• 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!

Seattle mayor unveils plan for $15 minimum wage

Jerry said:
Why not $20? Doesn't he care about the working poor?
Click to expand...

America. Land of the family owned shops little shops and Walmart.
 
The Man said:
Define 'living wage'. I would think a typical high school sophomore on their first job and a single mom with 3 kids would have a different living wage, no?
Click to expand...

A lot of the "high school" type jobs are now "struggling adult jobs". I rarely see high schoolers in jobs any more. College students, yes.
 
MrVicchio said:
Good for Seattle. What is the cost of living? Price of stuff and services? Hmm? My bet is you see companies leave Seattle.
Click to expand...

Kinda like what they're doing in CA... ;)


Tim-
 
year2late said:
A lot of the "high school" type jobs are now "struggling adult jobs". I rarely see high schoolers in jobs any more. College students, yes.
Click to expand...

Just because they are "struggling adults" does that mean they deserve to be paid more?
 
MrVicchio said:
Just because they are "struggling adults" does that mean they deserve to be paid more?
Click to expand...

If a person gets paid a bit more and is able to stay off welfare services? Sure. Hell yeah.

Deserve? Hmmm. Good idea? More like it.
 
Deuce said:
I believe that is taking it too far.
Click to expand...

don't you want people to make a living wage? you know if we paid everyone 100/hr or lets just make it a flat salary of 100k a year then
we wouldn't have any working poor. government would make huge tax profits since everyone would be in the 30% range.
 
year2late said:
If a person gets paid a bit more and is able to stay off welfare services? Sure. Hell yeah.

Deserve? Hmmm. Good idea? More like it.
Click to expand...

the reason you don't see high schoolers in jobs anymore is that they have been priced out of the market. no one is going to higher a teenager with 0 experience for 10 let alone 15 dollars an hour when there are people out there that have experience doing the same job.

teenage unemployment is still in the 20%+ range and it has increased every year that minimum wage has increased. why? as a business you have to be able to justify paying someone 10/15 dollars an hour. it is hard to justify paying someone that with no education and no experience.
 
ludin said:
the reason you don't see high schoolers in jobs anymore is that they have been priced out of the market. no one is going to higher a teenager with 0 experience for 10 let alone 15 dollars an hour when there are people out there that have experience doing the same job.

teenage unemployment is still in the 20%+ range and it has increased every year that minimum wage has increased. why? as a business you have to be able to justify paying someone 10/15 dollars an hour. it is hard to justify paying someone that with no education and no experience.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no freaking problem with a grown adult who needs the job to keep his/her family afloat taking that minimum wage job over a high schooler. If the high schooler wants to beef up their resume, there are vast numbers of wonderful volunteer experiences. But paying the rent and keeping food on the table trumps high school job experience.
 
I wish Seattle well, I hope the other cites near by are not in competition with
Seattle, as they may adopt predatory business recruitment practices.
I believe Kent has a large industrial area, and is closer to the airport.
Tacoma is not that far, and Seattle shows them enough contempt,
that they may not mind some of Seattle's business.
 
ludin said:
don't you want people to make a living wage? you know if we paid everyone 100/hr or lets just make it a flat salary of 100k a year then
we wouldn't have any working poor. government would make huge tax profits since everyone would be in the 30% range.
Click to expand...

If you believe in smaller government, why not eliminate the government entirely?

Is it because not every notion can be extrapolated to every extreme?
 
year2late said:
I have absolutely no freaking problem with a grown adult who needs the job to keep his/her family afloat taking that minimum wage job over a high schooler. If the high schooler wants to beef up their resume, there are vast numbers of wonderful volunteer experiences. But paying the rent and keeping food on the table trumps high school job experience.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Deuce said:
If you believe in smaller government, why not eliminate the government entirely?

Is it because not every notion can be extrapolated to every extreme?
Click to expand...

way not to address the point.
 
Deuce said:
I believe that is taking it too far.
Click to expand...

Oh no! You claim 15 is going to be good for the economy, then 50 will be even better.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And that would be every bit as wrong as having no MW at all. It's not an 'all or nothing' idea - it's a matter of finding that "Goldilocks" level of the MW...because paying so little that a person working full time cannot afford to feed, shelter, and clothe himself or herself including a child, then the MW is simply too low.
Click to expand...

