEEL like the other side wasn't.

a reply to: Grambler

I totally agree. Emotion is more important than reason.

those $15 hour payroll checks might look like a minor State-Lotto payout -> but at the end of the year when taxes are due, the scam-accountants that fix-up the false tax returns so the filer can qualify for 'Earned Income Credit' ... just won't be able to juice-up-the-1040Form so the dupes can continue to scam the IRS for a $4 grand tax refund...

the $15 per hour bonus will turn sour real quick... but the tax preparer will still get their $80-$100 fees paid 'off-the-top'

Trumps reallocation of SNAP benefits will surely eliminate those millions of fraudulent takers as a consequence of that bonus $15 hour ($5 of which is excessive money)

I think a major point that most are missing on both sides of the argument is that this is Seattle.
This little experiment and the following study/report are localised.

Seattle created their own toxic economy with their 'green initiatives' about expanding the city. They created outrageous housing prices that weren't sustainable with their job/salary market.

They couldn't afford to have all of their service employees move to a more reasonably priced city. Hence the wage increase.
Now, they're finding out that this, too is not sustainable. It'll be much cheaper to start replacing service and factory workers with automation. So, they're still going to have a mass exodus of lower level workers looking for something that Seattle just can give them.


Although, as I stated, this is really a localised issue; in my mind, this is just an example of why govt shouldn't toy with the economy, local or not. The economy is a living thing with too many factors and moving parts that get even more complicated with every tweak or law made by people that have no basic understanding of it.
I get that some have altruistic reasons, but damn! Leave it alone.

I'd be looking to start voting in some highly educated economists to the board if I lived there. But then again I couldn't afford to live there.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: RomeByFire

Not really. The low wage workers lost money overall even if they were being paid more per hour.

In other words, they were hurt by the increased wages. And if the employers paid for less hours of labor, you can't just say they worked extra jobs because odds are that pretty much all the low wage employers responded the same way. There are less hours of low wage work for low wage workers.

Higher minimum wages = less available work for low wage workers.

Not really, because you're dealing with averages. A few lost jobs. Those that kept them wound up in a better place. That's unfortunately, going to be a reality we have to deal with.

Lets take a small example. Lets say that in a small community there's $150 per day, hour, or whatever to do these jobs and there's 15 people. That means each person gets $10 for their labor. What if living expenses cost $12 though? That's what it's like being at or near minimum wage today. It doesn't cover living expenses. So we give each person a subsidy to get them up to that $12. The end result is that all 15 people are dependent on government.

Now, lets say we increase the minimum wage from $10 to $15. Lets also say that the pool of $150 doesn't change. I'm sure we could both put forth arguments to either increase or decrease it, but for arguments sake lets just say that the available money to pay employees remains equal. With this wage change we now have 10 people that are employed, but those 10 aren't just getting by at the bare minimum, they're over it by 25% which means they have some disposable income and have measurably better lives. The remaining 5 people are still dependent on government subsidies but the wage increase has now taken us from all 15 people relying on government to only 5 relying on government.

At the same time, the distribution of funds didn't change, before minimum wage there was a $60 deficit, and after minimum wage there is still a $60 deficit.

Doesn't this make sense? We should be looking to minimize the number of people on assistance, correct? Increasing the minimum wage does just that. It doesn't remove everyone, but it removes some, and it makes life a good deal better for others.