Surprise! Leftist Minimum Wage Policy Backfires in Seattle Suburb

[heckler73]

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/seattle-minimum-wage-increases-go-effect-april-2015

The new law has different requirements based on the employer’s total number of employees working anywhere in the U.S. For example, starting April 1, 2015, businesses that employ more than 500 employees, or “Schedule 1 employers,” will be required to pay covered employees at least $11.00 per hour, with incremental increases each January 1 thereafter. Employers with 500 or fewer employees, or “Schedule 2 employers,” also must pay covered employees at least $11.00 per hour beginning April 1, but may use a credit of $1.00 per hour if they pay wages plus tips, medical insurance premiums, and certain other benefits itemized in the new law. The required minimum wage also will increase for Schedule 2 employers every January 1 thereafter.
...
Employers with employees working within the City of Seattle should prepare for the April 2015 wage increase. Such efforts should include determining your schedule size, identifying covered employees, considering the impact this increase may have on the morale of employees working outside of Seattle, and accounting for the anticipated increases in any business forecasting. Employers also should continue to monitor whether other cities in the state adopt a similar law. Attorneys at our Seattle office are ready to provide appropriate legal counsel.

A copy of the Seattle ordinance, which includes notice requirements, enforcement procedures, and penalties for noncompliance, is available here.

Little steps.

 

[UncleBuck]

And the funny thing is that most economists and people with a brain would say an increase in line with inflation is ok, it's the stupid big jumps proposed by lefties that people oppose, not the concept of minimum wage itself.

now if republicans can only manage to stall any increase until an "increase in line with inflation" is talked about as a "stupid big jump", we can stagnate wages even moreso than we do now.

 

[Harrekin]

now if republicans can only manage to stall any increase until an "increase in line with inflation" is talked about as a "stupid big jump", we can stagnate wages even moreso than we do now.

You're literally mentally retarded.

Idiot.

 

[Ra$p0tin]

quality post.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Do you have anything that is worthy of the post reply button? Or do you just enjoy spamming the forum?

 

[pinkjackyle]

all this were talking about will mean nothing in a very short time . gazprom just started selling oil and gas in the ruble and yuan dumping the petro dollar .they signed a huge contract with china for yuan . the eu will have to buy all of their oil and gas with either ruble or yuan as well or freeze . when all those dollars start washing up back to US its gonna be super inflation . india will want in on that action and saudia arabia will oblige because its cheaper not to exchange currancy as the clearing houses take a % for doing so . then we'll all be in the same boat and the bullshit petty arguements yall are having will melt away because well all be hungry .

 

[god1]

so we can't raise min wage because it will hurt the more skilled workers, thus the low skill workers need to bootstrap themselves up because the high skilled workers can't bootstrap up?

makes a ton of fucking sense, moron.

low skill jobs are never gonna go away, the least we can do is give work dignity and not make full time workers stand in a welfare line to feed their kids.

I understand you have a logic comprehension problem so let me see if I can explain it for you;

Smart people don’t make careers at menial jobs. It never was meant to be. Nobody but a nitwit would attempt to start a family making no more than minimum wage. You wouldn’t even try that. Only stupid people would do that!

Nobody would actually pay a toilet scraper the same wage they paid a skilled worker such as a welder? Nobody would.

I don’t know if you understood the graphs that Heckler put up, but there always will be a distribution. (Hecklers point is that the middle class is quickly becoming the new bottom). Somebody is always going to be on the bottom. It doesn’t matter if you jack the minimum wage up by 300%, that job is always going to be a menial job and that guy doing it will always struggle --- the curve just gets offset over time.

I know it’s complicated, but think about it for a while.

Stop being so fucking obtuse and try and use that melon keeping your ears apart. If you’re that guy doing the menial job, then the burden is on you to figure out how to get out. It’s called dead end for a reason.

 

[god1]

I don't believe that is the debate at all.
I am talking about a cold fact of progress. Specifically of the technological kind.
I am talking about the decisions of managers when they consider an equation (albeit loose) such as:

I am talking about the stagnant (or falling) incomes of the bottom 80%.
These are things beyond the grasp of "personal choice", if I'm understanding your definition of it.
The irony is, these "improvements" have a more crippling effect on those one would consider Upper-Middle Class. What may be difficult to perceive from that Mean Income chart I made is the compression.