You do know that doubling the minimum wage will cause prices to go up. Right?
 
MrVicchio said:
Good for Seattle. What is the cost of living? Price of stuff and services? Hmm? My bet is you see companies leave Seattle.
Click to expand...

I'm sure some will. But on the other hand, Washington state already has the highest minimum wage in the nation...yet we've got a whole passel of large corporations here that don't seem to want to leave - it seems they really like the fact that Seattle's one of the best-educated cities in America. Microsoft, Starbucks, Group Health, Amazon, RealNetworks, Zillow, Nordstrom, Windermere, Holland America, Alaska Air Group, Costco, T-Mobile, Weyerhaeuser...the list goes on. So what's going to happen when the people on the lowest rung have more money to spend? They're going to SPEND it...which means the local businesses make more, which means the local corporations make more...

...nah, I think we'll do just fine, thank you.
 
apdst said:
You do know that doubling the minimum wage will cause prices to go up. Right?
Click to expand...

Not so much. Even working full-time at $15/hr doesn't mean one has a whole lot of extra money to spend - it only means that one has enough to spend on essentials without having to depend on government assistance. They're still going to hunt for the best bargains not out of choice, but out of necessity...which means that market forces will not allow prices to go up nearly so much as you seem to suppose.
 
The Man said:
He asked 'current average hourly wage', not current minimum wage.
Click to expand...

Didn't see the average hourly wage, but the average yearly wage is just over $50K. Sound like a lot - sure drives up prices, right? But while that drives up prices, it makes things that much harder for those who are making minimum wage.

A better question to ask is, "what's Seattle's living wage". Here's an MIT site...which, since it involves things like "science" and says things that conservatives might not agree with automatically makes it suspect to most conservatives, but it says something to support both sides. According to MIT, the living wage in Seattle for a single adult is 'only' $9.64, but the living wage for two adults with one child is $18.31, and for one adult with one child it's $20.53...which increase I would think is probably due to the cost of child care while the parent is working.
 
ludin said:
You also left out higher costs.
You also left out higher qualifications for positions. if you want 15 an hour you better have the qualifications for 15.
Click to expand...

What you're not getting is that YOU PAY ANYWAY. If you don't pay enough for the workers to feed, shelter, and clothe themselves and their families, then you will pay the additional taxes necessary for them to do so. Here's a Harvard study that might be of interest to you. It found that Costco's employee costs are actually cheaper than Sam's Club even though Costco pays its employees on average $5/hr MORE than Sam's Club does.

Try reading that reference...and think about what would happen if businesses paid enough that they didn't have such a high turnover rate....

you left out the boost in pay for all those not making minimum wage that will demand higher wages in return.
then you left out the increased prices to compensate for that.
Click to expand...

That's the big bugaboo among conservatives - and it's flat wrong. Why? $15/hr is still not a lot of money - it's enough to get by on (if one is careful) without depending on taxpayer assistance. The people will STILL be looking for the cheapest bargains they can get...which will keep the market prices from skyrocketing like conservatives think they will.

you also left out the fact that instead of paying 15 an hour i can install automation in places and eliminate positions.
That or i fire all the people that i need to and just outsource it to someone else.
Click to expand...

You're going to automate McDonald's, Burger King, and Wal-Mart? Good luck with that!
 
Jack Fabulous said:
According to 2012 Bureau of Labor statistics 3.6 million people made the federal minimum wage or below.

4.7% of the workforce, if you want to look at it that way.

It's a political stunt. A "tug on the emotional heartstrings" designed to divert attention from the fact that a more robust economy solves our problems much more effectively.
Click to expand...

And your "4.7% of the workforce" claim is itself a political stunt as well. Why? If an employer pays ONE PENNY over MW, then he's paying above MW, isn't he? There's a heck of a lot of jobs out there that pay maybe $.50, maybe $1 over the minimum wage...and that's still not enough to live on without taxpayer support.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
What you're not getting is that YOU PAY ANYWAY. If you don't pay enough for the workers to feed, shelter, and clothe themselves and their families, then you will pay the additional taxes necessary for them to do so. Here's a Harvard study that might be of interest to you. It found that Costco's employee costs are actually cheaper than Sam's Club even though Costco pays its employees on average $5/hr MORE than Sam's Club does.

