• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour

Because the SEIU has done some calculating and $15 achieves their goal, and with dues, allows the peons to keep a little bit of their earnings, and keep them dependent on the union for their futures. Why else would the SEIU be backing the $15/hr push at McDonalds?

But don't we want people to make more money to support their family? Why don't we push for $25? I'm sure inflation won't be an issue.
 
I don't think anyone is saying NO DEMAND.

But 70% LESS demand?

Yeah. Again. Absent a cost floor which makes purchase prohibitive, demand crashing by 70% is about just as ridiculous.

Do you want to live in a world with even 25% unemployment, with our current economic system? I don't.

Me neither. That's why I think that things like $15 MW laws are dumb. Automation doesn't make people structurally unemployable, it just makes them unemployable at their current position. That is unfortunately not true of cost floors that are higher than a workers' value-added.
 
But don't we want people to make more money to support their family? Why don't we push for $25? I'm sure inflation won't be an issue.

I'm wondering why they stopped at $15 myself. Heck, make it $50/hr. Why, given enough time and pay, not a single person between the age of 16 and 30 will be able to find a job. This is brilliant progress, if I've ever seen it.
 
here is at least one in seattle and many more are claiming the same thing.
Owner of pizza shop says new Seattle minimum wage law is forcing her to close | Q13 FOX News

there are at least 2 reported book stores one in san fran the other in LA that are closing up because they can't afford the pay increases.
I am sure more will follow suit as the pay begins to creep up however it is still early.

already businesses are starting to raise prices, cut hours and people.

amazing isn't it.

of course all of this is in the news if you read something other than media matters.
The stores closing, are they non chain book stores as the competition is fierce, causing many small bookstores to go under.
 
No it wouldn't.

Washing dishes is essential EVERY DAY. Pay checks get cut on a weekly basis, sometimes every two weeks. Bills get piad per month.


So...no CEO means the place will still run for one week, minimum. No dishes being washed means the place gets shut down right after the first lunch rush.

with no one to order food or supplies or direct people in what to do then no it wouldn't.
again I can get someone already working to do the dishes. I don't need a separate person.

you seem to forget that.
 
The stores closing, are they non chain book stores as the competition is fierce, causing many small bookstores to go under.

does it matter? even chain store franchises are complaining that they are going to have issues paying people.
 
does it matter? even chain store franchises are complaining that they are going to have issues paying people.

Point is relevant, wally mart and places like drive other small bus under.
Books, most use readers, free open libraries. I still like the feel of a book, and buy one on occasion.
More people hopping online. Affects the big box stores.

Otherwise I download it.
Restaurants rely on tips to subsidize waiters wages.
 
You're not answering my question. What a wonderful example of dodging and condescension, guy!

It doesn't matter that we outpace them, there isn't a huge gap between Ireland, Canada and the U.K. and the United States. A 3%-5% change for a 50%-100% increase in minimum wage and introduction of more social safety nets isn't really helping your case. I will ask again:

Why does the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, etc. have such high numbers of single-parent households, guy? They have substantial safety nets and relatively high minimum wages.

They have the high standard of living you proclaim would create stable families, yet are close to the United States in terms of single-parent households. You cannot just ignore them as if they don't matter - that's cherry picking.

'Scuse you. What's the average/median percentage of single parenthood (not counting the U.S.) in the chart you presented? Oh? What's that? SIXTEEN PERCENT? And what's the percentage in America? TWENTY-SEVEN PERCENT?

Ah, we see now - you want to pick-and-choose the ones that are closest to America, even though they STILL aren't as bad off as America in this respect...but you don't want to address the rest at all.

And that's the big question, guy - in YOUR world, you apparently believe that a high minimum wage and a comprehensive social safety net equals economic devastation and the destruction of the family unit...but the chart you presented shows something else entirely.

So WHY is it, that the AVERAGE/MEDIAN rate of single parenthood in non-US nations in that chart YOU presented is ELEVEN PERCENTAGE POINTS BELOW THAT OF AMERICA???? Why are NONE of them as high as America's? You can't blame religion - Turkey's on the list. You can't blame immigration - or haven't you read what's going on with immigrants trying to get to Italy from north Africa?
 
Geez man your way out there, seriously a cashier is very productive, especially if you want your drawers to BALANCE, not to mention you have to have good people skills because you ate dealing with money, and emotions run high, it's harder than it looks, not to mention you have to keep your temper in check, and have sharp attention to detail..

