Seattle’s minimum wage hike hurting low-level workers

June 27, 2017, 05:05 AM

BurtonRW

quote:
Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
I have a degree in economics but am not taking a position one way or the other.

I'm sorry... not taking a position one way or the other on what, exactly?

Are you a Fucking Keynesian??

quote:
What I do know is that is takes at least X number of people to operate, for example, a Subway restaurant at any point in time, regardless of what the wage is. So until they can reduce or eliminate the need for X number of human workers, either Subway prices will have to rise, or the profits will decline and the store will close as the owner/operator seeks a better return on his/her capital.

Exactly. And necessity is the mother of invention, my friend, or haven't you been paying attention?

Automation is the future.

-Rob

June 27, 2017, 05:53 AM

Skins2881

quote:
Originally posted by Out West:
Econ 101. However, progressives don't much care for proven theory or sciences in general.

They're are getting bitch slapped by the Invisible Hand.

June 27, 2017, 06:26 AM

parabellum

Everything these children do is based upon emotion. There's not one single adult among them.

June 27, 2017, 08:02 AM

Edmond

quote:
Originally posted by nojoy:
The Seattle city council doesn't care. Agenda accomplished. We also have a devout socialist in the city council too. A real wack job.
As mentioned on an earlier post, things like food and rent are going up. Everybody wants that extra money. Which means at the end of the day, no realized pay raise at all. The council did this partly to keep themselves at their current positions longer.
Now the latest idea is an income tax for those that work in the city of Seattle making more than $200,000 a year. If passed, they could eventually go after everyone.

Class warfare at its finest there. Marx would've been proud.

Come election time, these loons tout about how they got people raises, how they helped the poor. Businesses close and move away and the loons blame the businesses. The emotionally driven idiots believe the loons and keep voting them in.

What a vicious cycle.

June 27, 2017, 08:09 AM

chellim1

quote:
Now the latest idea is an income tax for those that work in the city of Seattle making more than $200,000 a year. If passed, they could eventually go after everyone.

Class warfare at its finest there. Marx would've been proud.

Come election time, these loons tout about how they got people raises, how they helped the poor. Businesses close and move away and the loons blame the businesses. The emotionally driven idiots believe the loons and keep voting them in.

The City earnings tax is what killed the City of St. Louis. All the businesses and most people with a decent income moved out of the City. You can clearly see it on the graph below. The City earnings tax was begun in 1950, the population immediately began to decline.

Now, after 67 years of failure and decreasing population, the City of St. Louis has a new brilliant idea: They want to be "re-admitted" or merge with the County.

The Democrats have destroyed the City, now they want to take down the entire County.

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."
-- Justice Janice Rogers Brown

"The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth."
-rduckwor

June 27, 2017, 08:49 AM

mikeyspizza

quote:
Originally posted by BurtonRW:
quote:
Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
I have a degree in economics but am not taking a position one way or the other.

I'm sorry... not taking a position one way or the other on what, exactly?

Are you a Fucking Keynesian??

quote:
What I do know is that is takes at least X number of people to operate, for example, a Subway restaurant at any point in time, regardless of what the wage is. So until they can reduce or eliminate the need for X number of human workers, either Subway prices will have to rise, or the profits will decline and the store will close as the owner/operator seeks a better return on his/her capital.

Exactly. And necessity is the mother of invention, my friend, or haven't you been paying attention?

Automation is the future.

-Rob

I have a BA in Econ and believe in free market capitalism, and the Seattle result is the knee-jerk result I expected.

The WaPo article I linked gives more information on complications in the Seattle area, and that this study/paper has not yet been peer-reviewed (meaning conclusions could possibly be revised).

What I meant by the Subway example is that if a store is already staffed to the minimum (2 employees), then they can't reduce employment any further, so until they can automate further, then the 2 employees they need to run the store will benefit from the higher wage (unless the owner decides it's beneficial to close).

The subject has and continues to be studied to death, and each side can and will continue to point to results that support their point of view.

