Seattle approves $15 minimum wage

When clinton reformed welfare the law made it mandatory that the people work at least some. So all those single moms hit the streets looking for a job- It didn't matter if job! I didn't matter if it was a minimum wage job and quite frankly for many they were better off with a minimum wage job than one paying a little more since if they made too much well they would lose their benefits. Since they had gone to work making so little they were eligible for more benefits! Childcare, transportaton, ect. Since the cost of childcare for three children is more than one makes in a minimum wage job the benefits recieved INCREASED when they got the job! So it is costing the taxpayers more for this employee to work than if she just stayed home and did what she probably was happy to do- take care of her children!
I consider the gov't benefits a subsidy not only to the low wage workers but also the employers since the gov't literally forced that segment of the population into the workforce with no requirement as to how much they should have to make and quite frankly would penalize them if they made too much but not really enough to be able to financially make it!

Today, the economy is so screwed up that professional women are finding it more economically feasible to stay home with the kids than to pay for the childcare! Do you think this could have had any chance of occurring if the gov't didn't let lose all those people into the workforce willing to pay whatever price for the childcare of their children, regardless of how much they made??

Increasing the wages of those lower paid workers to the point where they do not qualify for the benefits might actually force the cost of those things that the benefits paid for down to a scale that the higher wage earners will find more in line with their budgets! It would help to balance it out some.

How many employees does it take to get a big mac to the customer? Two? Three? Reckon how many they deliver throughout an 8 hour shift? For some reason giving these employees a few more bucks an hour isn't going to drive the cost of that big mac up to $10.

Any job in our nation that requires a living breathing person to do is worth a living wage based on a 40 hr week. If the customer can't find it in their hearts to a higher price for it then they should go home and make their own hamburger. It isn't that hard believe me! And any business that can't manage to keep their employees living and breathing while keeping their customers happy needs to rethink their business model and make some changes to it, not look to their gov't to solve their problems with taxpayer money.

But $15/hour may be too much, since the opposite side of the equation also needs to be adjusted- the cost of living. If tennants lose their hud vouchers and can't possibly come up with the money for the rent, their food, health insurance, ect well it will leave the landlords and other business sectors that were of the final destination for these funds with a decision to make - do we want these people as our tennents, customers, can we survive without them, or should we lower our prices? I think they will decide to lower the prices and the cost of living will go down.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: doobydoll
Increasing pay is not a bad thing; however, this is not just one state, but just a city. And the entire country is going to watch and see what happens. There are many questions and problems that will come of this. And it will reflect in different areas.

The first area will be the unemployment rate. What impact and change to it that will occur? As I stated, many businesses will have tough decisions to make, and this could either make or break the city. What if it backfires, does the city have a backup plan?
What if businesses close up, could or would people be happy with say another Detroit Michigan, where businesses pack up and leave, because they refuse to pay their employees 15 an hour? Big and small businesses have some decisions that they are going to have to make, and with good reason.

At present, all low paid workers have to claim taxpayer help to survive. After the raise, let's say (for the sake of argument) half the low paid workers lose their jobs. This half will continue to claim benefits. The other half though are not only off benefits and thereby saving taxpayer money, but are now paying taxes and contributing to the taxpayer pot. Not only that, but they'll have spare cash to spend and the only people to benefit from that are the businesses. Just think of how much businesses would flourish with all that spare cash being spent with them.

Who should get paid more, a person who went to college and is able to program a computer, or a janitor who just cleans the toilet? Do you think those who are currently working, do you think those with the skills are going to be so willing to accept that now someone who is unskilled makes the same rate as they do? Or do you think that they will start sending their resumes out to other companies and move away, further making things hard on the area?

I don't get all this 'who should get more' talk. At present, skilled workers are not struggling to live, are happy with their pay and say they are worth what they get and they deserve it. But they think low paid don't deserve to be paid enough to live on.

Whatever the job is, it exists because it is vital to the operation of that business, otherwise the job wouldn't exist. No business is going to pay wages for a job that doesn't need doing. So the conclusion is that without these workers, that business owner has no income. His business/income DEPENDS on them. He doesn't have to pay them skilled rates, just enough to live on. There can't be any satisfaction in knowing your business is successful only because your workers are forced to claim benefits.

