Poll of the Day > Seattle workers working fewer hours after minimum wage hike.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/seattle-hiked-its-minimum-wage-so-employers-cut-workers-hours/vi-BBDiBaB

Isn't this what the "$15 minimum wage" fighters were saying wouldn't happen?
---

Given that MSN skews hard-left, it's surprising to hear them make these accusations regardless of truth.
---

I can't get the video to load on my phone. Did they cite a specific study? I know some researchers at University of Washington have been tracking these data for years now.
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

I can't get the video to load on my phone. Did they cite a specific study? I know some researchers at University of Washington have been tracking these data for years now.

"According to Reuters, the University of Washington research paper said low-wage workers on average now clock 9 percent fewer hours and earn $125 less each month than before the Pacific Northwest city set one of the highest minimum wages in the nation."

The layout of the website is toxic enough on PC, can't imagine how bad it looks on mobile.

Here's an actual article on it from Washington Post so you don't have to watch a stupid MSN video:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.12079568acc7
---

HAH I ninja edited 4 seconds before you

But yeah

If left-wing articles say that the thing they've been fighting for is bad, then it's probably bad

EDIT: Oh you deleted your post, RIP
---

Lol found the same article and my copy paste job exploded! Thanks though.

I'll have to find the NBER report later on and read it. I've been following this research for a while.
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

If left-wing articles say that the thing they've been fighting for is bad, then it's probably bad

I don't know why you all say shit like this. They're just reporting research done by other people >_>
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

If left-wing articles say that the thing they've been fighting for is bad, then it's probably bad

I don't know why you all say shit like this. They're just reporting research done by other people >_>

Oh I normally don't bring up whether the source is biased or not, but it seems like that's all people do these days, so I figured I'd join'em since I can't beat'em.
---

Don't join the race to the bottom, yo
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

If left-wing articles say that the thing they've been fighting for is bad, then it's probably bad

I don't know why you all say shit like this. They're just reporting research done by other people >_>

Possibly because political bias absolutely influences which research studies by other people you focus on, and the way in which you tend to interpret and disseminate their findings?

Take the joke about the news cycle never accurately representing what any given study actually hypothesizes and combine it with two different sides of a political argument coming to radically different conclusions based on the exact same raw data, and it's fairly justified to suggest that any heavily politically-biased source is either going to ignore data that counters its pre-existing worldview or will at the very least misrepresent it in ways that seem to support its ideology.

Most people online implicitly accept the idea (especially when talking about Fox News) when it comes to Right-wing bias, because it's always easier to see the biases of the people on the other side while missing your own. But both sides absolutely do it.


---

Muffinz0rz posted...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.12079568acc7

That's more the bias I'd expect from hard-left news sources! It's chock full of disclaimers, alternative theories, etc.

RCtheWSBC posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

If left-wing articles say that the thing they've been fighting for is bad, then it's probably bad

I don't know why you all say shit like this. They're just reporting research done by other people >_>

When a source with a sustained bias reports on something that contradicts their bias and they don't try to immediately write it off, it's usually a very good sign that there's a lot of merit to it. Otherwise they'd do more to discredit it.
---

Don't have to live in Seattle or do a study to see some negative effects.

Min wage in my area just jumped up to $11/hr, not nearly as bad as the $15 hike, but, it's still had a large negative impact on some. This will hopefully eventually get ironed out, but for now, many jobs that require training, often require licensing on money spent to get the job (for instance home health aids needs to take courses and pay at least $500 to be able to work), are now making minimum wage.

Prior to the hike, those jobs started at $11 and hour, up to $3 more an hour then minimum wage jobs, and required only small time investments and or money investments in order to start working.

Currently such jobs make the same amount of money as any minimum wage job, which often does not require you to travel at all (or drive anyone around), does not require training/testing and does not require a finacial investment (Even if only $500 as in this example).

This holds true for many positions that paid, or started paying within $3-5 of minimum wage (if you had a job paying $12 an hour before, 1.5x min wage, you now are making a whole $1 an hour more.

In addition those who have worked at many jobs for years and gained experience, and increases in their base pay due to that experience, are now making as much as someone brand new on the job, and worse, have many other opportunities where they can go work for the same amount (or more...because their experience actually will help them get a better position or higher starting pay).

Personally while I do agree the minimum wage needed to be increased, I think ALL hourly wages needed to be increased as well, up to a maximum of $20 an hour. This is especially true if you boost the minimum wage by a significant percentage, such as in Seattle.

The real solution of course would be to slowly boost minimum wage at the same time as increasing individual/family tax deductions, helping those who are barely making enough to live the most, but helping everyone an equal amount finacially.

