Current Events > Let's check in on Seattle raising its minimum wage

(+) Yeah! (+)

It has been an unmitigated success
http://ritholtz.com/2017/04/new-seattle-post/
---

"Something worked in one area, so it will work everywhere!"

Also, how about all the people who lost their jobs hat the article conveniently didn't mention?
---

I started in a grocery store making 10 cents over minimum wage so that they could report that they don't pay me minimum wage.
---

ZMythos posted...

I started in a grocery store making 10 cents over minimum wage so that they could report that they don't pay me minimum wage.

You'd have made more if they paid you less than minimum wage in cash.
---

Payzmaykr posted...

"Something worked in one area, so it will work everywhere!"

it works in every other country plus inside america, why wouldnt it work for the whole of america? and dont be a shitposter and dodge this either
---

Very interesting but even earning $20 an hour is very low in Seattle.
---

Payzmaykr posted...

Also, how about all the people who lost their jobs

Jobs and labor force participation have gone up, unemployment has gone down.
---

NO WAY! I for one am shocked! I was told this would lead to more unemployment and more poverty...

Rika_Furude posted...

Payzmaykr posted...

"Something worked in one area, so it will work everywhere!"

it works in every other country plus inside america, why wouldnt it work for the whole of america? and dont be a shitposter and dodge this either

TOLD
---

btw it also worked in Minnesota...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/mark-dayton-minnesota-economy_b_6737786.html

ReignFury posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Payzmaykr posted...

"Something worked in one area, so it will work everywhere!"

it works in every other country plus inside america, why wouldnt it work for the whole of america? and dont be a shitposter and dodge this either

TOLD

Remember: Every failure is proof something doesn't work and every success is an isolated incident. Don't you liberals know anything?
---

man i wish id gotten here before fenderbender

anyways, isn't it a bit off to use MSA data to show that a city-level policy is good?

of course, I also don't think that seattle is losing jobs due to a higher minimum wage

but I think progressives should probably be careful about getting good evidence since they supposedly care about it

minimum wages especially at the local level are a little bit more complicated than looking at BLS data
---

like I've seen that article about minnesota so many times

it would be pretty hard to fuck up being a governor between 2011 and 2016 when you're being compared to a governor from 2003-2010 regardless of what your tax policies look like
---

Balrog0 posted...

anyways, isn't it a bit off to use MSA data to show that a city-level policy is good?

...oops.
If anything, this suggests that employers are finally last-strawed out the the suburbs, then suddenly realize their costs are drastically lower because all the other municipal bullshit has vanished as well.

of course, I also don't think that seattle is losing jobs due to a higher minimum wage

The real answer is probably much more insidious. When you have to pay everyone $15, only the people who are worth $15 will keep their jobs. The aggregate employment numbers may not change much, or at least likely won't decrease (until the robots move in), but the fuckups and misfortunates are weeded out pretty quickly.
Someone whose car broke town is tossed right alongside the guy who showed up hungover ten minutes late.

They need that money to afford their overpriced coffee
---

You guys don't know how expensive it is living in Seattle though... the wage rising means people can finally afford shit lmfao
---

Bok_Choi posted...

You guys don't know how expensive it is living in Seattle though... the wage rising means people can finally afford shit lmfao

That's supposed to be the point of raising wages.
---

Kineth posted...

Bok_Choi posted...

You guys don't know how expensive it is living in Seattle though... the wage rising means people can finally afford shit lmfao

That's supposed to be the point of raising wages.

Right.

IDK what my point was
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

...oops.
If anything, this suggests that employers are finally last-strawed out the the suburbs, then suddenly realize their costs are drastically lower because all the other municipal bullshit has vanished as well.

idk it's hard to say because the data isn't granular enough

Questionmarktarius posted...

The real answer is probably much more insidious. When you have to pay everyone $15, only the people who are worth $15 will keep their jobs. The aggregate employment numbers may not change much, or at least likely won't decrease (until the robots move in), but the fuckups and misfortunates are weeded out pretty quickly.
Someone whose car broke town is tossed right alongside the guy who showed up hungover ten minutes late.

yeah I suspect something like this is more the case

this could happen either by drawing people at the margins of the labor market in (like, early or recent retirees, affluent young adults in school) or drawing in people from other areas. In either case the people who would get crowded out of the market would be people who firms deem higher risk, which is like people with criminal backgrounds, the long-term unemployed, and black people, more or less in that order

automation makes it particularly problematic; even if there aren't short-term spikes in unemployment, it could reduce labor market participation: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2016/Volume36/EB-16-V36-I4-P222.pdf
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Payzmaykr posted...