And small business are going to have to make decisions that will also affect the area as well. To either raise the price of goods and services to cover the costs or close their doors.

Well, I guess they'll do what they gotta do. It's daft to close doors though, isn't less profit better than no profit? But hey-ho, those who stay will have less competition to enjoy the extra cash being spent with them.

There are no real answers, and thus this is why Seattle is going to be watched. People are going to watch to see how things go, and what happens. If it succeeds or fails, it is going to be highly politicized, and pointed to.

Personally I think that the city went too far, and that this is going to back fire, that the unemployment rate is going to go up, as many of the small businesses will either close their doors, or lay off employees to cover costs, as the owners are not going to want to pay that much. It means that there will be a changing dynamic in the city and some industries will simply raise the price for their goods and services to cover the costs of such. And employment will ultimately stagger for a bit, when this goes into effect. And that is if the law survives the law suits up to the Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court decides in favor of this law.

I also believe, if it was a raising up to say 9 an hour, it would have been a lot better all around, as then it would have been more gradual and easier to adjust to.
Only time will tell and show.

I foresee that anything that goes wrong in that area will be blamed on the minimum wage increase, but any good stuff will be supressed.

a reply to: doobydoll
As I have stated, only time will tell.

Business, is not there to be charitable, and believe me it is not going to be the godsend as many people think that it will be. A bigger pay check, and these people will lose benefits, along with now having a large amount taken out of their pay every payday to pay for the nice benefits, such as federal tax, unemployment, medicare and medicade. And they will lose in the long run, all of the benefits that they have been getting. So yes they get a bigger paycheck, but when all of the different items are taken out, they may very well find that they are no better off, if not worse with that higher rate of pay.

Think about it, and start adding up what they lose in exchange for that bigger paycheck. Rent assistance, gone. Public health, gone. Food Stamps, gone. A majority of the public assistance will be gone and that will now have to be paid by the person, so you figured that they will have to take out all of that from their paycheck.

General numbers:
600 a week, about 2400 a month.
Average monthly cost for a family of three is still 4410 per month. If 2 people were working, it will give them just enough to cover all of the bills and still leave them with a short, every month.
So how is this giving the poor a leg up again?

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: doobydoll
As I have stated, only time will tell.

Business, is not there to be charitable, and believe me it is not going to be the godsend as many people think that it will be. A bigger pay check, and these people will lose benefits, along with now having a large amount taken out of their pay every payday to pay for the nice benefits, such as federal tax, unemployment, medicare and medicade. And they will lose in the long run, all of the benefits that they have been getting. So yes they get a bigger paycheck, but when all of the different items are taken out, they may very well find that they are no better off, if not worse with that higher rate of pay.

Think about it, and start adding up what they lose in exchange for that bigger paycheck. Rent assistance, gone. Public health, gone. Food Stamps, gone. A majority of the public assistance will be gone and that will now have to be paid by the person, so you figured that they will have to take out all of that from their paycheck.

General numbers:
600 a week, about 2400 a month.
Average monthly cost for a family of three is still 4410 per month. If 2 people were working, it will give them just enough to cover all of the bills and still leave them with a short, every month.
So how is this giving the poor a leg up again?

But the reason their gov benefits stop is because they'll be earning enough to pay their own way in this life. If they're going to be worse off then obviously the increase isn't enough to live on, is it? Should they be asking for more? Isn't it better that these workers are able to pay these things themselves, instead of the taxpayer paying for it all?

~People have to start changing the way they think or we'll have poverty forever and things will never change. Instead of looking at the negatives and amplifying them, try looking at the positives. Let's look after ALL working people and demand that no working person should have to claim any sort of benefits, and make this the first step for change. Make it very clear to bosses that this is the new bottom line, let them deal with it and adjust (or not) from there.

Taxes are imperative to modern society and everyone who works should be earning enough pay tax. You can't have so many working people all taking out and paying nothing in. Bosses should ensure all their workers can fulfil required tax obligations. Businesses profit from citizens and society, and therefore should ensure that those citizens and that society is not worse off as a result of that business being there. Exploiting citizens and society, reaping profit from them, and contributing nothing in return, is what is going to backfire on them.

