Minimum Wage: Running from the Facts

An article to read:

Seattle Progressives Stick Their Heads in the Sand on Minimum Wages

Last month, a group of scholars commissioned by the city of Seattle to study the effects of hiking the minimum wage struck a blow at the national “fight for 15” movement.

Their findings, which were widely covered in the media, showed that Seattle’s $13 minimum wage — part of a gradual increase to $15 — had all the negative effects that opponents of the policy feared. Low-wage employees had their hours cut by 3.5 million in a single quarter, costing more than $120 million in lost wages. The average worker lost $1,500 of income per year, hardly something those struggling to support themselves or their families could afford.

When faced with this data, even left-leaning publications such as Slate questioned whether the “fight for 15” had gone too far and was hurting those it was intended to help. So what did the Seattle City Council do? They killed the messengers and stuck their head in the sand.

It turns out that Seattle stopped funding the University of Washington research team led by Jacob Vigdor last fall, after the council had seen preliminary results. (The contract was supposed to run for five years, but it relied on annual appropriations for funding.) Their replacement? Berkeley economics professor Michael Reich, whose research coincidentally shows that minimum-wage increases help low-income workers....

Click to expand...

Meanwhile, I looked into the UC-Berkeley "economist" they have now hired to do a new study to replace the one they didn't like. He publicly declares himself an enemy of capitalism and wants to end it in the USA. Yes, that should be an unbiased study!

PrincepsCyberius said:

An article to read:

Seattle Progressives Stick Their Heads in the Sand on Minimum Wages



Meanwhile, I looked into the UC-Berkeley "economist" they have now hired to do a new study to replace the one they didn't like. He publicly declares himself an enemy of capitalism and wants to end it in the USA. Yes, that should be an unbiased study!

Click to expand...

As much as I hate to say it, this isn't exactly uncommon for groups that want a survey, poll, or research. The results are almost always skewed towards the desired answer.

Washington state has a lot of really good people with good brains. Then there are the others that live around the I-5 corridor. Ugh. They just don't get real life. Even their idiotic mayor was literally calling for a lawsuit to fight against their new socialist "tax the rich" program. Maybe they should have listened to the UW study, then they wouldn't have to have a special tax for rich folks to be able to pay for more benefits to people making $15/hr.

The Fight for 15 has proven a real boon to some of us living in Columbus, Ohio. The engineering team at a large fast food brand has been on an automation tear for months now. Contracting with robotics integrators to upgrade their stores, installing robots to cook and prep the food. In turn, the market for integrators is seeing high demand, and as a result great pay days.

Why is a fast food giant moving from people to machines You don''t have to pay robots... Or computer kiosks... They never call in sick. Never threaten to unionize. They never turn up on YouTube washing their feet or their junk in the kitchen... And a couple of service techs can support multiple restaurants!

At $7.00, the cost of automation won't base the cost-benefit test. But at $15.00 an hour, it makes fiscal sense to bring in the robots. And just a minimum effort spent researching to drive to automate fast food will show that others are already on the automation wagon as well.

Now, what do you suppose will happen to the jobs of all those people demanding $15.00 an hour to flip burgers and shack fries into a paper sleeve once the robots and kiosks are on line?

"had all the negative effects that opponents of the policy feared. Low-wage employees had their hours cut by 3.5 million in a single quarter, costing more than $120 million in lost wages."

There's a flip side to this. They had to work fewer hours to earn the same money. That made time available to either make money some other way or to rest/recreate from their jobs.

sr71plt said:

"had all the negative effects that opponents of the policy feared. Low-wage employees had their hours cut by 3.5 million in a single quarter, costing more than $120 million in lost wages."

There's a flip side to this. They had to work fewer hours to earn the same money. That made time available to either make money some other way or to rest/recreate from their jobs.

Click to expand...

Trust me. I do a lot of volunteer work in the inner city. It is middle-class arrogance to think "low wage" workers would value an opportunity "to rest/recreate" at the cost of "lost wages." They are doing their best just to make rent and pay their bills. Even ten or twenty dollars less a week is a great burden to their tight budgets.

Can they "make money some other way"? Maybe, but that adds all sorts of complications in terms of transportation, child care, etc. Please don't try to impose your middle-class values on people for whom you apparently have little understanding or concern.