Janitor seriously get real, next time somebody walks into the john of your business and walks out because someone took a dump on the floor you lose money, all of your workforce is productive and should be given respect for what they do .

You wanna pay lousy wages fine, your turnover rate is gonna sky rocket, and you will be counter productive, because you will spend all of tour time trying to find suckers to replace the guys who walked out on you, without notice of course..

Nobody has a damn thing to lose walking out on some cheesy crap job, especially when they can get more on welfare..

Which is PRECISELY what Harvard found when they compared Costco and Sam's Club. By paying even their entry-level workers a living wage, Costco's actually saving more money than they are spending in increased wages.
 
I think I will believe the store owner over some sketchy website I have never heard of.
again there are two different books stores also getting ready to close as well. those are just the ones we have heard about
I am sure more small business owners will follow as they cannot afford the pay increases.

you said find examples I found examples that shut down that minimum wage increases doesn't harm employee's or businesses.

yep and who says people will pay the 5% increase? they might but not as often as they use to.
it depends on the restaurant and whether they can increase it 5%.

again Costco and sam's club target different people with different scales the comparison is apples and oranges.

we will see what happens. I was in the outback the other day. other than having someone bring me my food a waitress was almost not needed with the ordering tablet at the table.
for fast food automated ordering machines will replace cashiers.

same thing in grocery stores. bag boys forget it.

Minimum wage hike killed jobs, hurt low-skilled workers: study - Washington Times

once again proven wrong. raising minimum wage hurts poor low skill no skill workers.

why a business can't justify paying someone 15 dollars an hour on a job that doesn't earn it.

Guy, that's a story from ONE store owner...whereas the links I presented (including from the local newspaper the Seattle Times) showed multiple store owners who say otherwise. But of course since it doesn't fit in with your particular worldview, facts need not apply. 'Cause reality has that liberal bias, y'know....
 
Actually I was aware. :) I am also aware that that background, though interesting, has exactly zero impact on the purpose of using that quote, which was to demonstrate that even extremely intelligent people describing developments in their field will often prove vastly inferior to the accumulated abilities, knowledge, and ingenuity of thousands, millions, or tens of millions of less-well-informed individuals. Arguments that there will be no demand for low-skill labor in the future because one person or another cannot fathom a way to allocate that labor, therefore, are proceeding from a false assumption.

That's an extremely desperate method of conveying that thought. If I were to quote your own prediction(s) of financial crisis across the globe, you'd respond in kind. The difference is, Time magazine didn't ask you to reach 100 years into the future.

Context is key.
 
You're not answering my question. What a wonderful example of dodging and condescension, guy!

It doesn't matter that we outpace them, there isn't a huge gap between Ireland, Canada and the U.K. and the United States. A 3%-5% change for a 50%-100% increase in minimum wage and introduction of more social safety nets isn't really helping your case. I will ask again:

Why does the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, etc. have such high numbers of single-parent households, guy? They have substantial safety nets and relatively high minimum wages.

They have the high standard of living you proclaim would create stable families, yet are close to the United States in terms of single-parent households. You cannot just ignore them as if they don't matter - that's cherry picking.
The safety nets you speak of are not as grand as many would think. We also have higher taxes as well.
They are quite rigid and do prevent people from improving their life as all benefits are cut off when employed. Double edged sword.
 
Point is relevant, wally mart and places like drive other small bus under.
Books, most use readers, free open libraries. I still like the feel of a book, and buy one on occasion.
More people hopping online. Affects the big box stores.

Otherwise I download it.
Restaurants rely on tips to subsidize waiters wages.

actually when you see walmart you see about 30 other stores open around it for good reason.

actually book stores operate on thin margins as they have no way of raising prices as the prices are set by the publishers on the book.
so the only way to increase revenue is to let people go.

actually not really the waiters will still get minimum wage. now the problem exists if they only make 10 dollars an hour in tips the restaurant will have to make up the other
5 instead of not having to.

then there is the big thing you forget and that is economy of scale.

IE the burger guy now makes 15. the IT tech needs to now make 20 in which he was making 15.

it is the order of progression. you have just caused massive inflation.

what is worse is if no one sees a pay increase that means actually skilled labor jobs have been devalued by a large percentage.
 
Guy, that's a story from ONE store owner...whereas the links I presented (including from the local newspaper the Seattle Times) showed multiple store owners who say otherwise. But of course since it doesn't fit in with your particular worldview, facts need not apply. 'Cause reality has that liberal bias, y'know....

I posted facts stores in fact are closing and more will close as the cost of business continues to rise.
I even linked an article from a new study out of CA no less on the negative affects of raising the minimum wage which you ignored.

no you have a liberal bias and reality says otherwise.

you also as I mentioned above for get economic scaling.
 
Several points:

1. Seattle's $15 per hour minimum wage isn't the reason the Seattle area has such a strong economy; its strong economy leverages such factors as a highly-educated populace (57% of Seattle residents have Bachelor's Degrees or higher while fewer than 7% lacked high school diplomas), and is a reason the minimum wage increase (just now being phased in) will very likely have a much smaller adverse impact than that in Los Angeles.

2. The law will impact approximately 102,000 workers having wages between $9.32 per hour (Washington's minimum wage) and $15 per hour, or about a quarter of Seattle's workforce: Study: $15 wage floor would lift pay for 24% of Seattle workers | The Seattle Times

The impact of the Seattle minimum wage will be in direct proportion to the number of workers affected and the difference between the market wage and the minimum wage in 2020. A large difference means a large effect, a small difference means a small effect. The issue of minimum wage has never been over general employment levels of a workforce, it has always been about specific categories of labor (teens, entry level, the unskilled, minorities, etc.).

If it actually applies to one quarter of Seattle's workforce, that would be very substantial - only several percent of American jobs (as a whole) are impacted by federal minimum wage.

... but the actual data will be essential to measuring the impact in Seattle. Right now, there's no conclusive evidence of a major impact (which may lend support to the modest impact scenario), but it's premature to reach firm conclusions right now.

IMO, Seattle is well-positioned to handle its $15 per hour minimum wage with only modest adverse labor market and broader industry structure and economic effects. Los Angeles, with more than a quarter of its population lacking a high school diploma and fewer than a third possessing college degrees, is in a notably weaker position than Seattle.

That is an odd comment, that a geographic area (Seattle) can be 'well-positioned'? If the cost of labor goes up, and employers reduce Seattle jobs, then Seattle will offer fewer jobs (or lower job growth) than it would otherwise. And the only 'better-positioned' in Seattle are those that are retained because they are the most skilled and educated, while the affected groups (teens, minorities, unskilled, entry level, youth, trainees) will have to go elsewhere (or be unemployed). Someone has to go,(or is not hired), even if every bus-boy in Seattle had a Masters Degree.
 
Guy, that's a story from ONE store owner...whereas the links I presented (including from the local newspaper the Seattle Times) showed multiple store owners who say otherwise. But of course since it doesn't fit in with your particular worldview, facts need not apply. 'Cause reality has that liberal bias, y'know....

It is one owner that is all that is needed to provide an example. plus I posted another article from a university in CA no less that shows raising minimum wage does have a negative effect.

then you forget the economy of scale. if you want to pay the no skill worker a skilled worker wage then the skilled worker will want more money.
if he doesn't get more money then you have devalued his skills and his job position.

if he does get more money it means that prices will drive up even further and the people making minimum wage will still be at the bottom only worse off.
if anything you hire more people and just work them 15 20 hours a week and they are still making the same amount of money.
 
I prefer this happens at the city level rather than at the national or even state level.
 
Yeah. Again. Absent a cost floor which makes purchase prohibitive, demand crashing by 70% is about just as ridiculous.



Me neither. That's why I think that things like $15 MW laws are dumb. Automation doesn't make people structurally unemployable, it just makes them unemployable at their current position. That is unfortunately not true of cost floors that are higher than a workers' value-added.

But those minimum wages AREN'T higher than the value added, else the business would promptly go OUT of business, or simply decide that the job they provide isn't all that necessary.
 
with no one to order food or supplies or direct people in what to do then no it wouldn't.
again I can get someone already working to do the dishes. I don't need a separate person.

you seem to forget that.

And there are non CEOs that can place an order with a food distributor.


Pulling someone to wash the dishes means by definition that that person is no longer doing some other job they were originally slated to do. What you are failing to address is the simple fact that, truly, the dishwasher is more important to the daily operation of a restaurant than an owner, or a CEO, unless part of that person's job description IS to wash dishes, in a pinch, lol.

Ultimately, the JOB of dish washing, when not done, results in a closed restaurant MUCH faster than the JOB of a CEO not done does.
 
