Washington minimum wage increased to $11 an hour Jan. 1st (roads, crazy)

[PS90]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Which "liberals" are you referring to? Most would say it is good for the worker receiving the higher wage; whether it is good, bad, or indifferent for others depends on many different factors, it seems to me. It is not reducible to a simple either/or logic-loop.

Now, some restaurants in Seattle, such as Ivar's Salmon House/Acres of Clams 1) raised their minimum wages directly to $15/hr, 2) added a gratuity (21% at Ivar's), and 3) made tipping optional:



Ivar's initially removed the "tip" line from their credit receipts, but added it back due to "many customer requests".

https://www.ivars.com/press-room/item/403-minimum-wage

Ivar's estimates that overall customer costs have increased by 4% at their full-service restaurants and 3% at their seafood bars. Note that Ivar's was already paying above-industry wages and benefits:



The paradox is that the only employees at Ivar's full-service restaurants who were earning the minimum wage were those least in need of a wage increase (servers and bartenders who had "earned an average of $18 to $19 an hour in tips on top of the $9.47 minimum wage", or about $28/hr).

Ivar's, Costco, and Dick's are examples that good value, higher wages, and full benefits are not contradictions. Compared to companies like Walmart, they are able to add to the economy without having to leech off of the tax-payer in the form of additional needed social benefits.

When you say "whether it is good, bad, or indifferent for others depends on many different factors, it seems to me", are you referring to the 80+% of Americans that are in the middle class that are NOT going to benefit from this? How is this a good thing when it helps a minority of people, but may hurt the majority? Even if we weren't sure if it would help or hurt the majority of Americans, shouldn't this have been studied first?

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't care whatsoever what Seattle does. The cost of living in Seattle is certainly high enough to warrant across-the-board minimum wage increases, and probably explains why patrons of Ivars can still afford to pay a tip despite the price hikes. Seattle's median income is $80,000/year.

$80,000 median: Income gain in Seattle far outpaces other cities | The Seattle Times

On the other hand, Spokane's median income is about $47K

Spokane Washington Household Income | Department of Numbers

And the rural towns are much less than that, but yet the minimum wage is only slightly less than Seattle's.

When prices go up do to increased labor costs, who do you think it will affect more? The high-income Seattle liberals who voted this through? Or the rest of us?

[Blitzmark]

I'm curious about those who work for big conglomerates like Walmart, Rite Aid, Walgreens, Safeway, Jiffy Lube, and otherwise huge corporations that cannot be put out of business by such an increase in wages.

Have you had a decrease in your hours?
Have you had benefits cut? Sick time? Holiday pay?

I still believe massive companies will find a way to offset the additional costs of higher wages, at the cost of the employees.......


A friend of mine makes $13.79 an hour. He Didn't get a raise on January 1st, while his minimum wage coworkers did..... Up to $11 an hour. Needless to say, he's less than thrilled!


Thank you.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by PS90

When you say "whether it is good, bad, or indifferent for others depends on many different factors, it seems to me", are you referring to the 80+% of Americans that are in the middle class that are NOT going to benefit from this?

That "middle-class" was largely created by Henry Ford raising its wage to $5/day, which influenced many other employers to raise their wage, enabling "workers" to be consumers as much as producers. Increased demand can increase employment and, thus, income. The biggest factor in the shrinking of the middle class has been wage stagnation and growing income inequality due to "pied piper economics" from the 1980s on.

It shouldn't pass notice that the highest unemployment is in areas with the lowest wages. Suppressing wages and holding workers in economic thrall will not protect the middle class from continuing to shrink, let alone lead to its expansion.

I'm not arguing that a higher minimum wage (and other forced employee benefits) can't have ill effects, especially if increased too precipitously. I've made my case why raising the minimum wage can have a wide range of effects (good, bad, or indifferent). If you want someone merely to play Tweedledee to your Tweedledum, look elsewhere.

[mhays25]

Huge corporations can simply close shop, and they often do for underperforming stores. A silver lining might be that others will pick up the slack.

This whole topic will play out as a series of unintended consequence dominoes. Some good, some not.

The point about the 80% is true. Those earning $17/hour will have less buying power due to both higher business costs and competing renters for example being able to pay more. This will have a lot of ripple effects.

There will be job losses. Some of that is due to not being a closed system. A production plant or call center in Spokane or Longview might find it cheaper to relocate across the state line. The average fast food place will eliminate jobs as Washington will be at the leading edge of food service automation. Actually every low-paying industry will be more interested in automation. Restaurants will buy increasing amounts of food pre-made. It's not that people crave automated cash registers, it's that they'll like saving a buck or two every day, whether that's a conscious thought or just a lack of negative reinforcement.

On the flip side, the people who retain jobs will be the efficient, effective people. A staff of four rather than five might be nearly as productive. But you don't want to be #5.

Meanwhile family-owned places will do great. You don't have to pay the kids or spouse anything.

[PS90]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

If you want someone merely to play Tweedledee to your Tweedledum, look elsewhere.

You don't want to "play", yet you just had to get the last word.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by PS90

You don't want to "play", yet you just had to get the last word.

Sorry, but I don't live in an either/or universe. I believe in continuums, not idealogical/dialectical oppositions (whether on the Right or the Left).

[PS90]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

If you want someone merely to play Tweedledee to your Tweedledum, look elsewhere.

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Sorry, but I don't live in an either/or universe. I believe in continuums, not idealogical/dialectical oppositions (whether on the Right or the Left).

You did it again. You don't want me to "play", but yet you feel the need to keep voicing your own opinion. Sounds like a liberal to me...

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by mhays25

Huge corporations can simply close shop, and they often do for underperforming stores. A silver lining might be that others will pick up the slack.

This whole topic will play out as a series of unintended consequence dominoes. Some good, some not.

The point about the 80% is true. Those earning $17/hour will have less buying power due to both higher business costs and competing renters for example being able to pay more. This will have a lot of ripple effects.

There will be job losses. Some of that is due to not being a closed system. A production plant or call center in Spokane or Longview might find it cheaper to relocate across the state line. The average fast food place will eliminate jobs as Washington will be at the leading edge of food service automation. Actually every low-paying industry will be more interested in automation. Restaurants will buy increasing amounts of food pre-made. It's not that people crave automated cash registers, it's that they'll like saving a buck or two every day, whether that's a conscious thought or just a lack of negative reinforcement.

On the flip side, the people who retain jobs will be the efficient, effective people. A staff of four rather than five might be nearly as productive. But you don't want to be #5.

Meanwhile family-owned places will do great. You don't have to pay the kids or spouse anything.

Not that many family owned businesses have kids working there. I had a business for 16 years and my kids had jobs elsewhere, in work they were interested in for the future. I hired others, and paid more than minimum because I required experience. The last employee before I gave it up in the recession was at $12/hour, and that was in 2007.

[PS90]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

Not that many family owned businesses have kids working there. I had a business for 16 years and my kids had jobs elsewhere, in work they were interested in for the future. I hired others, and paid more than minimum because I required experience. The last employee before I gave it up in the recession was at $12/hour, and that was in 2007.

I agree, in a way.

One thing that I found astounding was a guy who was interviewed on a piece on the Seattle news, who basically said that he wasn't worried about having to pay above minimum wage - because he already paid far above minimum because he wanted to hire the best people he could find.

While I really do think that his intentions and business model were admirable, what I didn't understand, and would have loved to be the interviewer in this case, was how this guy plans on continuing to hire the "best" people, when the minimum wage increase now means that the bottom-of-the-barrel employee is now making the same as he was paying his "best" people?

To me, other than across-the-board price hikes, that's the biggest problem with this whole thing - suddenly, everyone who is making above minimum wage is no longer valued for making more than the lowest-common-denominator, so those people either need raises as well (which, from my own experience, isn't happening), or those people are suddenly worth much less than they were a month ago.

[PS90]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Try responding to something that I actually posted, if you want a response from me. So far, you've done nothing of the sort. Mis-aimed rhetorical slams and trollish broadsides will only get the response they deserve from me, which is no response at all. Not responding is not the voicing of an opinion, by the way.

I could give a crap what your politics are and you clearly don't have a clue as to what mine are - they're not reducible to an either/or, us/them, Tweedledee/Tweedledum opposition, as I've stated, now for the third-time. Do you have a problem with that?

Whoa. Calm down, buddy. It's only an internet forum...