DawnODay said:

Trust me. I do a lot of volunteer work in the inner city. It is middle-class arrogance to think "low wage" workers would value an opportunity "to rest/recreate" at the cost of "lost wages." They are doing their best just to make rent and pay their bills. Even ten or twenty dollars less a week is a great burden to their tight budgets.

Can they "make money some other way"? Maybe, but that adds all sorts of complications in terms of transportation, child care, etc. Please don't try to impose your middle-class values on people for whom you apparently have little understanding or concern.

Click to expand...

This^^

DawnODay said:

Trust me. I do a lot of volunteer work in the inner city. It is middle-class arrogance to think "low wage" workers would value an opportunity "to rest/recreate" at the cost of "lost wages." They are doing their best just to make rent and pay their bills. Even ten or twenty dollars less a week is a great burden to their tight budgets.

Can they "make money some other way"? Maybe, but that adds all sorts of complications in terms of transportation, child care, etc. Please don't try to impose your middle-class values on people for whom you apparently have little understanding or concern.

Click to expand...

I didn't post that they would welcome the fewer hours--although there's a point at which being paid more per hour does negate the need to work longer hours. When you respond to what I actually posted, maybe there's a basis for discussion on this.

sr71plt said:

I didn't post that they would welcome the fewer hours--although there's a point at which being paid more per hour does negate the need to work longer hours. When you respond to what I actually posted, maybe there's a basis for discussion on this.

Click to expand...

Your go-to when someone takes one of your dumb ass posts, shoves it up your elitist ass and snaps it off at the base.

It's certainly a problem and one that people assumed would happen with the ACA. People thought that Obamacare would lead to a lot of businesses kicking employees off employer provided healthcare and onto Obamacare and it didn't happen. In fact, you've got a good number of small businesses buying into Obamacare.

The opposite happened with the minimum wage. Because they had to pay workers more businesses reduced their hours, causing workers to earn less. That's what the study says and that's the $125/month loss in wages (reduced hours -$179/month + minimum age increase +$59/month page 36).

Now if you bother to read the study (which National Review didn't unsurprisingly, you'll see on page 24 that the number of jobs paying more than $19 increased by 13% in number of jobs and by 15% in hours worked. The Slate article makes this point too.

The study also used the food and beverage industry as a sort of test case for the policy. If you look at the findings for that on page 25 you'll see everything went up: hours (+0.1%) and wages (+12%).

The interesting thing here is that Seattle is growing a lot (in population and jobs) so it's not a shock that there are lots of jobs in the over $19/hour section. Even a Heritage Foundation dude makes this point. In fact, he (and the study) point out this piece of information that NR of course glosses over:

Lo and behold, single-site companies in Seattle had 6,000 fewer jobs paying below $19 per hour in 2016 than they had in 2014. The same companies added 50,000 jobs paying $19 an hour or more.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the minimum wage goes up further and Seattle becomes less of a boom town.

dan_c00000 said:

It's certainly a problem and one that people assumed would happen with the ACA. People thought that Obamacare would lead to a lot of businesses kicking employees off employer provided healthcare and onto Obamacare and it didn't happen. In fact, you've got a good number of small businesses buying into Obamacare.

The opposite happened with the minimum wage. Because they had to pay workers more businesses reduced their hours, causing workers to earn less. That's what the study says and that's the $125/month loss in wages (reduced hours -$179/month + minimum age increase +$59/month page 36).

Now if you bother to read the study (which National Review didn't unsurprisingly, you'll see on page 24 that the number of jobs paying more than $19 increased by 13% in number of jobs and by 15% in hours worked. The Slate article makes this point too.

The study also used the food and beverage industry as a sort of test case for the policy. If you look at the findings for that on page 25 you'll see everything went up: hours (+0.1%) and wages (+12%).

The interesting thing here is that Seattle is growing a lot (in population and jobs) so it's not a shock that there are lots of jobs in the over $19/hour section. Even a Heritage Foundation dude makes this point. In fact, he (and the study) point out this piece of information that NR of course glosses over:

Lo and behold, single-site companies in Seattle had 6,000 fewer jobs paying below $19 per hour in 2016 than they had in 2014. The same companies added 50,000 jobs paying $19 an hour or more.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the minimum wage goes up further and Seattle becomes less of a boom town.

