Seattle mayor unveils plan for $15 minimum wage

ludin said:

Why read something that compares apples to oranges. Actually the number of employee's do matter along with price point and other factors that you ignore because it counters your argument.

Click to expand...

Not when you're dealing with over 100K employees. The cost presented in the study was PER EMPLOYEE...and the jobs the employees of both companies are doing are not that different.

Moving the goal posts that is not what you said. you said making 15 was a low wage and you can barely get by. you neither mentioned anything about family or anything else. don't change the argument because it gets countered. 12 dollars is a livable wages. 15 is a livable wage. heck when i moved i was making 10 an hour and was still able to get by.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry - I didn't realize that it was your experience that $10/hr is JUST FINE in NY and SF just like it is in backwoods wherever. And I didn't realize that in your world, everybody's single and just taking care of themselves, that there's no single parents out there trying to take care of a child on their own, that there's nobody who hasn't faced the oh-so-hard times you've faced.

UMM 15 avg starting wage for a entry level computer tech. computer programmers or admins will make more but for your average computer tech 12-15 is average.

Click to expand...

But an entry level computer tech is not going to be the one doing the automation for a business, is he? He'll be doing low-level stuff like PC installation, running cables, and minor repair. Been there, done that.

you want to know how many stores use automated food ordering machines now? quite a few. they are easy simple and work well. so yes they can easily automate mcdonalds or burger king.

Click to expand...

Again, we'll see.

they are already automating walmart. they are already have self check out. 1 person can cover 4 or 5 stations compared to having 4 cashiers.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know about the automating check-out...and while they're okay if you have just a few items, if you've got a lot of items, they're a pain in the kiester. They effectively provide an assist which alleviates the need for one, maybe two employees max per shift, but they will not, repeat, will not, replace all the human employees. Ain't gonna happen.

ttwtt78640 said:

You are only hurting your case here. You are saying that the more efficient "safety net" system is also the more expensive "safety net" system.

You can't have it both ways because the higher that you drive the cost of living by mandating higher wages then the more you must give to the folks on "safety net" programs to make ends meet. This is why Australia, with a lower percentage of poor people, still has to spend more of its GDP on them.

Click to expand...

Huh? Where did I say that their system is more expensive? I never said that! In fact - and again, from your reference:

The most recent data on social spending in OECD countries shows that in 2007, the year before the global financial crisis, Australia spent 16 per cent of GDP on cash benefits (including pensions and unemployment payments, healthcare and community services) compared to an OECD average of just over 19 per cent. We actually spent a little less than the United States and Japan, and the only countries that spent substantially less than we did were lower-income countries like Mexico, Chile, Turkey and Korea.
In most rich countries, the welfare state is the largest single component of public spending and therefore the main determinant of how much tax income needs to be collected. About half of all the taxes collected in Australia are directed to social spending, but because we spend less than average we also have lower taxes than average. With taxes at about 27 per cent of GDP in 2008 compared to an OECD average of close to 35 per cent, Australia is the sixth lowest-taxing country in the OECD.

This is not very well known, and the leftist are good at leaving it out of the equation.

ludin said:

actually it is more than that. most union labor has their salaries and pay tied to minimum wage. so when minimum wage goes up they have a me to clause.
almost all union labor will get a huge pay increase as well.

Click to expand...

All that typing and you didnt' even address how raising the minimum wage and inflation will hurt seniors. You progressive folks have been trying to scare seniors about us conservatives for decades and now you want to put nails in their coffins and not even address the issue? I guess that's how the left roles these days - tell everyone they can keep their dr, a video kills ambassadors, and now give the kids a raise and be happy you got medicare.

Glen Contrarian said:

Gotta be careful with those assumptions, guy - they come back and bite you sometimes, y'know? If you'll recall, seniors have this little thing called "Medicare" - you may have heard of it, you know, at those Tea Party rallies where they carried signs saying, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

And last I recall, conservatives wanted to privatize Social Security! Seeing how well the deregulated private sector did in 2008, that should work out just fine for everyone, huh? Of course, that's unless y'all want to get rid of SS in toto, since that was part of FDR's socialist agenda, y'know....

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

What will granny say when her fixed SS check does not cover the bills anymore? What will the retired military vet do when their fixed income fails to get that generous raise? Do these morons in Seattle not see that not all city residents work or even intend to?

Click to expand...

*sigh*

You're assuming that prices will skyrocket higher than the national average. Gotta be careful with that.

What happens with many retirees in Seattle is that they go to retirement communties in the city - and there are a LOT of them - they're nice, and most people over 60 can qualify.