Eventually, we're all just going to be servicing each other for $20 a pop.
What kind of future is that?

View attachment 3241076

Heckler I understand where you’re coming from. But we disagree about how much one individual can control his destiny. If you end up working for the “man”, you’re pretty much stuck, especially if you’re doing it late in life. But individuals make those choices.

The sad fact is, most people wake up way too late. The other sad fact is, lot of people get stuck in a “rut” and never recognize it until its hopelessly late. They’re just unprepared; they haven’t thought ahead and they haven’t planned. Minimum wage is a feel good "blinder".

Nobody is forcing anybody to work for anybody. People get “lulled” to sleep; not cognizant that change can happen at any time. So they end up trapped --- who’s fault is that?

In your chart, those wages below the median are flat; I know there's been some saturation at the 5 percentile, but if you were a young man having to make a choice today, what side of that distribution are you going to target?

If you don’t want to be on low side of the distribution you need to figure out how not to be there. By definition the government can’t spend enough to change the shape of the curve; the individual has some responsibility for those decisions.

Say you could magically give all the people stuck in menial jobs a one time 500% raise; given the fact that it’s a dead end menial job would your recommendation to young people be, “hold’em” or take the opportunity to move on?

It's always about choice and minimizing risk. The individual has to decide how bad they want it. Sometimes luck is on your side, sometimes not.

People like Bucky will always be dependent on other people. Either that, or he's just ranting for entertainment purposes. I think he practices real hard at pretending to be stupid.

 

[god1]

all this were talking about will mean nothing in a very short time . gazprom just started selling oil and gas in the ruble and yuan dumping the petro dollar .they signed a huge contract with china for yuan . the eu will have to buy all of their oil and gas with either ruble or yuan as well or freeze . when all those dollars start washing up back to US its gonna be super inflation . india will want in on that action and saudia arabia will oblige because its cheaper not to exchange currancy as the clearing houses take a % for doing so . then we'll all be in the same boat and the bullshit petty arguements yall are having will melt away because well all be hungry .

Re same boat;
That's exactly what some people want to do; stick everybody in the same boat. Thank goodness, in this country, you can still make choices so that doesn't necessarily have to be.

 

[pinkjackyle]

Re same boat;
That's exactly what some people want to do; stick everybody in the same boat. Thank goodness, in this country, you can still make choices so that doesn't necessarily have to be.

when its cheaper to wipe your ass with $100 bills than to buy toilet paper tell me which boat you will be in .

 

[god1]

when its cheaper to wipe your ass with $100 bills than to buy toilet paper tell me which boat you will be in .

actually i'll never be in a boat --- i have a couple pieces of property with big mountains!

 

[god1]

now if republicans can only manage to stall any increase until an "increase in line with inflation" is talked about as a "stupid big jump", we can stagnate wages even moreso than we do now.

Ahaha ---- Bucky, admit it, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Maybe I should send you that pink calculator, that might help. It's got a "math" major function!

 

[ttystikk]

So basically vindictive business are punishing employees for gov't mandated pay increases. No matter what, the worker loses. Great country we got here.

But remember, a vote for a republican us a vote to continue and increase these policies. And a vote for a democrat amounts to the same thing, once the lobbyists get in the four.

So, rabble rousing in the street is all we have left? Now I get it;

THAT'S why they're giving all that military hardware to civilian police forces!

 

[NoDrama]

so basically the same or higher tax rate for businesses in oregon. got it. you're full of shit.

wow, you must have that reading compensation problem again kiddo. Idaho tax rate 7.6%, Oregon Average tax rate 6.6%
That would be almost 100 basis points in difference little dumb dumb. Many Oregon Businesses pay less than that, because unlike Idaho, Oregon likes to tax the wealthy more and the not so wealthy less. In Idaho everyone is treated the same, there is only one rate, unlike Oregon where the rate varies depending on how much profit you make, what you would call progressive and what I would call unfair.

 

[UncleBuck]

wow, you must have that reading compensation problem again kiddo. Idaho tax rate 7.6%, Oregon Average tax rate 6.6%
That would be almost 100 basis points in difference little dumb dumb. Many Oregon Businesses pay less than that, because unlike Idaho, Oregon likes to tax the wealthy more and the not so wealthy less. In Idaho everyone is treated the same, there is only one rate, unlike Oregon where the rate varies depending on how much profit you make, what you would call progressive and what I would call unfair.

it's actually 7.4% in idaho and 6.6% in oregon on profits under $10,000,000.

with 4,253 walmarts making $17 billion every year, that works out to about $4,000,000 a store (for our hypothetical purposes).

that would mean $296k in taxes in idaho and $264k in taxes in oregon.

a tax savings of about $32k for the year.