Benefits should only be claimed by those whom are either unable to work, or between jobs/unemployed.

Low paid workers don't want to claim benefits, they would prefer to be paying taxes. Everyone else would be happy that more people are paying taxes. Gov would be doubly happy at more taxes coming in AND less paid out in benefits.

The only ones who don't like it are, coincidentally, the very people who are directly profiting from working poverty.

Here's an interesting take.... Literally

A parking lot receipt with a "Living Wage Surcharge"

One photo reveals big issue with Seattle’s $15 minimum wage

They think of everything don't they

a reply to: doobydoll

First yes I do realize that most people will lose those benefits, and it will be a good thing, as it will free up many things. But sticker shock is not pretty, and when it is on the scale as is proposed, it can be very bad.

The first is that there are already court challenges in the works and planned. And hopes that Seattle has the deep pockets that it will be required to argue this up to the US Supreme Court.

But as I stated before, most businesses will have three choices when this happens. The first is lay people off, close down or pay up. And most business owners, in this day and age, especially those who have small businesses, are going to be caught between a rock and a hard spot.

And there is one other small detail that I forgot to look at and it should be interesting, and that is low income housing, boy I guess those people if they are working, will have to find new places to live, as they will no longer qualify to live there or in rent controlled places.

While yes this may seem like a good thing, the reality is that it can also end up like New York or Detroit, where there is either mass closing of business doors, or people working full time and being homeless at the same time as they can not afford to live in a place. More income, also means that a business can thus raise the price of products and services to meet the needs of the business. So I guess that if a store was to remain open and pay their employee more money, no one should have any problems about paying say 150% more for said products and services.

I think many herein are missing an obvious truth:

Whether or not minimum wages increase anywhere, YOUR cost of living WILL continue to go UP and up and up - ad nauseum - until every tier except for the very elite will have difficulty making ends meet. That is the reality of wage slavery...the problem is, that because some folks think that things are ok NOW (and do not see themselves as wage slaves, even though they are), they are wearing rose-coloured glasses and forgetting that their future too is in jeopardy.

Nobody's wages are keeping pace with inflation (except for the 1%) and the bottom WILL fall out one day for most because this insanity cannot continue unabated. Now I will not profess to know all the answers to create the balance that is needed, but people really need to stop blaming the poor for increases in the cost of living that occur REGARDLESS of a minimum wage hike.

“Every man is a king so long as he has someone to look down on.” ― Sinclair Lewis


Quoted the following for truth, bolded emphasis mine...thank you for being a continued voice of reason in this thread doobydoll.

originally posted by: doobydoll

But the reason their gov benefits stop is because they'll be earning enough to pay their own way in this life. If they're going to be worse off then obviously the increase isn't enough to live on, is it? Should they be asking for more? Isn't it better that these workers are able to pay these things themselves, instead of the taxpayer paying for it all?

~People have to start changing the way they think or we'll have poverty forever and things will never change. Instead of looking at the negatives and amplifying them, try looking at the positives. Let's look after ALL working people and demand that no working person should have to claim any sort of benefits, and make this the first step for change. Make it very clear to bosses that this is the new bottom line, let them deal with it and adjust (or not) from there.

Taxes are imperative to modern society and everyone who works should be earning enough pay tax. You can't have so many working people all taking out and paying nothing in. Bosses should ensure all their workers can fulfil required tax obligations. Businesses profit from citizens and society, and therefore should ensure that those citizens and that society is not worse off as a result of that business being there. Exploiting citizens and society, reaping profit from them, and contributing nothing in return, is what is going to backfire on them.

Benefits should only be claimed by those whom are either unable to work, or between jobs/unemployed.

Low paid workers don't want to claim benefits, they would prefer to be paying taxes. Everyone else would be happy that more people are paying taxes. Gov would be doubly happy at more taxes coming in AND less paid out in benefits.

The only ones who don't like it are, coincidentally, the very people who are directly profiting from working poverty.