Increasing deductions by $5k a year, but increasing over all taxes by 1% to compensate, would help those making minimum wage or less then $15/hr a ton (making them pay almost no taxes at all), would even out for most making less then $200k a year, and wouldn't be that harsh for those making more then that.

It would not hurt those making within 50% of minimum wage at all (especially if you boost minimum wage slowly, as should happen every freaking year honestly to cover cost of living increases).

The current solution/trend of just jacking up minimum wage is actually not helping anyone much, except the federal goverment (as it means more taxes for them).

Pumping min wage puts more people in a higher tax bracket and gives them more income to be taxed. It directly increases the amount of taxes the government gets every year as a whole.

It boosts base prices of products and services in the area though, which hurts those with the least amount of income the most proportionally. This doesn't just stop at food being more expensive, or other products you buy (or services you pay for), but can spread to rent and other costs as well. Even without factoring in companies cutting back on hours, not offering as many benefits, and not offering raises (or invalidating previous raises by making the new min wage higher then the employee was getting after working somewhere 10 years), large bumps in minimum wage create chaos/havok in the job market. I've seen this personally, and it's not getting better anytime soon.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Possibly because political bias absolutely influences which research studies by other people you focus on, and the way in which you tend to interpret and disseminate their findings?

I can understand this, and your example using Fox News, especially if it were written as an editorial piece. The whole "both sides" thing irks me to begin with because it discourages critical thinking and evaluation of such studies while favoring this surface-level partisanship in every detail we come across.

I'm sure my naivete is showing, and I'll accept that lol. I'm personally trying to stay away from the constant left-wing/right-wing labeling when I view it isn't really necessary.
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

The whole "both sides" thing irks me to begin with because it discourages critical thinking and evaluation of such studies while favoring this surface-level partisanship in every detail we come across.

I'm sure my naivete is showing, and I'll accept that lol. I'm personally trying to stay away from the constant left-wing/right-wing labeling when I view it isn't really necessary.

The problem is that ignoring the potential for bias doesn't mean the bias isn't there, nor does it really improve critical thinking. If anything, critical thinking pretty much requires you to understand the biases of the person giving you information, because otherwise, you're passively accepting flawed information that blends factual data with how someone else interprets said data.

The real worthwhile goal is to understand how and why different people see the world differently, rather than dismissing the other side out of hand, or pretending there aren't really sides at all. There are ALWAYS sides.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The problem is that ignoring the potential for bias doesn't mean the bias isn't there, nor does it really improve critical thinking. If anything, critical thinking pretty much requires you to understand the biases of the person giving you information, because otherwise, you're passively accepting flawed information that blends factual data with how someone else interprets said data.

Fair point. I think I took more issue with the immediate phrasing used in reaction to the reporting in here, but I definitely understand what you're saying in general contexts.
---

wolfy42 posted...

Pumping min wage puts more people in a higher tax bracket and gives them more income to be taxed. It directly increases the amount of taxes the government gets every year as a whole.

It boosts base prices of products and services in the area though, which hurts those with the least amount of income the most proportionally. This doesn't just stop at food being more expensive, or other products you buy (or services you pay for), but can spread to rent and other costs as well. Even without factoring in companies cutting back on hours, not offering as many benefits, and not offering raises (or invalidating previous raises by making the new min wage higher then the employee was getting after working somewhere 10 years), large bumps in minimum wage create chaos/havok in the job market. I've seen this personally, and it's not getting better anytime soon.

I seriously doubt that small of an increase in minimum wage is going to throw someone into a higher tax bracket. Even if that is the case you don't go home with less money, as only the amount above the bracket is taxed at the higher percentage. For example (currently) from your 1st to 9,325th dollar you pay 10%. From your 9,326th to 37,950th, 15%. You don't pay 15% on the whole amount, just that latter portion.

As far as companies raising prices to compensate, that will be solved overtime by competition. If one grocery store raises their prices, and the one across the street does not, the 1st will lose a significant chunk of its business to the 2nd. Further, if everyone of a companies customers had more disposable income, that is simply more money for that business to attract to offset loses from increased wages. Also, companies are always looking for an excuse to increase prices, such as when gas prices spiked under Bush. But historically wage increases have always netted in long term economic growth. There is an equilibrium though (as with most things), and the closer you get to it, the more diminishing returns on the above. But right now I would argue we are pretty far below it.

But yes, most peoples wages should go up, as they have been stagnant across the board for almost 30 years, despite increases in workload, productivity, and profits. Well, except for a very small group of people.

AverageBoss posted...

But yes, most peoples wages should go up, as they have been stagnant across the board for almost 30 years, despite increases in workload, productivity, and profits. Well, except for a very small group of people.

I think indexing wages to inflation could be more appealing politically instead of fighting on $15 or whatever. It's a start.

If anyone's interested I can try to locate another study I read that compared the economic effects on a $9 minimum to a $10.10 minimum.
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

AverageBoss posted...

But yes, most peoples wages should go up, as they have been stagnant across the board for almost 30 years, despite increases in workload, productivity, and profits. Well, except for a very small group of people.

I think indexing wages to inflation could be more appealing politically instead of fighting on $15 or whatever. It's a start.

If anyone's interested I can try to locate another study I read that compared the economic effects on a $9 minimum to a $10.10 minimum.

I think both need to be done honestly. Wages are simply too low now for many workers. Simply tying it to inflation will mean that they are perpetually struggling. Simply increasing it is a temporary fix until inflation wipes those gains out.

Increase it to an acceptable level, then tie it to inflation and be done with it.

Muffinz0rz posted...

"According to Reuters, the University of Washington research paper said low-wage workers on average now clock 9 percent fewer hours and earn $125 less each month than before the Pacific Northwest city set one of the highest minimum wages in the nation."

http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/

The only employers paying $15 an hour are large employers that don't offer medical benefits.

All other employers have a less than 9% increase in wages so cutting hours 9% makes no sense since that would mean they have less payroll expense which they would try to decrease regardless of what the wage is. Why the sudden extra need to decrease payroll expense more than last year?

large employers that don't offer medical benefits have an increased 15% in wages. So after a 9% reduction in hours the employees should still be making more money than before.

Something isn't adding up if people are making $125 less a month
---

Love it.

I'm not arguing that min wage shouldn't go up, in fact I think it should have been going up faster for the last decade. I'm even ok with the current min wage in my area being 11$ an hour, just it should have started that journey years ago, and slowly made the jump. A sudden jump of 3$ from 8$ an hour Is too much, imagine if that actually went all the way up to $15 in a few years? It would be insane.


Any previous studies done have not involved increasing wages by 50% suddenly (and in some cases doubling the min wage to 15$).

When I was 17 I went to a vocational school for 9 months to become an electronic tech, while working grave yard at a carls junior. Graduated with the equivalent of an AA degree in electronics and got a job starting at $11 an hour (base pay for a new electronic tech at that time.

Menawhile I believe min wage was $6.25 an hour in ca. Who the HECK would go through all that time/money/work/effort if min wage suddenly jumped to $12.50 an hour, and electronic techs where now makign min wage as well?

That is happening right now, and while it will get better over time (the skilled labor jobs are going to eventually be forced to pay more), with our current job market it may take awhile.

Fast jumps in min wage are bad for everyone.
---

AverageBoss posted...

Increase it to an acceptable level, then tie it to inflation and be done with it.

Nope. It's stupid for rural Montana to have the same minimum wage as San Francisco. Index it to cost of living somehow.

wolfy42 posted...

Menawhile I believe min wage was $6.25 an hour in ca. Who the HECK would go through all that time/money/work/effort if min wage suddenly jumped to $12.50 an hour, and electronic techs where now makign min wage as well?

That is happening right now, and while it will get better over time (the skilled labor jobs are going to eventually be forced to pay more), with our current job market it may take awhile.

People that don't want to work those retail/service jobs and want to think of potential in their future. Sometimes it's about what you want to do for work, what you want to learn, not just the wages. because as you said, wages will adjust for skilled labor. Those jobs will go back above minimum wage by a similar margin. It may take time, negotiation, or new employment.

We're in the process of the climb to $15 here, payroll is a little tight being a nonprofit. But many employers currently paying those minimum wage jobs are national or multinational companies with shareholders and profits. There is room there to adjust wages. Employees deserve living wages for selling their time and their labor.
---

I was under the impression minimum wage working hours have been going down across the board regardless of minimum wage.
---

EightySeven posted...

AverageBoss posted...

Increase it to an acceptable level, then tie it to inflation and be done with it.

Nope. It's stupid for rural Montana to have the same minimum wage as San Francisco. Index it to cost of living somehow.

Personally I would make min wage be variable (within a range by state/area) by zones, and depend on the average cost of renting a 1 bedroom in that area.

Min wage should = Average cost of a 1 bedroom per month/60

This is due to many min wage jobs not offering more then 30 hours a week to avoid benefits. So basically anyone can afford to rent a place to live by working 2 out of 4 weeks per month in that area. If your willing to commute from further away in order to get paid slightly more (due to higher cost of living in that area), you deserve the extra money for your effort.

So in areas where you can rent a 1 bedroom for $1200 a month, that would mean minimum wage would be $20 an hour.

If you can still get a 1 bedroom for $600 (possibly in my area or close by, not easy, and average would be higher even there), then min wage would be $10.

More then likely using such a method min wage in my area would be around $12 an hour.

Main problem of course is dealing with all the other jobs that currently get paid less then the new min wage in that area pays.

Honestly the fact that in many areas you make less per month then a 1 bedroom costs working full time, is crazy. You should not have to spend more then 50% of your net income just for somewhere to live (you still have utilities, transportation, food etc to pay for after all).

Gilroy, where I lived before now had an average of about $1500 a month for a 1 bedroom, and it was 30 minutes away from SJ. Teachers had to have roomates or rent a room themselves (up till recently new teachers started at $30k a year, with no raise for 5 years, that improved a bit last year at least).

A friend of mine, a mother of 2, has taught for over 10 years and had to rent a room. Cost of living in some places is insane compared to what you can make, even with a career!!

A $10/hr job in gilroy means $400 a week or $1600 a month (Before taxes). After taxes, even working 40 hours a week and getting $10 an hour (min wage I think was 8.75), you would not have enough money coming in just to rent your own place, let alone pay any other expenses. How is that fair? And just raising min wage just hurts all the other people making slightly more, making their sacrifices, time spent, skills, or bonus for doing a job nobody wants, worthless.

So yeah, it's time to get real here and start offering people jobs that will let them actually LIVE a life, pay for rent, eat fairly well (no steaks every day, but don't force them to eat crap either), have basic health insurance, a way to get around (Even if it's a bike or public transportation), and some money to spend to have fun and/or save every month.

Raising min wage to $15 an hour even isn't going to help much if rent prices just keep going up. If it's $1500 now, and after min wage goes up it jumps to $1800.....things are not going to improve.

Personally, I think we need to get some serious rent control and goverment rental properties with fixed low prices (to give competition and reduce the prices of other rental properties). Yes, I know this has not worked out that well in the past, but it's time to fix this issue and come up with a plan that really will work well. Same basic rules for all rental properties, with the ability to kick someone out if they break them (and a pretty decent waiting list to get one anyway...especially at first).

If the Gov starts renting small 1 bedroom/1 bath/kitchen properties for $600 a month, they could actually make a profit off them (instead of through taxes).
---

Blighboy posted...

I was under the impression minimum wage working hours have been going down across the board regardless of minimum wage.

They have indeed. You often need 2-3 jobs to make 40 hours a week. Employers get away with and opt for being heavily staffed with part time employees so they do not have to offer the same benefits. This has been the case increasingly even in places without changes to the minimum wage.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

wolfy42 posted...

Menawhile I believe min wage was $6.25 an hour in ca. Who the HECK would go through all that time/money/work/effort if min wage suddenly jumped to $12.50 an hour, and electronic techs where now makign min wage as well?

That is happening right now, and while it will get better over time (the skilled labor jobs are going to eventually be forced to pay more), with our current job market it may take awhile.

People that don't want to work those retail/service jobs and want to think of potential in their future. Sometimes it's about what you want to do for work, what you want to learn, not just the wages. because as you said, wages will adjust for skilled labor. Those jobs will go back above minimum wage by a similar margin. It may take time, negotiation, or new employment.

We're in the process of the climb to $15 here, payroll is a little tight being a nonprofit. But many employers currently paying those minimum wage jobs are national or multinational companies with shareholders and profits. There is room there to adjust wages. Employees deserve living wages for selling their time and their labor.

It's true it will adjust, but the current job market is very very pro-employer, with huge lines of people applying for any job (trust me I have seen this personally recently, even for crap jobs nobody really wants).

This is really slowing down the process of increasing the pay for jobs that where not min wage (it's been half a year and none of them have gone up at all....I know thats short, but it's along time to the people doing those jobs).

I'm all for paying everyone at least $15....it's a start at least, but you need to increase all hourly positions at the same rate to be fair. If someone was making $11 an hour before, they should be going up till they eventually are making $18 or whatever the equivalent would be compared to min wage.

In my area we just did a huge $3 jump though, which is pretty insane. $3 doesn't seem like much but to people who were making $12/hr instead of $8......it's huge. Many min wage jobs offer incentives for instance to native English speakers, or if you work the graveyard shift etc. So someone working at a Taco Bell for their first job ever at night who speaks English may be getting $11.50 right away (and they give raises fairly quickly there), while someone working a job they had to train for 9 months to fill, spend a few thousand dollars getting certified, and have been working on the job for 4 years now.....is making 50 cents more an hour (oh and they have to commute 30 minutes to the company as well, as that is where they could get a job).

Fair? Nope, but reality right now for many.
---

As I said to a dumbass "friend" of mine, minimum wage has been raised for decades and companies wanting to replace workers with machines started with the industrial revolution and they are kind of mutually exclusive issues at present. Unless we returned to slavery or a feudal system, they'll stay relatively separate.

The rich will always want more. Wealth will either be redistributed voluntarily, or taken in a bloody revolt once they have it all. History is full of examples. The only reason workers in Europe got any rights was the Black Death making such a big manpower shortage the aristocracy had to play along. Nothing is ever handed down with smile. It is forced by circumstances.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

As I said to a dumbass "friend" of mine, minimum wage has been raised for decades and companies wanting to replace workers with machines started with the industrial revolution and they are kind of mutually exclusive issues at present. Unless we returned to slavery or a feudal system, they'll stay relatively separate.

The rich will always want more. Wealth will either be redistributed voluntarily, or taken in a bloody revolt once they have it all. History is full of examples.

Only to a degree.

Replacing workers with machines has an initial up front cost, and requires new employees to be trained etc. This can offset the long term savings significantly and prevents many companies from making the switch (even though there are tons a benefits for the company long term).

A slow boost in minimum wage won't change this much, but sudden jumps are equivalent to a sudden extra cost (pretty much exactly the same as the cost of employees suddenly jumps 30-100% depending on the old minimum wage).

Such a short term increase (forget about long term for now), offsets the price of making the switch, meaning the company which was on the fence about changing, may decide it's time to do so.

Will all companies switch to automated systems? Nope, but i'm sure some will, and very fast increases in min wage will be responsible for at least some of them.
---

Were people actually saying that an inreased minimum wage wouldn't see people working fewer hours?
I thought that was half the point of an increase.
---

The short term is far more nuanced than the long term though: machines will replace everybody, no matter how important they feel their job is.

Ultimately, the massive increase to the gap between top brass and workers is unrealistic and greedy. Without the absurd bonuses, they could make everything work fine.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Blighboy posted...

I was under the impression minimum wage working hours have been going down across the board regardless of minimum wage.

They have indeed. You often need 2-3 jobs to make 40 hours a week. Employers get away with and opt for being heavily staffed with part time employees so they do not have to offer the same benefits. This has been the case increasingly even in places without changes to the minimum wage.

Kinda this (although the wording is slanted as hell, considering there's nothing to "get away with"), but keep in mind that an increase to minimum wages will lower the total number of hours being given out because employers will try to cut corners a bit.

Lightning Bolt posted...

Were people actually saying that an inreased minimum wage wouldn't see people working fewer hours?
I thought that was half the point of an increase.

I vaguely recall it as a selling point for the increase, but given the fact that they're coming home with less money per week (rather than the same money for fewer hours or more money for the same hours) clearly this isn't what they wanted.
---

Instead of increasing wages, make it easier for people to become more specialized

Community college can only do so much and is extremely limited. Yes it's a great start but when compared to over priced colleges you just have more available resources (becuase they have a shit ton of unnecessary funds)

It's apparent people don't want to invest in people, but would rather have technology do it for them (more convenient and cheaper costs associated)

No wage increase will fix this issues we already have. People just need to work harder now as opposed to years ago in order to get the same exact benefits the generation before us had
---

Minimum wage hikes only work if they are frequent and small. If you adjust everything all at once, companies are just going to look for ways to cut costs.
---

mastermix3000 posted...

Instead of increasing wages, make it easier for people to become more specialized

Community college can only do so much and is extremely limited. Yes it's a great start but when compared to over priced colleges you just have more available resources (becuase they have a shit ton of unnecessary funds)

It's apparent people don't want to invest in people, but would rather have technology do it for them (more convenient and cheaper costs associated)

No wage increase will fix this issues we already have. People just need to work harder now as opposed to years ago in order to get the same exact benefits the generation before us had

The problem with that idea is that we already have one of -- if not the highest -- college enrollment rates yet all it's led to are better-educated baggers and busboys. So therefore any issue isn't with availability but with quality of education. Also keep in mind that, while vocational training in high schools could help with this problem, popular propagandist John Oliver recently blasted vocational training in one of this editorials so there's not going to be much support for the idea.
---