Click to expand...

Wow. That's cold.

So, in other words, you think it's okay to put low income people out of work so long as the upper income sector is growing.

Like I said... Cold.

This doesn't necessarily hurt my wallet but it does ruin my work environment. Techs get paid very little and you can really tell that they are struggling. There's also no loyalty when it comes to both the company and it's low wage workers. So, techs don't give a shit about being on time, making sure the pharmacy is presentable, or even restocking vials, caps, inventory, etc. The only option is to send them home and write them up which just makes my job harder.

I sold sanity for money, and that is my biggest regret. Seriously, I've lost my mind. My mind is shot, my health is shot, my social life is shot.... and it's becsuse I sold myself out to corporate suits who have turned healthcare into a shopping mall of drugs.

The government has to step in to stop CVS and WAGS. They cannot fail naturally like Blockbuster did or Best Buy is doing. They don't just sell goods and services. They sell necessities, and they monopolize the market.

Fuck pharmacy. Don't become a pharmacist.

sr71plt said:

I didn't post that they would welcome the fewer hours--although there's a point at which being paid more per hour does negate the need to work longer hours. When you respond to what I actually posted, maybe there's a basis for discussion on this.

Click to expand...

Let's see here... if you look above, you will see I highlighted about two-thirds of your post and responded directly to the broader points to which those highlights pertain. I don't seem to have missed anything. So I suspect it's true when they say that you claiming the other side missed your point is:

BotanyBoy said:

Your go-to when someone takes one of your dumb ass posts, shoves it up your elitist ass and snaps it off at the base.

Click to expand...

But, oh-you-who-claims-to-have-been-a-"sr71plt," I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: Tell me what in your post I missed and I promise to respond.

Really, I mean it. I enjoy this. Please don't do what I've seen you do on other threads and as soon as you realize that you're losing, you just stop posting.

No, when I see that the "discussion" obviously isn't going to go anywhere, I just stop posting. I also stop posting before others do because I'm occasionally accused of having to have the last word, so I make sure that someone else (like you, here) are still yammering when I leave. I'm on Literotica to write erotica (the purpose of this site). When I see something I want to comment on, I do so, and then, yes, often trot off because I don't want to get bogged down with some of the crazy nuts who are just posting on a porn site to pretend like ranting here gives them some sort of meaningful "vote" in issues.

You got off on a tangent that had nothing to do with what I was posting (just quoting something doesn't mean anything) and that I have no interest in engaging with you on. If that frustrates you, tough. Feel free to declare a victory and go preen yourself.

My position on minimum wage is that in any company where the CEO is taking more than $250,000 annually in salary and benefits, isn't paying the workers on the line enough at any less than $20/hour, with benefits.

sr71plt said:

My position on minimum wage is that in any company where the CEO is taking more than $250,000 annually in salary and benefits, isn't paying the workers on the line enough at any less than $20/hour, with benefits.

Click to expand...

I'm laughing. We have more in common than you might think, Pilot. Definitely. In addition to writing erotica and losing writing time on diversions. I disagree with the increas in the minimum wage but on the other hand there's a lot of greedy CEOs out there milking the company that employs them far to excess while simultaneously screwing their employees. I just look at meat processors plants like where I grew up that used to pay good wages, like $20 an hour when my dad was a teenager and they've been bought up by the big chains who've shipped in Mexicans and whoever and pay them minimum wage now while the company that owns them makes a gazillion in profits that they dodge taxes on. No sense of social responsibility and because they're a large corp there's no loyalty to the community either. Sucks big time.

Chloe, I know this is a thousand times easier said than done -because try as I might, I often fail to find options- but we do control the profits of big businesses. Where I can, I buy local, if the quality is there. Some things are easier (lots of mom and pop meat Packers in Ohio), others just suck (try finding a locally made pair of jeans)...

Maybe a local/us made, uS employed clearing house?

Anyone know of one?

DawnODay said:

...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: Tell me what in your post I missed and I promise to respond.

Really, I mean it. I enjoy this...

Click to expand...

sr71plt said:

...