You might be wondering why the Government wouldn't WANT to have MORE taxes coming in and pay out LESS in benefits...but that would mean the end to the divisiveness they are creating between the rich and the poor (among other issues), and this division serves them or they would not support it.

I recently came across this article (chapter, actually) on Google, in relation to the topic of the Illusion Of Scarcity, which I believe, really speaks to the issue at hand for all of us, but especially to the mind-set that we cannot possibly afford to increase the minimum wage. We need to start looking at other options, and at what we really stand for as a society. Is it poverty for your fellow man or abundance? I feel there can be a happy medium.

It is a fabulous article and REALLY well worth the 5-10 minutes it would take to read, for those whom are interested. It has certainly piqued my interest to read the author's book.

Some teaser quotes:

For indeed we live in a world of fundamental abundance, a world where vast quantities of food, energy, and materials go to waste. Half the world starves while the other half wastes enough to feed the first half. In the Third World and our own ghettos, people lack food, shelter, and other basic necessities and cannot afford to buy them. Meanwhile, we pour vast resources into wars, plastic junk, and innumerable other products that do not serve human happiness. Obviously, poverty is not due to a lack of productive capacity. Nor is it due to a lack of willingness to help: many people would love to feed the poor, to restore nature, and do other meaningful work but cannot because there is no money in it. Money utterly fails to connect gifts and needs. Why?

Things we once never dreamed of paying for, we must pay for today. Pay for using what? Using money, of course—money that we struggle and sacrifice to obtain. If one thing is scarce, it is surely money. Most people I know live in constant low-level (sometimes high-level) anxiety for fear of not having enough of it. And as the anxiety of the wealthy confirms, no amount is ever “enough.”

There is also a short film, for those who prefer the video format:

I think that they should shut down all government assistance, point blank, except for those that can't work like the disabled. If they did that business would have to pay a living wage (and fraud and illegal immigration would end overnight) I guarantee that. No one would take "so called" minimum wage anymore and sure as hell wouldn't be able to get illegals to do it for less because they wouldn't have welfare. They'd either be paid fairly or leave America. I believe this is our only recourse.

I'm not against welfare, but I am against businesses using it as a reason to pay poorly, when they damn sure can afford to pay better! Also we'd see prices go rock bottom because government handouts has artificially propped the economy for so long.

However, before this is done we need to bring the manufacturing industry back, which is not an easy task.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

And there is one other small detail that I forgot to look at and it should be interesting, and that is low income housing, boy I guess those people if they are working, will have to find new places to live, as they will no longer qualify to live there or in rent controlled places.

I don't know about the USA but here in the UK subsidised rents are part and parcel of 'low income benefits'. So if workers in the USA still can't afford to pay rent then they obviously aren't being paid enough, they'll still have to claim 'housing benefits'. And who do you think pays this? The taxpayers yet again.

When I say workers shouldn't be claiming benefits, this includes any expenses which the taxpayer is subsidising. All working people should be earning enough to pay ALL their own living costs themselves. Otherwise, they're still a drain on the taxpayer. We want them PAYING taxes, but instead they are claiming from the taxpayers, whom also pay their wages. How long do you think this should carry on?

We can't keep letting corporations and rich folk dictate to our governments and hold them to ransom, we have to force gov to stand up and tell THEM how it's going to be, not the other way around.

Gov needs to tell them that if they don't pay workers a wage they can live on, they aren't welcome to operate any longer and they're gonna have to close down and get out. They bring nothing to the table in return for work carried out for them, in fact they COST us money. Why do we need ANY company operating in our society if nobody benefits from it except that company?

If bosses can't afford to pay workers enough to pay their own way in life, then that business is unprofitable and should be closed down, because allowing them to continue operating is costing us a fortune in payments to their workers.

a reply to: doobydoll

If bosses can't afford to pay workers enough to pay their own way in life, then that business is unprofitable and should be closed down, because allowing them to continue operating is costing us a fortune in payments to their workers.

Ok. Shut down the business. Those jobs are gone.
Now what?

a reply to: doobydoll

Here in the USA, such is carefully monitored. That means if a family or a person moves right into a rent controlled place and gets subtleties, it remains like that until it is shown that they make more than what is permissible by regulation and law.