The next step from there are assisted living facilities. The state pays the facility (which is not a nursing home by any means) a set amount, and the retired people have a safe place to live, food to eat, access to recreation, transport pretty much anywhere in the city they want to go, (or drive if they have a car) and yes, they still have spending money - their rent and food and medical is taken care of.

I do know a little bit about this - I'm retired military, and having run an adult family home for the elderly, we did learn about the competition - we were the next step, the one between assisted living facilities and the nursing homes.

CalGun said:

All that typing and you didnt' even address how raising the minimum wage and inflation will hurt seniors. You progressive folks have been trying to scare seniors about us conservatives for decades and now you want to put nails in their coffins and not even address the issue? I guess that's how the left roles these days - tell everyone they can keep their dr, a video kills ambassadors, and now give the kids a raise and be happy you got medicare.

Click to expand...

I'm retired military - you don't think becoming a senior is on my mind? Read my reply #80 where I answered the same question from one of your fellow conservatives. Most seniors in Seattle don't have a whole lot to worry about.

Ahh isn't that sweet. Turn your golden years over to the grubbynutt. Afterall with the progressives in charge you can't afford anything else.

Glen Contrarian said:

*sigh*

You're assuming that prices will skyrocket higher than the national average. Gotta be careful with that.

What happens with many retirees in Seattle is that they go to retirement communties in the city - and there are a LOT of them - they're nice, and most people over 60 can qualify.

The next step from there are assisted living facilities. The state pays the facility (which is not a nursing home by any means) a set amount, and the retired people have a safe place to live, food to eat, access to recreation, transport pretty much anywhere in the city they want to go, (or drive if they have a car) and yes, they still have spending money - their rent and food and medical is taken care of.

I do know a little bit about this - I'm retired military, and having run an adult family home for the elderly, we did learn about the competition - we were the next step, the one between assisted living facilities and the nursing homes.

Click to expand...

Glen Contrarian said:

Huh? Where did I say that their system is more expensive? I never said that! In fact - and again, from your reference:

The most recent data on social spending in OECD countries shows that in 2007, the year before the global financial crisis, Australia spent 16 per cent of GDP on cash benefits (including pensions and unemployment payments, healthcare and community services) compared to an OECD average of just over 19 per cent. We actually spent a little less than the United States and Japan, and the only countries that spent substantially less than we did were lower-income countries like Mexico, Chile, Turkey and Korea.
In most rich countries, the welfare state is the largest single component of public spending and therefore the main determinant of how much tax income needs to be collected. About half of all the taxes collected in Australia are directed to social spending, but because we spend less than average we also have lower taxes than average. With taxes at about 27 per cent of GDP in 2008 compared to an OECD average of close to 35 per cent, Australia is the sixth lowest-taxing country in the OECD.

Click to expand...

The US spends about 20% of GDP on social programs while Austrailia spends about 19.5% of GDP on social programs. While those numbers are close, Australia has a lower poverty rate and a higher (over double) MW, in other words Australia spends about the same percentage of its GDP to help fewer poor folks. I maintain that is because of Australia's higher cost of living - a natural result of higher wages.

Government social spending - Social Issues: Key Tables from OECD - OECD iLibrary

CalGun said:

Ahh isn't that sweet. Turn your golden years over to the grubbynutt. Afterall with the progressives in charge you can't afford anything else.

Click to expand...

In other words, I blew away your "the lib'ruls are screwing over the seniors!" point, and you couldn't think of anything in reply other than to post an insult. I guess you couldn't bring yourself to say, "hey, they really are taking care of their seniors".

ttwtt78640 said:

The US spends about 20% of GDP on social programs while Austrailia spends about 19.5% of GDP on social programs. While those numbers are close, Australia has a lower poverty rate and a higher (over double) MW, in other words Australia spends about the same percentage of its GDP to help fewer poor folks. I maintain that is because of Australia's higher cost of living - a natural result of higher wages.

Government social spending - Social Issues: Key Tables from OECD - OECD iLibrary

Click to expand...

Didja notice in your reference that the percentages from almost every nation rose significantly from 2006 to 2013? The biggest jump seems to have taken place in 2009-2010. Hm, wonder why?

Anyway, you've got a good point that their MW is not as effectively high since their cost of living is significantly higher, too. But that's not all there is to it - for instance, is the cost of their single-payer health care included in the cost of social spending? That's not a given. Is ours? I guess what I'm getting to is how is the cost of social spending defined for the two countries?

Glen Contrarian said:

In other words, I blew away your "the lib'ruls are screwing over the seniors!" point, and you couldn't think of anything in reply other than to post an insult. I guess you couldn't bring yourself to say, "hey, they really are taking care of their seniors".

Click to expand...

While that may be true in Seattle, WA that is not part of any national MW increase mandate. What most desire is to be able to live as they please, not as the government directs them to. As I said from the start, I have no objection to a local MW increase - but don't mess with Texas.

While I am generally in favor of increasing the minimum wage, I do not think this dollar amount will attract the desired results.

That being said, I live nowhere in the vicinity of Seattle, so go for it.

ttwtt78640 said:

While that may be true in Seattle, WA that is not part of any national MW increase mandate. What most desire is to be able to live as they please, not as the government directs them to. As I said from the start, I have no objection to a local MW increase - but don't mess with Texas.

Click to expand...

The government's not directing them to do any such thing. To live in such places is an option and nothing more - if they want to live somewhere else, no problem. If they want to move out, no problem. If they want to stay there as long as they can, no problem. The only way that the state government's involved is by allowing business models and a business climate where such places work in the private sector.

The point is, it can work - we're proving that it can.

I say there should be a compromise. Wages should increase with cost of living.

Glen Contrarian said:

And when - when! - Seattle's economy continues to grow after the $15/hour MW is in effect, what will the conservatives say then?

Click to expand...

It wont, because arbitrarily raising cost on Bussiness to grow economies is a simplistic and innane Liberal concept that doesn't work.

Good luck Washington state, you're as gullible and simple minded as I thought you were

Fenton said:

It wont, because arbitrarily raising cost on Bussiness to grow economies is a simplistic and innane Liberal concept that doesn't work.

Good luck Washington state, you're as gullible and simple minded as I thought you were

Click to expand...

Would you care to show me a first-world democracy that doesn't have a significant minimum wage, whether driven by government or by unions?

Didn't think so.

Hey, its a minimum wage increase plus they're going to all renewable energy.

LOL !! By the time the consequences of both of those idiotic policies hit them it will be too late.

Glen Contrarian said:

Would you care to show me a first-world democracy that doesn't have a significant minimum wage, whether driven by government or by unions?

Didn't think so.

Click to expand...

If it's " driven" by anything other than a Free Market its doomed to failure.

Like there aren't enough examples of the damage stupid Government policies like this have on State Economies.

Raising the minimum wage is rhetoric specifically aimed at the low information crowd who's susceptible to these kind of simple minded solutions.

Fenton said:

Hey, its a minimum wage increase plus they're going to all renewable energy.

LOL !! By the time the consequences of both of those idiotic policies hit them it will be too late.

Click to expand...

It'd be the second liberal west coast state from which business will be fleeing.

Ah you see that's not accurate. You pointed out the grubbynutt solution is so grand. I dare you to fly to Chicago and see how the grubbynutt takes care of its elderly, or how about Detroit? NY? SF for example the beloved bell of the socialist. Seniors there can't afford to live in the city so they just move out - which is what many young people want.

I just want to say I hope and pray Seattle does go with a $15 minimum wage, and I hope they up the effort to make it happen before $15 is worthless in 2021. That way the nation can see what happens to the middle class elderly - you know the one's - those with an actual retirement account, savings, who worked hard and now have nothing to show for it. They should be quite a voting group in the next decade. I can't wait to see how they reward your socialist dream to make their savings worth - less.

Glen Contrarian said:

In other words, I blew away your "the lib'ruls are screwing over the seniors!" point, and you couldn't think of anything in reply other than to post an insult. I guess you couldn't bring yourself to say, "hey, they really are taking care of their seniors".

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

If it's " driven" by anything other than a Free Market its doomed to failure.

Like there aren't enough examples of the damage stupid Government policies like this have on State Economies.

Raising the minimum wage is rhetoric specifically aimed at the low information crowd who's susceptible to these kind of simple minded solutions.

Click to expand...

Of course, of course! That's why ALL the most successful nations on the planet - the first-world democracies - are ALL socialized democracies with minimum wages driven by governments or - in the case of Germany - unions. Yeah, they're ALL doomed to failure, even though we've all had such minimum wages for over half a century!

Seriously, though...you DO realize you're arguing against successful results, right? You can make all the claims you want, but the RESULTS of the world make it obvious that your reasoning ain't as reasonable as you think it is.

CalGun said:

Ah you see that's not accurate. You pointed out the grubbynutt solution is so grand. I dare you to fly to Chicago and see how the grubbynutt takes care of its elderly, or how about Detroit? NY? SF for example the beloved bell of the socialist. Seniors there can't afford to live in the city so they just move out - which is what many young people want.

I just want to say I hope and pray Seattle does go with a $15 minimum wage, and I hope they up the effort to make it happen before $15 is worthless in 2021. That way the nation can see what happens to the middle class elderly - you know the one's - those with an actual retirement account, savings, who worked hard and now have nothing to show for it. They should be quite a voting group in the next decade. I can't wait to see how they reward your socialist dream to make their savings worth - less.

Click to expand...

So if Chicago, NY, or SF isn't doing it like we're doing it, is that somehow proof that it can't be done? I ask, because we ARE doing it, and successfully.

And you can hope and pray for our failure all day long, but that's all you've got - hopes and prayers for our failure.

What you're not getting is that just because we think/see/do things differently from the way you think we should, that does NOT mean that we're somehow doomed to failure. And while we're at it, let me invite you once more to show us all how socialized democracy like that found in ALL first-world democracies is doomed to failure...seeing as how none of the first-world socialized democracies have lost their first-world status in over half a century of being a first-world socialized democracy.

Glen Contrarian said:

Of course, of course! That's why ALL the most successful nations on the planet - the first-world democracies - are ALL socialized democracies with minimum wages driven by governments or - in the case of Germany - unions. Yeah, they're ALL doomed to failure, even though we've all had such minimum wages for over half a century!

Seriously, though...you DO realize you're arguing against successful results, right? You can make all the claims you want, but the RESULTS of the world make it obvious that your reasoning ain't as reasonable as you think it is.

Click to expand...

LOL !

Damn, why doesn't Washington do something uselful to actually HELP their economy instead of killing whats left of it ?

Like what's WE'RE doing in Texas ?

We're incentivizing growth by making it profitable for Companies to relocate here and its working !

Ask Torrance California if you don't beleive me.

We're not targeting the discretionary income of our citizens with stupid tax increases and energy policies that guarantee higher energy cost.

We're # 45 on the list of States with the Highest Tax burden on it's Citizens and we're building a real surplus.

Any Bussiness that that even thinks of moving into Washington State knows immediately that their cost on labor is going to be double of what it is in other States.

LOL !! Good luck with that nonsense.

You people are just too stubborn to admit your short sighted inept policies kill economies and produce mors poverty and suffering.

Imagine the simple mindedness that it takes to believe the concept that arbitrarily wage amounts mandated by the Government will increase economic growth.

Its just unbelievable.

Glen Contrarian said:

Not when you're dealing with over 100K employees. The cost presented in the study was PER EMPLOYEE...and the jobs the employees of both companies are doing are not that different.

Click to expand...

:doh If you don't realize that there is more to pay then just what an employee costs i can't help you. if you want to site a source that compares apples to oranges go head it holds no weight in what we are talking about.

I'm sorry - I didn't realize that it was your experience that $10/hr is JUST FINE in NY and SF just like it is in backwoods wherever. And I didn't realize that in your world, everybody's single and just taking care of themselves, that there's no single parents out there trying to take care of a child on their own, that there's nobody who hasn't faced the oh-so-hard times you've faced.

Click to expand...

Cherry picking data will not help you either. NY and SF are some of the most highest cost of living places out there yet even at 10 dollars you could make it. you are not going to live in the high end of town or anything but you could still make it.

again you said 10 dollars and 15 was bad pay you made no mention of family it isn't my fault that you presented an easily countered argument. moving the goal posts is a fallacy.
you know nothing about me so all you are doing is making supported assumptions. which hurts what little of an argument you have left.

funny how you have still failed to address any of the points that made in the orginal post.

you have yet to take into account:

1. The cost increase due to inflated wages.
2. The additional cost of inflated salaries. if minimum wage workers get an 8 dollar hike then professions are going to want that and more. you can't raise the bottom line without pushing up everyone else. this to has higher costs as well.

3. You have yet to factor in jobs LOST due to costs and or cutbacks.
4. You have yet to factor in people that will no longer be qualified to do these jobs now.
5. you have yet to factor in lost job oppertunities. IE people that would like to start a business but can't now due to the price of labor.

so if 15 isn't good enough lets just pay everyone 100k a year then no one is poor everyone can live on that and everyone should be happy.
ol yea we have things called economic theories that say this is a bad idea it doesn't work and leads to more people unemployed or on part time.

ludin said:

how do you expect them to beef up their resume's when they can't get a job to do it because the pay is so high no one can justify it?
maybe the adult should do something other than minimum wage work there is an idea.

Click to expand...

They beef up their resumes with volunteer opportunities and internships. Seems to work for many.