WOW!

with a $2 difference in the minimum wage, how many man-hours until that savings gets consumed?

one worker working 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year would eat $4,000 of that savings.

so if you can run that super walmart on less than 8 workers, than you will see some savings.

but with 2 million employees across 4,253 stores, for an average of 470 employees per store, i don't think you're gonna see any savings there.

try another reason, smarty.



http://www.statisticbrain.com/wal-mart-company-statistics/

 

[UncleBuck]

You're literally mentally retarded.

Idiot.

they won't have to stall things for too long before the next "increase in line with inflation" is seen as a "stupid big jump" though.

i have a feeling your lashing out at me is really you lashing out at yourself for not seeing the failure of your own argument there.

 

[UncleBuck]

I understand you have a logic comprehension problem so let me see if I can explain it for you;

Smart people don’t make careers at menial jobs. It never was meant to be. Nobody but a nitwit would attempt to start a family making no more than minimum wage. You wouldn’t even try that. Only stupid people would do that!

Nobody would actually pay a toilet scraper the same wage they paid a skilled worker such as a welder? Nobody would.

I don’t know if you understood the graphs that Heckler put up, but there always will be a distribution. (Hecklers point is that the middle class is quickly becoming the new bottom). Somebody is always going to be on the bottom. It doesn’t matter if you jack the minimum wage up by 300%, that job is always going to be a menial job and that guy doing it will always struggle --- the curve just gets offset over time.

I know it’s complicated, but think about it for a while.

Stop being so fucking obtuse and try and use that melon keeping your ears apart. If you’re that guy doing the menial job, then the burden is on you to figure out how to get out. It’s called dead end for a reason.

i'm just going by your logic.

we can't raise the minimum wage because it will hurt others making slightly more than minimum wage.

so therefore the minimum wage crew has to bootstrap themselves up!

but the same standard need not apply to those making above minimum wage. they cannot be expected to bootstrap themselves up, what with their extra resources and advanced education/skillset and all.

say, who ends up working all the minimum wage jobs once the original min wage crew all bootstraps themselves up?

quick, some desperate righty needs to ask why we don't just raise the minimum wage to SUPER INFINITI!!!!!! that will resolve this straightforward debate about livable wages.

 

[reasonevangelist]

As soon as people start growing their own food and stop buying the Nth iPhone sequel, and then start refusing to do hard labor for less than the cost of living, things will begin to self-correct.

I don't think it's right that "hard work" does not equal good pay. The less people willing to do a job, the higher that job should pay. If you can't run your business without what amounts to slave labor (though with the option to opt-out and starve...), then maybe you should do all the work yourself?

What's that? "Too hard" you say?

Welcome to reality.

I think we'll soon see a rise in "intentional communities."

That could address the homeless problem, and various others. Working for both yourself, and those you Choose to associate with, is far better than accepting a hard and low paying job with a shitty boss, and coworkers you can't stand.

 

[NoDrama]

try another reason, smarty.



http://www.statisticbrain.com/wal-mart-company-statistics/

That isn't how you would calculate that, but you have a hard enough time with arithmetic so, its like a handicap.

Another reason, besides the one about tax incentives?

Oh I dunno, how about because there is no sales tax in Oregon and 6% in Idaho, not including local?

Consumers generally will shop at the place that is guaranteed to be at least 6% cheaper on every item when there really is no difference in travel time or effort.

Does that rustle your jimmies?

 

[UncleBuck]

Oh I dunno, how about because there is no sales tax in Oregon and 6% in Idaho, not including local?

that's impossible because that would mean that the "job creators" are people with money to spend, rather than large corporations.

way to totally detail how badly i fucked up my calculation, i guess there was nothing on the internet for you to plagiarize to rebut it.

 

[reasonevangelist]

that's impossible because that would mean that the "job creators" are people with money to spend, rather than large corporations.

way to totally detail how badly i fucked up my calculation, i guess there was nothing on the internet for you to plagiarize to rebut it.

According to law, Corporations ARE people with money to spend.