You got off on a tangent that had nothing to do with what I was posting (just quoting something doesn't mean anything) and that I have no interest in engaging with you on. If that frustrates you, tough. Feel free to declare a victory and go preen yourself....

Click to expand...

I see. So you still can't define how I "got off tangent," you just assert that I did and use that as an excuse not to acknowledge a point that undermines your position. I see that BotanyBoy was exactly right in what he posted above.

sr71plt said:

...

My position on minimum wage is that in any company where the CEO is taking more than $250,000 annually in salary and benefits, isn't paying the workers on the line enough at any less than $20/hour, with benefits.

Click to expand...

Alright, my dear clearly-lacks-the-self-confidence-to-have-ever-been-a-"sr71plt," I'll give you another chance to prove you're not afraid to intellectually engage a woman with a differing opinion:

You say "any company where the CEO is taking more than $250,000 annually in salary and benefits" should pay all of its employees at least "$20/hour, with benefits." What about employees who the numbers show don't deliver "$20/hour" in value-added to a company's production or service provision? Should the company have to lose money in paying them?

Gotham_Central said:

but we do control the profits of big businesses.

Click to expand...

You really don't.

DawnODay said:

You say "any company where the CEO is taking more than $250,000 annually in salary and benefits" should pay all of its employees at least "$20/hour, with benefits." What about employees who the numbers show don't deliver "$20/hour" in value-added to a company's production or service provision? Should the company have to lose money in paying them?

Click to expand...

I would say obviously not, but I'd also say that depends on what the boss or CEO is taking out. If you're paying yourself ten million and your employees minimum wage, there's something very wrong there. You also have to look at scale and size and then there's the companies that also hire illegals and foreign workers. It boils down to social responsibility and a lot of large companies don't have that any more. We need to do what was done decades ago and force the breakup of these large socially irresponsible companies (which means most of them).

DawnODay said:

I see. So you still can't define how I "got off tangent," you just assert that I did and use that as an excuse not to acknowledge a point that undermines your position. I see that BotanyBoy was exactly right in what he posted above.

Click to expand...

You posted: "It is middle-class arrogance to think "low wage" workers would value an opportunity "to rest/recreate" at the cost of "lost wages." They are doing their best just to make rent and pay their bills. Even ten or twenty dollars less a week is a great burden to their tight budgets."

So, A., your approach is to define me and denigrate me from the get go. Right there I stop wanting to discuss a damn thing with you. B. The rest of it has nothing to do with what I posted, which was the more money for fewer hours arriving at the same pay does, in fact, relieve the number of hours required to earn that money. I'm not even bothering to read very far into any of your posts.

Now, go argue with yourself, because I'm not going to argue with you. You lost me from the get go. And what you're doing now is just showing you want to argue to be arguing. I don't give a shit what you think about it.

Gotham_Central said:

Chloe, I know this is a thousand times easier said than done -because try as I might, I often fail to find options- but we do control the profits of big businesses. Where I can, I buy local, if the quality is there. Some things are easier (lots of mom and pop meat Packers in Ohio), others just suck (try finding a locally made pair of jeans)...

Maybe a local/us made, uS employed clearing house?

Anyone know of one?

Click to expand...

Yes, I do the same thing every time I can.

PrincepsCyberius said:

So, in other words, you think it's okay to put low income people out of work so long as the upper income sector is growing.

Click to expand...

That's not even close to what I said. Good job. Why don't you re-read my post, read the actual study, and then read the Slate article.

Oh and stopping read the National Review it did almost as shitty a job as you did when it comes to reading comprehension.

I know you didn't read a single thing I wrote (or have written on here) because you'll see I constantly destroy pathetic fucks like you who hate poor people.

Let me just ruin your asshole further: I think that CEOs who make 300 times more than what their workers do should be forced to give that 299 times more back to their employees.

Don't let the door hit your gaping butthole on the way out. Thanks.

sr71plt said:

You posted: "It is middle-class arrogance to think "low wage" workers would value an opportunity "to rest/recreate" at the cost of "lost wages." They are doing their best just to make rent and pay their bills. Even ten or twenty dollars less a week is a great burden to their tight budgets."

