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.
We tried to tell them the consequences of raising minimum wage...it was really mean spirited of us. They just got angry with us. We should have let them discover for themselves, without a heads up.
There's always an exception, but it's not the rule. Even with health care changes people got knocked down to part time status so that the employer would save on benefits. Same thing happens with minimum wages that are more than the business can handle.
Why should your boss subsidize you? If you only work 40 hours and cost the company the same, who gets paid for the other 40 hours that you used to do? or did it take you 80 hours to do 40 hours worth of work?
As far as I'm concerned, the entire west coast, as beautiful as the geography is, could form its own little country and secede, never to bother the rest of us again. They are already in a world of their own.
yep. good job.
We would be so fine with that!
"In other words, an average of 236 people are moving to the Seattle area each day..."
All these commenters have no idea why Seattle needs to encourage low wage workers to live downtown by increasing the minimum wage. But the best recommendation is just don't move to Seattle, we're full.
All these commenters have no idea why Seattle needs to encourage low wage workers to live downtown by increasing the minimum wage. But the best recommendation is just don't move to Seattle, we're full.
They must all be of the same mindset.
I personally know of conservatives who couldn't wait to leave the west coast (and are glad they did).
All those states they could go to and they skip them all and come to us? That growth is why we have to try to keep downtown employees living in downtown. The geography is surrounded by water. Freeways and bridges can only do so much. People don't seem to grasp the rationale for the Seattle minimum wage.
I believe the mandatory wage increase will eventually ride out this dip in hours. Businesses will lose customers with poor service due to lack of staff.
In the mean time it sounds like there are plenty of jobs to go around in Seattle. If your hours get cut at $15 McDonalds you can make the same at Wendy's.
I believe the mandatory wage increase will eventually ride out this dip in hours. Businesses will lose customers with poor service due to lack of staff.
In the mean time it sounds like there are plenty of jobs to go around in Seattle. If your hours get cut at $15 McDonalds you can make the same at Wendy's.
This Seattle unemployment rate is 2.60% but regardless, it's really low.
We tried to tell them the consequences of raising minimum wage...it was really mean spirited of us. They just got angry with us. We should have let them discover for themselves, without a heads up.
There's always an exception, but it's not the rule. Even with health care changes people got knocked down to part time status so that the employer would save on benefits. Same thing happens with minimum wages that are more than the business can handle.
Why should your boss subsidize you? If you only work 40 hours and cost the company the same, who gets paid for the other 40 hours that you used to do? or did it take you 80 hours to do 40 hours worth of work?
Enough people who want to reduce their working hours can do so with a higher minimum wage to make it statistically important. You are simply assuming that every hour less worked is a result of the employer deliberately cutting hours. Thats simply not the case. There is no subsidizing. The boss pays someone whatever he or she can get away with. Why do you cry so much over this anyway? People in Seattle obviously has no problem getting more jobs and hours if they want to. The unemployment rate is less than 3%. They get paid more per hour than in a long time. Time to worry about low wages for working stiffs in the South perhaps?
When Seattle officials voted three years ago to incrementally boost the city's minimum wage up to $15 an hour, they'd hoped to improve the lives of low-income workers. Yet according to a major new study that could force economists to reassess past research on the issue, the hike has had the opposite effect.
...On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum.
...past research might be less reliable because the results might reflect many workers who are not paid low wages, said Jacob Vigdor, an economist at the University of Washington and one of the authors of the new study.
...Vigdor said that restaurateurs in Seattle -- along with other employers -- responded to the minimum wage by hiring more skilled and experienced workers, who might be able to produce more revenue for their firms in the same amount of time.
That hypothesis has worrisome implications for less skilled workers. While there those with more ability might be paid more, junior workers might be losing an opportunity to work their way up. "Basically, what we’re doing is we’re removing the bottom rung of the ladder," Vigdor said.
Remember, this was supposed to be a way for those without any skills to earn more to make a "comfortable living". Fact is, they lose out with the wage increase, and lose money each month compared to what they made before.
Already a thread about this and other studies show the opposite. I also find it fascinating how they assume that all off the less hours worked is the result of employers cutting hours and not people who used to work 80 hours cutting down their hours worked to 40 or 50 to spend more time with family while still getting paid the same. On "average" this means a loss in income but workers would be better off. Considering how easy it is to get a job in Seattle for people who want it, I bet that effect is substantial.
Already a thread about this and other studies show the opposite. I also find it fascinating how they assume that all off the less hours worked is the result of employers cutting hours and not people who used to work 80 hours cutting down their hours worked to 40 or 50 to spend more time with family while still getting paid the same. On "average" this means a loss in income but workers would be better off. Considering how easy it is to get a job in Seattle for people who want it, I bet that effect is substantial.
I looked for a thread, didn't see one. Do you have a link to it?
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.
They just got angry with us. We should have let them discover for themselves, without a heads up.
They must all be of the same mindset. 
New Credible Study on $15/hr Min Wage Is Bad News For Liberals
