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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
They aren't spending more, they are working less to have the same total income so benefits are not affected.
Basically, people are paying more for the same products so the "working poor" as you call them, can have more free time to hang out.
They aren't spending more, they are working less to have the same total income so benefits are not affected.
Basically, people are paying more for the same products so the "working poor" as you call them, can have more free time to hang out.
Sigh. Nonsense.
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.
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.
There are people getting Obamacare subsidies based on income they projected.
If they are getting more money now they will be penalized come next April if they earn more than they projected. And they will have to give their subsidy back to the government.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
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.
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.
