Since raising its minimum wage, the city of Seattle has seen its economy soar, with business booming as unemployment has decreased and people are left with more money in their pockets allowing them to purchase more goods, increasing demand.Surprised?
Nope
The first result would be as described.
My fear is that as this economy matures along with increasing demand and pressure on the supply of goods along with some greed that prices will increase. That could force a reduction in demand.
Smaller demand means layoffs.
The you're back where you started.
Competing with other regional economies becomes difficult because your labor and cost of product is higher.
Also since the U.S. Fiat Currency is backed by debt and the federal reserve keeps printing money we're stuck with inflation. So it makes sense to raise prices including the minimum price for labor. If the employees aren't worth it fire them.
FOX and other right wing news put a different spin on the issue. They say people aren't tipping and employees are asking for less hours so they still qualify for public assistance benefits.
Not surprised, but I don't think the two are related. First, because Seattle's economy was already booming before April of this year, and second because the minimum wage in the city is currently $11/hr (just $1.53 over the state minimum), not $15.
Correlation is not causation. How do you know that without the minimum wage there wouldn't be twice as many jobs? If increasing the minimum wage creates jobs, then just raise it even more to $100/hr and see the jobs come raining in!
Standard lazy strawman argument. No one is suggesting a $100,$50,or even $25 minimum wage. Obviously there's a point at which it would produce more harm than good but there's no evidence to suggest that $15 is that point.
Because historically in today's dollar, the minimum wage has been higher than $15 and those were the days when economic growth in the country was the strongest.
That may be true but it's like saying that firemen cause fires because there are more firemen when there are more fires. One doesn't necessarily cause the other.
I think more money in peoples pockets will cause a short boom. Then a bust once businesses realize their products have a higher demand so they'll rise the price because well people have more money so it wouldn't hurt to spend an extra dollar on bacon
There's evidence on both sides, it's hardly compelling proof you've provided. The US economy as a whole has improved during that time frame, and Seattle's economy has always been stronger than the US overall.
Despite the minimum wage increase unemployment has fallen. That is the opposite of what free marketers predicted, but it is exactly what people who actually understand economics explained would happen.
You're missing the point; you're just as bad as the climate deniers who cite a single season of ice growth as proof. One case does not prove an argument, especially since it ignores external factors and does not represent a long-term view.
I think that is a far comparison actually, it is pretty early, and it is true Seattle is already a reflectively wealthy city and already tends to outpace US growth as a whole anyway. I would argue however, that part of the reason Seattle has always
Been pretty healthy is precisely because it has always followed a more progressive model. Additionally, Seattle is not exactly an isolated case. I would argue that it is just another data point in line with the rest of the evidence that minimum wage
Are not doomsday devices for the economy. Past increases have had similar positive effects, so Seattle's success isn't a surprise to me, and I expect it to provide long term benefits.
The point is, the last time the minimum wage was above $12 an hour, (in 2015 $) was the 60s. Unemployment was at an all time low and GDP growth was above 4%.
That does not mean you can raise it $50/hr and see the same results.
I disagree that Seattle's success is due to following a progressive model, frankly stated it's because they have a lot of mega-businesses (e.g. Microsoft, Starbucks) and a major port. City policies have far less impact than these significant
economic advantages. Look at Bentonville, AR for similar success. Look at Detroit, MI for an example of what happens when these businesses begin drying up. Did Detroit's progressive policies help it? No, it put the city in a terrible position.
Minimum wage isn't a doomsday device, but it is a very poor economic tool. It is not meant to be a living wage and should not be used for that purpose. It's a floor to keep the high supply of low-skill workers from depressing their own wages too far.
The purpose of the minimum wage is exactly that. It began as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act precisely for that purpose, along with establishing a 40 hour work week.
No, minimum wage should be an entry point not a lifestyle. Why should people with no skills or ambition be rewarded with $15/hr? Does a 16-year-old burger flipper deserve $15/hr? Is that going to give them an incentive to go to college?
Do you think at $15/hr there are going to be raises? Do you think that there will be more job opportunities? In case you haven't noticed most businesses are automating low-skill positions (e.g. self-checkout lanes, computerized ordering)
Seattle did not improve because it raised minimum wage, just like Bentonville didn't get an interstate because it was out of the way. These cities have other advantages they've relied on for growth. That interstate wouldn't exist if not for Walmart
I understand that is your opinion, but it is not the original purpose. If a person is doing a job, they should be able to make a living wage working 40 hours a week. Otherwise, the rest of us must subsidize the employer by providing welfare.