This is going to have far reaching implications, affecting all levels and people. So now those same people now making 15 an hour will lose all of those benefits, including things like free lunch/breakfast for their children at the schools, as they will be making way too much money.

Sticker shock, that is what will hit first. Think about it, and I have experienced it once before. At one time I was in the military. The items were cheaper on base, no tax what so ever. So the item I was getting, cost about 2.75 on base. When I got out of the military and was out and about the same item I got at 2.75, now cost me 6 dollars. It was a sticker shock like no other. The same thing will apply to all of these people, things that they either got for free, or paid very little for will now hit them. And that is not including say the new health care law, that all of these people will be responsible to get on their own. And from what I am seeing, talk about sticker shock, add another 1000 a month just to get the bare min to be legal.

Have you ever owned or ran a business before? Do you know what all is require for such to take effect and work on, or what is considered profitable? Most of the time, a lot of the small businesses operate on a tight bottom line, and all profits are considered after all of the bills are paid. That means the electric, water, garbage, and the insurance, along with the fixtures. Then the products, and finally the labor. And of that there are the taxes. In most business’s labor is the biggest cost, and the most important. So any and all profit has to be considered after all of the bills are paid, and if business is slow, how much of a profit margin is there? May be not as much as what some would thing. Does it mean that the business is unsuccessful, no, it means that there is a tight bottom line.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: doobydoll

If bosses can't afford to pay workers enough to pay their own way in life, then that business is unprofitable and should be closed down, because allowing them to continue operating is costing us a fortune in payments to their workers.

Ok. Shut down the business. Those jobs are gone.
Now what?

Good according to you and most people here, the jobs aren't worth a piss anyway. Now those people can get freed up to get better jobs and even go to classes to get better jobs. Sure can do damn plenty getting assistance, just ask JK Rowling.

originally posted by: ldyserenity
I think that they should shut down all government assistance, point blank, except for those that can't work like the disabled.

originally posted by: ldyserenity
If they did that business would have to pay a living wage (and fraud and illegal immigration would end overnight) I guarantee that. No one would take "so called" minimum wage anymore and sure as hell wouldn't be able to get illegals to do it for less because they wouldn't have welfare. They'd either be paid fairly or leave America. I believe this is our only recourse.

I'm not against welfare, but I am against businesses using it as a reason to pay poorly, when they damn sure can afford to pay better! Also we'd see prices go rock bottom because government handouts has artificially propped the economy for so long.

However, before this is done we need to bring the manufacturing industry back, which is not an easy task.

You forgot something, gvt assistance (as far as something like that even EXISTS in the US : ) is already intended for those "that can't work"....be it because of being disabled, unemployed, not finding a job etc.

Yes it's true there may be people who CAN work and who for some reason COULD get work but prefer gvt assistance....but whether those are big numbers and make the majority of people getting gvt assistance I doubt. This is an argument given by those who oppose any welfare, gvt assistance by CLAIMING (without having a base to stand on) that "many people on welfare etc. just take advantage of the system, leech etc....based SUBJECTIVELY on their opinion. Who knows, maybe the vast majority of people without a job really "can't" work, however you want to define this term.

More importantly, I don't think in the slightest that shutting down all assistance would result in companies "miraculously" start paying more. The system works in favor of businesses/corporates...and those want to make PROFIT. If they could, they would pay as little as they can, if not have people working "for free". I think you're a little too naive about how our system works.

You might want to read this:

What Happens When Low Wage Workers Suddenly Get a Living Wage

originally posted by: Christian Voice
Here's my .35 cents (hyperinflated also)....
I went to college, then into the USAF, then to the phone company. I have extensive training in communications and IT and I am worth my pay however jobs like working the counter at McNasties are not worth more than $7 or $8 an hour.

What is a job "worth"? How much does even the untrained burger flipper make McDoofus flipping and selling burgers an hour?
He's making them 100s of $$$ every hour, he is the one flipping the burgers and selling them.