"Something worked in one area, so it will work everywhere!"

it works in every other country plus inside america, why wouldnt it work for the whole of america? and dont be a shitposter and dodge this either

I'll say it again for the millionth time. If raising the price of labor is good, then make it $50 an hour, or $100 an hour. But of course you will see none of these usual suspects argue for that.
---

AssultTank posted...

My opposition to $15/hr has always been that it isn't needed in every area. In some areas, $15 is too low in others it is way too high and could easily cause an economic crash.

The minimum wage should be adjusted based on the cost of living in the area, anything else is just stupid policy.

No there's a reason the federal minimum wage is 7.25 still
---

Lol almost no one in Seattle makes minimum wage. How could you afford to live there if you did
---

Gojak_v3 posted...

I'll say it again for the millionth time. If raising the price of labor is good, then make it $50 an hour, or $100 an hour. But of course you will see none of these usual suspects argue for that.

"If drinking water is good, drink 10 gallons a day"
---

Yeah I'm in favor of localities determining it. A $15 federal min wage is too high and it would hurt state economies in the south since there wouldn't be a reason to use their workers (who work slower on avg than other parts of the country)


Not in favor of states forbidding cities/counties from raising the wage either

AssultTank posted...

My opposition to $15/hr has always been that it isn't needed in every area. In some areas, $15 is too low in others it is way too high and could easily cause an economic crash.

The minimum wage should be adjusted based on the cost of living in the area, anything else is just stupid policy.

But that's reasonable and logical, which is utterly poisonous to politicians.

The most important test of this will be when all of California gets a $15 minimum wage in 2022

Of course, it really depends where you live. It makes sense to have a high minimum wage in California but not so much in the South or Midwest where the cost of living is 2x-4x LESS than it is on the coast.
---

man

I was impressed when a dude I know got a job at microsoft out of college making $100,000 a year

but it is in seatlle so that really isn't impressive is it?

that is more like $50,000 if the standard of living is that high
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

AssultTank posted...

My opposition to $15/hr has always been that it isn't needed in every area. In some areas, $15 is too low in others it is way too high and could easily cause an economic crash.

The minimum wage should be adjusted based on the cost of living in the area, anything else is just stupid policy.

But that's reasonable and logical, which is utterly poisonous to politicians.

Clinton had that position but picked $12 as fed min wage and was lambasted for it

AssultTank posted...

I would rather be making $5/hr and have that $5/h be enough to pay all my bills and have some left over for entertainment than making $500/hr and that not even being enough to pay for a shithole apartment without running water or electricity.

In the end, you really don't need a mandated pricefloor.
If you're not paying enough for the local conditions, you won't get any employees at all. If you get prospects anyway, they're not very likely to be quality employees.

Antifar posted...

Gojak_v3 posted...

I'll say it again for the millionth time. If raising the price of labor is good, then make it $50 an hour, or $100 an hour. But of course you will see none of these usual suspects argue for that.

"If drinking water is good, drink 10 gallons a day"

Very poor comparison.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

It's as if the local government is afraid of people realizing that a government mandated minimum wage isn't necessary for wages to go up

man that is a seriously delusional opinion on how minimum wage laws get passed lol
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

AssultTank posted...

I would rather be making $5/hr and have that $5/h be enough to pay all my bills and have some left over for entertainment than making $500/hr and that not even being enough to pay for a shithole apartment without running water or electricity.

In the end, you really don't need a mandated pricefloor.
If you're not paying enough for the local conditions, you won't get any employees at all. If you get prospects anyway, they're not very likely to be quality employees.

not true. people will accept the job and have room mates. most employers will try to get away with as low a wage as humanly possible.
---

Balrog0 posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

It's as if the local government is afraid of people realizing that a government mandated minimum wage isn't necessary for wages to go up

man that is a seriously delusional opinion on how minimum wage laws get passed lol

I know right? It's laughable watching people talk economics on this board.
---

AssultTank posted...