Haha, no we don't. We should cut welfare, pretty substantially in some cases. If you can't make it in the world then I've got some bad news for you. Appeal to a charity, but don't ask hard-working taxpayers for a handout.
The sense of entitlement is appalling: "If you work any job you should be able to live off of it." I disagree, vehemently. You should receive the value of service you provide; provide little benefit for a company or society, receive little benefit.
Exploitation? In what way? If there are throngs of people lining up for $8 an hour why should we pay them $15? If I can replace them at a moments notice because anyone could do the job, how valuable are they? They're not.
Are we exploiting their low ambition? Their poor life choices? If so, I don't have a problem with it. I'm a bit of a social darwinist, if you can't make it then it sucks to be you.
Markets don't just happen, society decides how they are run. At the end of the day, your opinions on what should happen to people are irrelevant. Whether you want to ignore the existence of exploitation, misfortune, or privilege is irrelevant, the
Fact of the matter is, all of society benefits from more stability and economic growth, and those two things are more likely to happen, when society writes rules that ensure no one is left irredeemably behind, that opportunity is In fact available to
Everyone. That does not just happen naturally. Society has to make it happen. And it is not just about Justice, and it does not just help the bottom, ultimately all of society benefits, because when the benefits of economic growth reach everyone
In an era where business profits are rapidly accelerating, while wages have remained stagnant, it only makes sense to promote Pro-growth policies such as minimum wage increases, that spread that success.
Sociopath? No. Callous? Perhaps. I'm all for charity, but not state-mandated charity. Be real with me, two 18-year-old burger flippers live together and make $62k a year at $15 an hour. Are you serious? What do you think's going to happen inflation?
What do you think will happen to their drive to improve their lives? What will happen to businesses and their plans to automate these positions anyway? It's like feeding the bears, you don't do it because it makes them complacent, fat, lazy, and
dependent. This erodes the little wealth of the middle class in favor of those that haven't cared enough to do anything with their lives. If you're good with that plan go hand them your paycheck. I'm going to pay them based on the value they provide.
Stop peddling this false narrative that the only people making minimum wage are high schoolers. The average age of a person making minimum wage is 35! The vast majority of people making minimum wage aren't content with their lot like you describe,
They can't advance because of lack of ambition, or willpower. They are prevented from moving forward because of a blatant lack of opportunity. Having a few more bucks in their pocket, will help them move forward, not hold them back in life.
They can't move forward for lack of ambition and willpower, and you want to pay them more money? Are you sane? And it's not Bs; the median household income is $54k. It doesn't take a mathematician to see how it would devalue the dollar.
"They can't move forward for lack of ambition and willpower."
Poor phrasing on my part... Your narrative that lack of ambition is the reason why they can't move forward is complete bogus. Lack of opportunity is what is responsible.
No, there's no lack of opportunity. There are ample universities, trade schools, and internships. There are hundreds of thousands of nursing and IT positions open, many paying $30+ an hour. This is the land of opportunity.
Where is this supposed lack of opportunity? I started in fast food making $5.75 an hour. I worked incredibly hard doing everything to standard and everything asked of me. I doubled that wage within a year. I became a manager in two at the age of 18.
There is no parallel Seattle universe in which to compare whether the minimum wage has anything to do with those statistics. Other cities who have not raised the minimum wage are also doing very well.
Kermie, that is the most dangerous and reckless thing I have ever heard. When Republicans cite a single-city example and say it can work nationwide remember you said this.
But you can also cite the 13 states that raised the minimum wage in 2014 and all performed above the norm (except NJ in one category) compared to other states.
You continue to miss the point Justin. Nobody is claiming higher minimum wage necessarily means a better economy. For one thing, I said suggests, not proves, so put your daggers away. But secondly the point is that it shows that calamity did
At least RedSox had an article (albeit from a biased source). The poll didn't offer a source. Do you have a source saying that the FN claim isn't accurate?
That's not a problem with minimum wage. That's a problem with the assistance programs. They should be tapered so that people don't face extreme hikes in their costs just because their pay went up by $60 a week.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment