Study: Seattle’s $13 Minimum Wage Has Hurt Low-Income Workers

Minimum wage jobs are not "designed" as anything! Again you're view of labor is nonsensical.

 

You forgot racism and oppression.

 

Maybe you should tell the Fight 4 $15 crowd that

 

True. Or certain business models become untenable as prices diminish demand below a profitable level. Imagine a disease that wipes out 80% of cattle. The increased price of beef would drop the demand for a hamburger to almost 0.

 

Have you ever known liberals to think ahead?

 

Refer to Navigoators post (#22). He nailed it.

 

It helps to understand that, at the very highest levels, the left depends on growing government dependency. Raising the MW does exactly that. They sell it as benevolent compassion, but making and keeping people poor is the underlying motivation.

 

Of course it is. An entry level job is for entry level people, which shouldn't be someone with a family of four, clearly.

 

Wow. Maths works.

 

The Babeuvian Illiterati strikes again...

A little more from the study c/o the WaPo via the Weekly Standard

 

Libs literally think money grows on trees.

 

It's like "full time" being considered 35 hour/week due to the ACA. All that did was cut hours for employees as well.


Let states decide what's best for their labor market.

 

LOL - I think we're done here...

 

LOL...the things you mentioned are not even close to the same thing. utilities and real estate are things you purchase whereas we're talking about wages.

What a business pays it's employees is DIRECTLY tied to what they can afford to pay them. It's not the only thing, but to say it's irrelevant is stupid.

 

I predicted this when the law was enacted. When you are operating on a razor thin profit margin and costs increase you have to find a way to offset that increase. In this in case it meant getting more production from fewer workers who are getting paid more. On the bright side they would hopefully gotten rid of the least productive workers first so the average quality of the worker increased with the pay. This is just common sense 101

edit- not only would not only increase the average quality of the workers left but would motivate the workers that were still there. I doubt that the good ones are working much harder than they did before though, anyone that has worked anywhere knows that 20% of the workers are there are just filling a seat and taking home a paycheck while running on a minimum effort output

 

Common sense is, apparently, not all that common.

 

That is lie!!! Here is the evidence to the contrary!:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...-seattle-15-minimum-wage-proves-critics-wrong

http://irle.berkeley.edu/seattles-minimum-wage-raises-pay-without-costing-jobs/

http://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2017/Seattles-Minimum-Wage-Experiences-2015-16.pdf

 

No, you posted evidence that it didn't affect the restaurant industry...not jobs as a whole.

There are more than just restaurants in Seattle. Also, restaurants aren't the best businesses to gauge the impact of the minimum wage increase.

The study posted in this thread analyzes "all sectors".

 

I hate to break it to you but to a business the cost of labor is no different than the cost of electricity. If there is a huge supply of workers that have a skill the business needs then the business will pay less for that worker. Of course the inverse is true. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the business can "afford"

 

I think I understand this point. This is the laws of demand and supply operating in regards to labour and that makes sense to me. An unskilled worker is going to get far less than a skilled worker simply due to a larger supply of unskilled over skilled workers. Where I'm a bit adrift here is the minimum rate for labour. If it's standardised then would it have any effect on the demand for labour?

 

Yup, we agree again. The low dollar employees need to pick themselves up with education.

 

The business still has to have the funds to pay these workers you're talking about....thus is it tied to what they can afford. Otherwise they go out of business. If the workers demand $20 per hour and the business can only afford to pay someone $15, then they don't hire those workers.

A business buys nothing it doesn't believe it can afford to buy. When they do they go out of business.

 

Look on the bright side, it's spurring a high tech revolution in robotics to take the place of menial labor jobs. Supply and demand dictates there will be a need for Tech people like me to design, repair and maintain all the new robotics coming in the near future.

 

lol!!!! Of course, the viability of a business is tied to what it costs for them to provide their goods or services. None of the costs are based on what the business can afford. Costs, ignoring artificial controls, are based on supply and demand. Is this really so hard to understand?

 

No it's not.

So stop acting like a business has unlimited funds. It has to make decisions based on what it can afford, period. If a business wants to spend money to hire someone to do something but they don't have the money to do it, then it doesn't get done. Is that really so hard to understand?