If he's making McD, say, $300/hr in profit from selling burgers it's relatively irrelevant whether the job requires any special "skill"...what counts is what PROFIT is a worker making a company to value their work.

I could only say "this or that job is not more worth than $7/hr" if a job in question would not really make the employer significantly more than that. See it from that perspective.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: doobydoll

Have you ever owned or ran a business before? Do you know what all is require for such to take effect and work on, or what is considered profitable? Most of the time, a lot of the small businesses operate on a tight bottom line, and all profits are considered after all of the bills are paid. That means the electric, water, garbage, and the insurance, along with the fixtures. Then the products, and finally the labor. And of that there are the taxes. In most business’s labor is the biggest cost, and the most important. So any and all profit has to be considered after all of the bills are paid, and if business is slow, how much of a profit margin is there? May be not as much as what some would thing. Does it mean that the business is unsuccessful, no, it means that there is a tight bottom line.

The Joe Average factory worker, retail salesperson or telemarketer has the SAME problem. They also need to pay rent, medical bills, credit cards, bills, education...

FOR GOD'S SAKE look at your argument! A system cannot prefer businesses/corporates and grant them liberty for cutting costs and making profits without limitation but then be BLIND when it concerns the rest of the society. All nice and good, businesses, entrepreneurs etc., need to pay bills, need to work cost-efficient.

But it can hardly be a solution if a business works efficient and profitable BY employing, say, ten people where each of them barely makes it by each month. And if you DO get paid $7, rest assured you WILL barely make it each month.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: doobydoll

If bosses can't afford to pay workers enough to pay their own way in life, then that business is unprofitable and should be closed down, because allowing them to continue operating is costing us a fortune in payments to their workers.

Ok. Shut down the business. Those jobs are gone.
Now what?

If those businesses aren't making enough money to pay their workers enough to live on, they obviously aren't profitable, and should close down. If it weren't for taxpayers, they would have to close anyway because no-one would could to afford to work for them.

We all know they can afford to pay up, but won't.

Are you prepared to keep topping up low-paid workers wages with your taxes whilst those companies run off with all the profits?

Why do you begrudge hard-working people a living wage and also resent them claiming benefits too? Yet you don't resent these companies ripping off YOU, the taxpayer. I don't get it.

originally posted by: MoonBlossom
I think many herein are missing an obvious truth:

Whether or not minimum wages increase anywhere, YOUR cost of living WILL continue to go UP and up and up - ad nauseum - until every tier except for the very elite will have difficulty making ends meet. That is the reality of wage slavery...the problem is, that because some folks think that things are ok NOW (and do not see themselves as wage slaves, even though they are), they are wearing rose-coloured glasses and forgetting that their future too is in jeopardy.

Nobody's wages are keeping pace with inflation (except for the 1%) and the bottom WILL fall out one day for most because this insanity cannot continue unabated. Now I will not profess to know all the answers to create the balance that is needed, but people really need to stop blaming the poor for increases in the cost of living that occur REGARDLESS of a minimum wage hike.

Someone who get's it....

I was just laughing at the arguments given at another site, the USUAL argument that companies will increase prices for goods because they will need to adjust to the higher wages comes minimum wage.

Which is total BS since in capitalism, products (normally) will be priced as high as a company can..because the company wants to make as much profit as possible. Even THEN when an iPhone, which is sold for maybe $500, is actually manufactured in China for maybe $1/hr by Hung Feng Wui. The iPhone does NOT cost $500 because Apple employees get paid that much money. There are zillions of factors why prices are going up.

So...you are correct, prices will go up ANYWAY...and the min. wage ironically didn't go up in many, many years.

The irony: If our current costs (groceries, housing, medical, gas etc.) WOULD be adjusted to what many people actually make, stuff should be incredibly cheap : ) This is obviously not the case seeing that people need three low wage jobs to even get by.

I live near Seattle, and drive there for my VA appointments, or to hang out at my old place. It will be interesting to see how this unrolls, and what effects it has, over the next few years. The cost of parking is bad enough there. I wonder if this will ruin the consumer sector or not. Seattle is already a fairly expensive city to live in. I wonder if it will impact tourism.