Bok_Choi posted...

AssultTank posted...

My opposition to $15/hr has always been that it isn't needed in every area. In some areas, $15 is too low in others it is way too high and could easily cause an economic crash.

The minimum wage should be adjusted based on the cost of living in the area, anything else is just stupid policy.

No there's a reason the federal minimum wage is 7.25 still

And in some places $7.25 is a good number for minimum wage, mostly rural areas or cities where the cost of living is pretty low.

I would never advocate for a $7.25/hr minimum wage in San Francisco under current economic conditions, but I also would never advocate for $15/hr in Atlanta under current economic conditions. Either one would crash the market in the area, leading to lots of businesses closing and many people losing their jobs.

I do however think that we should be combating inflation and trying to make the dollar stronger, not weaker.

I would rather be making $5/hr and have that $5/h be enough to pay all my bills and have some left over for entertainment than making $500/hr and that not even being enough to pay for a shithole apartment without running water or electricity.

I don't know why I said "No," because I was agreeing with you.
---

the really bullshit thing is how many anti-union laws we have

meanwhile capitalists get to pool their resources in the form of LLCs

right to work laws are awful
---

Tag
---

AssultTank posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

In the end, you really don't need a mandated pricefloor.
If you're not paying enough for the local conditions, you won't get any employees at all. If you get prospects anyway, they're not very likely to be quality employees.

I mean I can see the logic behind a mandated price floor, but I do agree that in an ideal society we shouldn't need one. The problem is that we're not an ideal society, so we do have to have some protections for workers.

But, a price floor that's too high has the opposite effect on the very people it's meant to help.

As a bad analogy, let's assume that tomatoes now have a minimum price of $5 each. You and everyone else are going to take the time to carefully select only the best tomatoes available, while the rest are left to rot. They may be good tomatoes for the intended purpose, but there's no way you're going to pay that much for a slightly bruised, overripe, undersized, or goofy-looking tomato.
Or, you'll smuggle in tomatoes from out of town (illegal immigrants), buy them from a neighbor's backyard garden (pay under-the-table), or just start using bell peppers or tomatillos instead (bad analogy for automation).

Balrog0 posted...

right to work laws are awful

If the unions were as awesome as they believe themselves to be, Right-to-Work laws would be superfluous and redundant, because nobody would be willing to work for an open shop.

Logos posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

AssultTank posted...

I would rather be making $5/hr and have that $5/h be enough to pay all my bills and have some left over for entertainment than making $500/hr and that not even being enough to pay for a shithole apartment without running water or electricity.

In the end, you really don't need a mandated pricefloor.
If you're not paying enough for the local conditions, you won't get any employees at all. If you get prospects anyway, they're not very likely to be quality employees.

not true. people will accept the job and have room mates. most employers will try to get away with as low a wage as humanly possible.

Then it was clearly "enough" for local conditions. Still may have the "quality" problem.

AssultTank posted...

I actually don't have a problem with right to work laws myself. I live in a right to work state, and honestly it's not as bad as people like to say. In fact it carries a lot of benefits for employees that get fired, especially those fired with cause.

Employment background checks are a frequent thing, and failing one will cause you to be unable to get the job you're applying for. In a right to work state, employers are NOT allowed to put the cause for termination on your record. Only the labor board can do so, and ONLY if YOU file for unemployment.

In a non-right to work state, employers are REQUIRED to put the cause for termination on your history. This of course can ruin your chances at any future employment. Imagine being fired for being late frequently and missing shifts with no notice from a retail job.

In a right to work state, you don't have to file for unemployment (And get denied because you were terminated with cause.) and so this doesn't go on your record. In other states, it's on your record and it follows you for the rest of your life making future employment... difficult...

Right to work laws and at-will employment laws aren't the same thing. Nearly every state has at-will employment, with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions.

Right to work laws disallow unions from negotiating contracts with employers that require non-union employees to pay union dues, more or less.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

If the unions were as awesome as they believe themselves to be, Right-to-Work laws would be superfluous and redundant, because nobody would be willing to work for an open shop.

isn't this like saying if corporations were as awesome as they believe themselves to be, incorporation laws would be redundant since no one would invest in a shitty business that might cause them to want to protect their personal liability anyway?
---