Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only a small number are going to ask for AND be succesful in getting less hours.
REALITY: Most will be getting more income, and guess what? Those people spend it. As for those who might get less hours? Guess what? That means someone else works those hours...lower unemployment and.....higher spending.
Realty: 1/3 of workers who made less than $15 an hour previously have been laid off causing unemployment to rise. All jobs not worth $15 have been stopped. Others are now working less for the same income so they can stay on the dole and the same amount of money is being spent, just by different people as ultimately this is just another form of wealth redistribution. I'm sure lottery sales have increased.
Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise – in a bid to keep overall income down so they don’t lose public subsidies for things like food, child care and rent!
So the solution is to keep paying them so little that they qualify for benefits?
Because they get more in benefits than they do with increased wages.
Earn $1 more and you lose all your benefits and that includes Obamacare subsidies.
Yawn. Yes, Im sure they are all doing this, yup every single one of them.
So? Heres how reality works-if you dont want to work the hours you will get replaced. Problem solved. If however the shorter hours works...they hire more people. Look unemployment goes down! YAY!
The bottom line is...less is going to be spent on welfare. Even if it means that the people game the system, the amount of welfare collected goes down. instead of 1 person getting 20% support, and one person getting 100%...we go to two people getting 20%.
And yet somehow...this is bad.
BTW-vast majority are enjoying their higher income, and spending more, thus increasing business in their area.
If I had to choose to either have more people on welfare because they are not getting paid enough or to increase the minimum wage, I would have the minimum wage increased. And believe me, it isn't just teenagers that are working these kinds of jobs nowadays.
The article is misleading with its title....not shocked....minimum wage in Seattle is currently $11/hr, not $15/hr....so how can there be a fallout from $15/hr if minimum wage isn't even there yet? The article clearly was poorly written to try to twist something into a story to spoon feed to its readers.
Just another one they didn't think of. The biggest impact is probably on servers that rely on tips, and since prices have been raised to cover the higher pay, customers are tipping less. Our state requires full minimum wage for tipped workers. My prediction was that those it was meant to help will find the prices of everything going up, so the higher wage results in the same or even less spending power for them. Rent is not related much to minimum wage (other than maybe apartment maintenance laborers) but rent has gone up 8% since the minimum wage law was passed and it went to $11. For those workers making our previous state minimum wage of $9.47, their raise in Seattle was $1.53/hour. Over a month working 40 hours a week that's only $244.80/month, not enough to overcome the loss of their government subsidies.
On what do you base this sudden idea that there will be inflation higher then what was already happening? Theres no historic evidence of that occurring in the past, and given that the raise went up in only one area theres even less basis to believe inflation would increase even more.
Remember, a lot of the reasons that minimum wage does get raised is to deal with inflation. We really should as a country decide a minimum wage, and just peg it to inflation updated monthly. Then everyone could just peg their wage against a multiple of it, and reduce all the discussion about COL raises-for everyone.
Because they get more in benefits than they do with increased wages.
Earn $1 more and you lose all your benefits and that includes Obamacare subsidies.
Benefits that taxpayers are paying when the employers had the money to cover it?
Earn $1 over the welfare income limit and you lose everything that program gives you.
Analysts have said that $15/hour is not enough to compensate the dollar value of these programs.
You need $25-$30/hour to make up the lost money in welfare benefits.
But hey..what did those analysts know.
Yep. In general I support the idea of helping people but the way it is now it is a disincentive for people to better themselves.
Here is a very similar thread I started awhile back about how welfare keeps people in poverty. It closely relates to the loss of benefits once hitting the welfare cutoff. How the government keeps people in poverty
Realty: 1/3 of workers who made less than $15 an hour previously have been laid off causing unemployment to rise. All jobs not worth $15 have been stopped. Others are now working less for the same income so they can stay on the dole and the same amount of money is being spent, just by different people as ultimately this is just another form of wealth redistribution. I'm sure lottery sales have increased.
Really? So in the past when minimum wage was raised we had massive layoffs! OMG! I didn't know!
Oh wait...thats because there's no factual basis for your reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