So, A., your approach is to define me and denigrate me from the get go. Right there I stop wanting to discuss a damn thing with you. B. The rest of it has nothing to do with what I posted, which was the more money for fewer hours arriving at the same pay does, in fact, relieve the number of hours required to earn that money. I'm not even bothering to read very far into any of your posts.

Now, go argue with yourself, because I'm not going to argue with you. You lost me from the get go. And what you're doing now is just showing you want to argue to be arguing. I don't give a shit what you think about it.

Click to expand...

I can't help but notice you still have not made any actual counter-arguments to Dawn's points. You just keep coming up with excuses not to argue her, apparently because you have no counterarguments to offer.

Dude, face it... You just got beat up by a girl!

No, not arguing does not constitute not being able to argue the point. You show your wish just to argue by claiming that. Not arguing with you two is more a disgust with you two as people and not caring what you think. It's why I put Chloe in ignore and now have done the same with you two. I'm letting you do your thing--just not with me. You mean nothing to me. It says a lot that you don't want to leave it there, that you have to bully others.

sr71plt said:

It's why I put Chloe in ignore and now have done the same with you two....

Click to expand...

You don't have me on ignore. You're just teasing me coz I got you mad. But I'll just look sad and cry until you talk to me again.

PrincepsCyberius said:

So, in other words, you think it's okay to put low income people out of work so long as the upper income sector is growing.

Click to expand...

dan_c00000 said:

That's not even close to what I said. Good job. Why don't you re-read my post, read the actual study, and then read the Slate article....

I know you didn't read a single thing I wrote (or have written on here) because you'll see I constantly destroy pathetic fucks like you who hate poor people....

Click to expand...

Actually, Dan, I have read the entire University of Washington "study." It's a preliminary report, actually, not a complete study, something I'm surprised you didn't realize. I have read your post again, which make several times now. I'm a lawyer by training, reading and analysis are two of my things. After rereading your post, my analysis remains this: Your post supra declares that you think it's okay to put low income people out of work so long as the upper income sector is growing.

Allow me to quote from your post: "Because they had to pay workers more, businesses reduced their hours, causing workers to earn less" (emphasis added). Of course, the only workers that employers "had to pay... more" are those making minimum wage, or close to it. Your own post concedes, as the UofW report makes clear: "Low-wage employees had their hours cut by 3.5 million in a single quarter, costing more than $120 million in lost wages." (Do you deny this?)

Then you go on to write that that's okay because: "the number of jobs paying more than $19 increased by 13% in number of jobs and by 15% in hours worked" (emphasis added). So, in your analysis, it's alright that low-wage employees lost "more than $120 million" in total wages because, at the same time, those making a middle class income of ~$40k "increased by 13%."

I trust you're not claiming that those who had been making minimum wage before are now suddenly making $19 an hour. They are not. Under the increased minimum wage, they are making less, as you concede, because "businesses reduced their hours." You justify this blow to the poor by a 13% increase in middle class workers. Now, which of us "hate poor people"?

Incidentally, while I do not usually bother responding to ad hominem arguments, and will not bother with the ones where you became vulgar, let me just set you straight about my alleged hatred of poor people. I was a trial lawyer for almost twenty years, making a good six figures a year by the time I retired in my late forties. Instead, because I wanted to do something more meaningful in life than litigate business disputes for rich people, I accepted an academic fellowship with a local university that had me working with students with cognitive disabilities in Milwaukee public high schools. I now work full time for MPS, earning about a third of my old income, running a pilot program for adult students (18-21 years old) with developmental disabilities (e.g. cognitive disability, autism, etc.) to prepare them to live as independently as possible and, for those who can hold a paying job, to find them paying jobs by the time they are 21. All of these students are economically disadvantaged people of color.

You see, Dan, some people merely claim to care about the socially disadvantaged, others act to help them. I have devoted the rest of my professional life to it at significant financial loss to myself. What, Dan, have you done?

Indeed, wanting to help the economically disadvantaged is why I oppose these artificial and drastic increases in the minimum wage. As the UofW (and countless other) report shows, it actually causes low wage employees to lose money as their hours are cut or jobs eliminated. At some point, automation makes economic sense for many currently low wage jobs. Increasing the minimum wage merely means we'll have more robots and less jobs for the socially disadvantaged. Is that really what you want, Dan?