But those minimum wages AREN'T higher than the value added, else the business would promptly go OUT of business, or simply decide that the job they provide isn't all that necessary.

Hey! There ya go! ;)

Or replace it more rapidly with capital, putting those workers out of a job, but now in an environment where they can't be rehired.
 
And there are non CEOs that can place an order with a food distributor.


Pulling someone to wash the dishes means by definition that that person is no longer doing some other job they were originally slated to do. What you are failing to address is the simple fact that, truly, the dishwasher is more important to the daily operation of a restaurant than an owner, or a CEO, unless part of that person's job description IS to wash dishes, in a pinch, lol.

Ultimately, the JOB of dish washing, when not done, results in a closed restaurant MUCH faster than the JOB of a CEO not done does.

Actually what you do is you fire citizens and hire Mexicans.
 
I posted facts stores in fact are closing and more will close as the cost of business continues to rise.
I even linked an article from a new study out of CA no less on the negative affects of raising the minimum wage which you ignored.

no you have a liberal bias and reality says otherwise.

you also as I mentioned above for get economic scaling.

Guy, stores close every year...and restaurants close more than any other. You posted showing how a store was closing and I posted in return showing how it had less to do with minimum wage than with good ol' competition - in other words, I know Seattle better than you do.

And when it comes to CA, you'll find as time goes on that a rising tide lifts all boats - which is why raising the minimum wage is not nearly so destructive as you seem to think.

Tell you what - why don't you go visit some nations where there's little or no minimum wage and the unions are weak or nonexistent...and after you spend some time there, get back to us and tell us how wonderfully strong their economies are.
 
It is one owner that is all that is needed to provide an example. plus I posted another article from a university in CA no less that shows raising minimum wage does have a negative effect.

then you forget the economy of scale. if you want to pay the no skill worker a skilled worker wage then the skilled worker will want more money.
if he doesn't get more money then you have devalued his skills and his job position.

if he does get more money it means that prices will drive up even further and the people making minimum wage will still be at the bottom only worse off.
if anything you hire more people and just work them 15 20 hours a week and they are still making the same amount of money.

ONE store owner does not speak for all store owners...as you would know if you'd actually READ the articles which included statements from several other store owners.

Like I said in the other reply, why don't you go visit some nations where there's little or no minimum wage, where the unions are weak or nonexistent, and after you spend some time there, come back to us and tell us how wonderfully strong their economies are.
 
yep and we will see how many businesses stay in business and how many low skill workers lose their jobs. it will be great as automated ordering machines will pick up in business.
ol wait they don't have the skills to do that job.

no more bag boys go bag your own groceries.
more automated checkouts.

here I thought liberals weren't against poor people so why would you price them out of a job?
I live in a state where the minimum wage is barely half the $15 minimum proposed here, and self-bag & automated check-outs are now prevalent (& growing).

It appears your logic may be flawed as to this specific example, at least.
 
That is an odd comment, that a geographic area (Seattle) can be 'well-positioned'? If the cost of labor goes up, and employers reduce Seattle jobs, then Seattle will offer fewer jobs (or lower job growth) than it would otherwise. And the only 'better-positioned' in Seattle are those that are retained because they are the most skilled and educated, while the affected groups (teens, minorities, unskilled, entry level, youth, trainees) will have to go elsewhere (or be unemployed). Someone has to go,(or is not hired), even if every bus-boy in Seattle had a Masters Degree.

"Well-positioned" means that the industry structure (knowledge-oriented economy reliant to a larger extent on skilled workers than many other local economies), educated populace (57% with a bachelors degree or higher), prevailing wages (some three quarters of workers already earn above the $15 per hour figure), etc., will result in a smaller economic shock than what one will likely see in a city such as Los Angeles where more than a quarter of the population lacks a high school diploma. Of course, there will be some labor market dislocations, but those could be relatively modest based on the characteristics of Seattle's economy and workforce. Of course, we'll have to wait for the data to become available to better assess the impact. By the beginning of 2017, large firms (500 or more employees) will have been required to have raised their wage to $15 per hour, so a body of data will be available.

Finally, workers under age 18 and some independent contractors will not necessarily be required to be paid the full minimum wage ($15 Minimum Wage). As a result, there may actually be a risk that some of the lower-skilled positions could wind up being shifted to people under the age of 18.
 
Back
Top Bottom