June 27, 2017, 09:03 AM

springnr

This century is going to be interesting, automation can/will remove the need for as many employees. This is part of the reason for people believing socialism is our destiny. Socialism is not the answer, history has shown eventually a strongman will put you in bondage.

Humans need not apply, short video on the subject.

June 27, 2017, 09:31 AM

saigonsmuggler

It really doesn't matter one bit in the long run how much the minimum wage is, because it is still the MINIMUM wage and if you're making it, you're an UNSKILLED worker.

Either thru automation, job loss, inflation or whatever, you'll still lose. In the end, if you want to make a better life, you're just going to have to pick up skillz. There's just no way around it.

June 27, 2017, 09:47 AM

Sailor1911

quote:
Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
quote:
Originally posted by BurtonRW:
quote:
Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
I have a degree in economics but am not taking a position one way or the other.

I'm sorry... not taking a position one way or the other on what, exactly?

Are you a Fucking Keynesian??

quote:
What I do know is that is takes at least X number of people to operate, for example, a Subway restaurant at any point in time, regardless of what the wage is. So until they can reduce or eliminate the need for X number of human workers, either Subway prices will have to rise, or the profits will decline and the store will close as the owner/operator seeks a better return on his/her capital.

Exactly. And necessity is the mother of invention, my friend, or haven't you been paying attention?

Automation is the future.

-Rob
I have a BA in Econ and believe in free market capitalism, and the Seattle result is the knee-jerk result I expected.

The WaPo article I linked gives more information on complications in the Seattle area, and that this study/paper has not yet been peer-reviewed (meaning conclusions could possibly be revised).

What I meant by the Subway example is that if a store is already staffed to the minimum (2 employees), then they can't reduce employment any further, so until they can automate further, then the 2 employees they need to run the store will benefit from the higher wage (unless the owner decides it's beneficial to close).

The subject has and continues to be studied to death, and each side can and will continue to point to results that support their point of view.

But, in your Subway example, what decision will the business owner make on placement of his next unit? The question of, "And then what happens?" is never on thee minds of the politicians that see these laws as beneficial.

June 27, 2017, 09:48 AM

Sailor1911

quote:
Originally posted by Sailor1911:
quote:
Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
quote:
Originally posted by BurtonRW:
quote:
Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
I have a degree in economics but am not taking a position one way or the other.

I'm sorry... not taking a position one way or the other on what, exactly?

Are you a Fucking Keynesian??

quote:
What I do know is that is takes at least X number of people to operate, for example, a Subway restaurant at any point in time, regardless of what the wage is. So until they can reduce or eliminate the need for X number of human workers, either Subway prices will have to rise, or the profits will decline and the store will close as the owner/operator seeks a better return on his/her capital.

Exactly. And necessity is the mother of invention, my friend, or haven't you been paying attention?

Automation is the future.

-Rob
I have a BA in Econ and believe in free market capitalism, and the Seattle result is the knee-jerk result I expected.

The WaPo article I linked gives more information on complications in the Seattle area, and that this study/paper has not yet been peer-reviewed (meaning conclusions could possibly be revised).

What I meant by the Subway example is that if a store is already staffed to the minimum (2 employees), then they can't reduce employment any further, so until they can automate further, then the 2 employees they need to run the store will benefit from the higher wage (unless the owner decides it's beneficial to close).

The subject has and continues to be studied to death, and each side can and will continue to point to results that support their point of view.

But, in your Subway example, what decision will the business owner make on placement of his next unit? The question of, "And then what happens?" is never on the minds of the politicians that see these laws as beneficial.

June 27, 2017, 12:48 PM

Balzé Halzé

But everyone deserves a livable wage!

Seriously, I just had this conversation with a liberal the other day. His argument was that not everyone has the skill or intelligence to have a job that pays more than minimum wage. I replied that the world needs ditch diggers too. And just because you're stupid or lazy doesn't give you the right to live in places like NYC or Seattle. When those places decide that they want more "ditch diggers" then they'll start paying more for those jobs. But arbitrarily mandating a minimum wage will always lead to what we're seeing in Seattle.

June 27, 2017, 01:54 PM

bigdeal

quote:
Originally posted by Sailor1911:
quote:
Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
quote:
Originally posted by BurtonRW:
quote:
Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
I have a degree in economics but am not taking a position one way or the other.

I'm sorry... not taking a position one way or the other on what, exactly?

Are you a Fucking Keynesian??

quote:
What I do know is that is takes at least X number of people to operate, for example, a Subway restaurant at any point in time, regardless of what the wage is. So until they can reduce or eliminate the need for X number of human workers, either Subway prices will have to rise, or the profits will decline and the store will close as the owner/operator seeks a better return on his/her capital.

Exactly. And necessity is the mother of invention, my friend, or haven't you been paying attention?

Automation is the future.

-Rob
I have a BA in Econ and believe in free market capitalism, and the Seattle result is the knee-jerk result I expected.

The WaPo article I linked gives more information on complications in the Seattle area, and that this study/paper has not yet been peer-reviewed (meaning conclusions could possibly be revised).

What I meant by the Subway example is that if a store is already staffed to the minimum (2 employees), then they can't reduce employment any further, so until they can automate further, then the 2 employees they need to run the store will benefit from the higher wage (unless the owner decides it's beneficial to close).

The subject has and continues to be studied to death, and each side can and will continue to point to results that support their point of view.

But, in your Subway example, what decision will the business owner make on placement of his next unit? The question of, "And then what happens?" is never on thee minds of the politicians that see these laws as beneficial.

Look, we could each throw around credentials and degrees all day, but in the end its all irrelevant. There are natural laws of nature that exist on this planet, and simple economics is one of them. Governments can try to bastardize and manipulate the inputs and outputs of a system in pursuit of a desire outcome, but the reality is, no one can escape simple economics forever. Seattle and a number of these others cities are learning that fact first hand. Whether it is neither here nor there.

Trying to cheat basic economics is like trying to cause water to run up hill. No matter how much time, effort, and money you throw at the process, it will eventually fail. And refusing to recognize the reason why, doesn't change the outcome.

June 27, 2017, 02:12 PM

joel9507

quote:
Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
I have a degree in economics but am not taking a position one way or the other.

What I do know is that is takes at least X number of people to operate, for example, a Subway restaurant at any point in time, regardless of what the wage is. So until they can reduce or eliminate the need for X number of human workers, either Subway prices will have to rise, or the profits will decline and the store will close as the owner/operator seeks a better return on his/her capital.

So, in your analysis there are two alternatives:

1) Prices rise, consumption drops, lower demand for labor, or
2) Store closes, lower demand for labor

Hmmmm....coin flip:
heads: lower demand for labor or
tails, lower demand for labor.

Sorry, that sounds awfully lot like a position, to me.

Just messing with you. I agree completely. Raising the price by fiat above market-clearing price can do nothing but decrease demand, relative to the market clearing value.

June 27, 2017, 06:31 PM

ChuckWall

Poor dumbasses don't realize that the real minimum wage is $0.

June 27, 2017, 07:02 PM

Icabod

But Wait! There's another study that says things are fine!
It's from Berkeley

"To review, the timeline seems to have gone like this: The UW shares with City Hall an early draft of its study showing the minimum wage law is hurting the workers it was meant to help; the mayor’s office shares the study with researchers known to be sympathetic toward minimum wage laws, asking for feedback; those researchers release a report that’s high on Seattle’s minimum wage law just a week before the negative report comes out."

It's been pointed out that the researchers and $15 advocates have been working closely together.

"In other words, if you don’t like an unflattering study from a team of researchers from the local university that accurately exposes some of the negative employment effects of the city of Seattle’s $15 minimum wage, you shop around – out of state in this case — for a more favorable study of that questionable and risky public policy experiment."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...hought/#1478f24231ba