Try reading that reference...and think about what would happen if businesses paid enough that they didn't have such a high turnover rate....



That's the big bugaboo among conservatives - and it's flat wrong. Why? $15/hr is still not a lot of money - it's enough to get by on (if one is careful) without depending on taxpayer assistance. The people will STILL be looking for the cheapest bargains they can get...which will keep the market prices from skyrocketing like conservatives think they will.



You're going to automate McDonald's, Burger King, and Wal-Mart? Good luck with that!
Click to expand...

Concerning the bolded above, that assumes that "you" are the one paying those taxes. That alone makes "you" a subset of the voters and general public. I am sick of the notion that raising the overall wages of entry level workers means that only entry level workers will get their pay increased. Costs will go up for all, not just those paying taxes to support "safety net" programs and, more importantly, those price increases will fall most heavily on those nearest the bottom of the income scale.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Concerning the bolded above, that assumes that "you" are the one paying those taxes. That alone makes "you" a subset of the voters and general public. I am sick of the notion that raising the overall wages of entry level workers means that only entry level workers will get their pay increased. Costs will go up for all, not just those paying taxes to support "safety net" programs and, more importantly, those price increases will fall most heavily on those nearest the bottom of the income scale.
Click to expand...

If that were the case, then Australia - whose economy really isn't that different from our own - would've had a much harder time of it with their $16.81 USD minimum wage.

Will prices go up somewhat? Probably. But compare that to the lower amount of taxes we'll be spending to support those below the poverty line (not to mention a possibly lower rate of crime among the poor, since fewer will be dirt poor). Like I said - you pay anyway...we all pay anyway. Wouldn't it be better for the private sector to be paying people enough to live, than depending upon the government to give people enough to live?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
If that were the case, then Australia - whose economy really isn't that different from our own - would've had a much harder time of it with their $16.81 USD minimum wage.

Will prices go up somewhat? Probably. But compare that to the lower amount of taxes we'll be spending to support those below the poverty line (not to mention a possibly lower rate of crime among the poor, since fewer will be dirt poor). Like I said - you pay anyway...we all pay anyway. Wouldn't it be better for the private sector to be paying people enough to live, than depending upon the government to give people enough to live?
Click to expand...

I applaud your use of a concrete example to make your point. So let us compare the cost of living differences of the US and Australia to see if your theory holds up, after all, cost of living is the measure most important to the working poor.

Cost Of Living Comparison Between Australia And United States

EDIT: To be fair, I must also address your contention that Australia's higher minimum wage would, in fact, reduce their need for "wefare" spending to levels below that of the US. It seems, that too, is not so.

http://inside.org.au/how-fair-is-australia’s-welfare-state/
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
And your "4.7% of the workforce" claim is itself a political stunt as well. Why? If an employer pays ONE PENNY over MW, then he's paying above MW, isn't he? There's a heck of a lot of jobs out there that pay maybe $.50, maybe $1 over the minimum wage...and that's still not enough to live on without taxpayer support.
Click to expand...
"Living wage" and "minimum wage" are two entirely different things. If the "minimum wage" went to $10+/ hour it STILL wouldn't be enough to live on. It would probably be close if you were single and had no dependents but it would be barely scraping by at best.

This issue follows the same philosophy that people use when they call for tax increases on the wealthy. It can be shown over and over again that tax increases will only cover a small fraction of the deficit and it is only through spending cuts and economic growth that we can ever hope to erase it. Even with this knowledge in hand the same "tax the rich" battle cry just keeps on because it is a play on emotion that is easy to sell.

I'm to the point where I say just go ahead and do it. I'll support it. Increase the minimum wage to whatever you want and increase the top tax brackets, too. All I ask is that once these measures are in place and we're still up to our eyeballs in debt and the middle class are still wallowing in mediocrity... have the decency to vote for people who offer REAL solutions to the REAL problem instead of offering feel good token gestures that only serve to play to the masses and maintain the status quo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom