$15 Minimum Wage Battle Moves To Other Industries

[Magox]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/07/panama-papers-taxes-universal-basic-income-public-services

 

 

 

I've taken heat on this board for being sympathetic towards being sympathetic to increases in the minimum wage. It's not that I'm enamored with the minimum wage just that as a realist I understand it is here to stay and taking that in mind, it cannot stay static as daily living costs continuously are going higher.

 

But now the argument being made by liberal lawmakers and pundits have shifted to a "living wage". Not sure how you can calculate that, specially on a federal one-size-fits-all basis. But whatever that number would be most likely would be disastrous for jobs, would lead to higher prices and less people would be willing to take a risk with their capital for startups.

 

And every time someone advocates for bigger social welfare programs are they going to tie in the "Panama papers" to it?

It refutes the idea that you can say the $15 min has killed jobs

 

Actually, it doesn't.

Have proper enforcement powers. Stop demonizing the IRS and let it do its job.

"Stop demonizing the IRS" is not a real solution.

[Tiberius]

 

Actually, it doesn't.

Yes it does, say the jury is still out. Heck, the jury has not even heard the full case yet

[Magox]

 

It refutes the idea that you can say the $15 min has killed jobs

 

The data are for the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett metropolitan division. They aren’t broken out for the city.

This good news comes with a big caveat. The data are for the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett metropolitan division. They aren’t broken out for the city. Also, we have a ways to go before the wage really hits $15. The largest employers must pay it beginning in 2017;

 

 

It doesn't.

[Tiberius]

 

 

It doesn't.

Exactly. Too early to tell

[Chef Jim]

Exactly. Too early to tell

 

But that's not why your originally posted it is it?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

I've taken heat on this board for being sympathetic towards being sympathetic to increases in the minimum wage. It's not that I'm enamored with the minimum wage just that as a realist I understand it is here to stay and taking that in mind, it cannot stay static as daily living costs continuously are going higher.

 

But now the argument being made by liberal lawmakers and pundits have shifted to a "living wage". Not sure how you can calculate that, specially on a federal one-size-fits-all basis. But whatever that number would be most likely would be disastrous for jobs, would lead to higher prices and less people would be willing to take a risk with their capital for startups.

 

And every time someone advocates for bigger social welfare programs are they going to tie in the "Panama papers" to it?

 

I'm with you. I wasn't posting that article as being in support of it, it backs up what Tasker has been saying about the Panama Papers from the beginning and is precisely the logic that will be used to argue for living wages and all sorts of social funding in the future.

 

And yes, the Panama Papers will be referenced a lot in the coming months, for better or worse. There still has only been a fraction of data released from the data dump so there's much more to come. The most interesting question to me about the papers is about their source. It really does smell like it was an intelligence operation.

 

Even the IRS is getting in on it http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/panama-papers/irs-urges-americans-come-clean-now-we-read-panama-papers-n557246

[Tiberius]

 

But that's not why your originally posted it is it?

I posted it to show you can't make claims to say its killed jobs because its too early to tell.

 

 

Am I wrong? Did you get me on this one?

[Chef Jim]

I posted it to show you can't make claims to say its killed jobs because its too early to tell.

 

 

 

 

No you didn't. Your fist sentence of your post when you linked it says it all.

[Tiberius]

 

No you didn't. Your fist sentence of your post when you linked it says it all.

You make no sense

[Chef Jim]

You make no sense

 

What did you mean by exclaiming "Employment is up in Seattle"?

 

And don't give me that "well I followed it up with the jury's still out" bit. The jury's not out on this. The damn jury hasn't even received their summonses yet.

[Tiberius]

The damn jury hasn't even received their summonses yet.

 

Exactly

[Chef Jim]

Exactly

 

So back to my first question. Why in the hell did you post that worthless piece of crap disguised as a news article?

[Greg F]

I posted it to show you can't make claims to say its killed jobs because its too early to tell.

 

 

Am I wrong? Did you get me on this one?

 

Raise the price of something and demand goes down. What part of that don't you understand?

[Chef Jim]

 

Now listen very carefully. Raise the price of something and demand goes down. What part of that don't you understand?

 

The part after "now listen vey carefully."

Edited April 18, 2016 by Chef Jim

[Greg F]

 

The part after "now listen carefully."

 

I would never ask him to do something I know he is incapable of doing.

[B-Man]

California’s $15 Minimum Wage Hike To Cost UC Berkeley Jobs

 

 

Minimum wage hikes tend to hurt lower income-wage earners more than help.

 

California recently mandated a $15 minimum wage. Now, facilities maintenance and food service workers at UC Berkeley may find their jobs imperiled.

 

Justin Holcomb writes for Townhall:

 

 

The $15 minimum wage hike in California has sent financially troubled UC Berkeley into decision making mode, and “the people who clean buildings, who work in food services or health clinics,” says Todd Stenhouse, will be the ones without a job.

 

Stenhouse, a spokesman for the American Federation of StateChancellor, also said “There’s a very clear need for those front-line services. But the question is whether there really is a need to hemorrhage resources on executives.”

 

Nicholas Dirks sent a memo to employees Monday informing them of the job reductions and said they will amount to “a modest reduction of 6 percent of our staff workforce.”

Berkeley employs about 8,500 staffers, from custodians to administrators. Departments on campus were reportedly also told to reduce their budgets by 10 percent in whatever way they wish.

 

 

 

New wage requirements will cost UC Berkeley 500 jobs, but at least everyone is earning a living wage… except for you know, the one’s who no longer have jobs as a result.

[KD in CA]

California’s $15 Minimum Wage Hike To Cost UC Berkeley Jobs

 

 

Minimum wage hikes tend to hurt lower income-wage earners more than help.

 

California recently mandated a $15 minimum wage. Now, facilities maintenance and food service workers at UC Berkeley may find their jobs imperiled.

 

Justin Holcomb writes for Townhall:

 

 

The $15 minimum wage hike in California has sent financially troubled UC Berkeley into decision making mode, and “the people who clean buildings, who work in food services or health clinics,” says Todd Stenhouse, will be the ones without a job.

 

Stenhouse, a spokesman for the American Federation of StateChancellor, also said “There’s a very clear need for those front-line services. But the question is whether there really is a need to hemorrhage resources on executives.”

 

Nicholas Dirks sent a memo to employees Monday informing them of the job reductions and said they will amount to “a modest reduction of 6 percent of our staff workforce.”

Berkeley employs about 8,500 staffers, from custodians to administrators. Departments on campus were reportedly also told to reduce their budgets by 10 percent in whatever way they wish.

 

 

 

New wage requirements will cost UC Berkeley 500 jobs, but at least everyone is earning a living wage… except for you know, the one’s who no longer have jobs as a result.

 

I know! I know! Just raise welfare until it's a "living wage welfare". Then everyone will have enough. Only hateful Republicans could disagree with that.

[DC Tom]

California’s $15 Minimum Wage Hike To Cost UC Berkeley Jobs

 

 

Minimum wage hikes tend to hurt lower income-wage earners more than help.

 

California recently mandated a $15 minimum wage. Now, facilities maintenance and food service workers at UC Berkeley may find their jobs imperiled.

 

Justin Holcomb writes for Townhall:

 

 

The $15 minimum wage hike in California has sent financially troubled UC Berkeley into decision making mode, and “the people who clean buildings, who work in food services or health clinics,” says Todd Stenhouse, will be the ones without a job.

 

Stenhouse, a spokesman for the American Federation of StateChancellor, also said “There’s a very clear need for those front-line services. But the question is whether there really is a need to hemorrhage resources on executives.”

 

Nicholas Dirks sent a memo to employees Monday informing them of the job reductions and said they will amount to “a modest reduction of 6 percent of our staff workforce.”

Berkeley employs about 8,500 staffers, from custodians to administrators. Departments on campus were reportedly also told to reduce their budgets by 10 percent in whatever way they wish.

 

 

 

New wage requirements will cost UC Berkeley 500 jobs, but at least everyone is earning a living wage… except for you know, the one’s who no longer have jobs as a result.

 

That's not because of the minimum wage hike. UC Bezerkley staff already get paid $15-20/hr.

[Tiberius]

Raise the price of something and demand goes down. What part of that don't you understand?

Of labor? Still going to need labor no matter how you slice it

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/01/10-ripple-effect-of-increasing-the-minimum-wage-kearney-harris

 

Although relatively few workers report wages exactly equal to (or below) the minimum wage, a much larger share of workers in the United States earns wages near the minimum wage. This holds true in the states that comply with the federal minimum wage, in addition to those states that have instituted their own higher minimum wage levels.

 

An increase in the minimum wage tends to have a “ripple effect” on other workers earning wages near that threshold. This ripple effect occurs when a raise in the minimum wage increases the wage received by workers earning slightly above the minimum wage. This effect of the statutory minimum wage on wages paid at the low end of the wage distribution more generally is well recognized in the academic literature. Based on this recognition, we quantify the number of workers potentially affected by minimum wage policy using the assumption that workers earning up to 150 percent of the minimum wage would see a wage increase from a higher minimum wage. We hasten to note that a complete analysis of the net effects of a minimum wage increase would also have to account for potential negative employment effects. Our main goal of this empirical exercise is to dispel the notion that the minimum wage is not a relevant policy lever, which is based on the faulty premise that only a small number of workers would be affected.

[Magox]

Of labor? Still going to need labor no matter how you slice it

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/01/10-ripple-effect-of-increasing-the-minimum-wage-kearney-harris

 

Although relatively few workers report wages exactly equal to (or below) the minimum wage, a much larger share of workers in the United States earns wages near the minimum wage. This holds true in the states that comply with the federal minimum wage, in addition to those states that have instituted their own higher minimum wage levels.

 

An increase in the minimum wage tends to have a “ripple effect” on other workers earning wages near that threshold. This ripple effect occurs when a raise in the minimum wage increases the wage received by workers earning slightly above the minimum wage. This effect of the statutory minimum wage on wages paid at the low end of the wage distribution more generally is well recognized in the academic literature. Based on this recognition, we quantify the number of workers potentially affected by minimum wage policy using the assumption that workers earning up to 150 percent of the minimum wage would see a wage increase from a higher minimum wage. We hasten to note that a complete analysis of the net effects of a minimum wage increase would also have to account for potential negative employment effects. Our main goal of this empirical exercise is to dispel the notion that the minimum wage is not a relevant policy lever, which is based on the faulty premise that only a small number of workers would be affected.

 

Which is precisely one of the main problems with instituting a minimum "living wage". I had posted something considerably longer largely on this very same topic and at the last moment decided to delete it.

 

For arguments sake, lets just say that a minimum federal "living wage" is $18 an hour. Which of course means that this is the new minimum wage for low skill workers such as burger flippers, cashiers etc. That is approximately about a 100% increase above the old minimum wage. How many higher skilled positions exist today between the current minimum wage and the new proposed $18 an hour "living wage"? Tons, right?

 

So of course, this would mean that virtually all these positions would need to be raised substantially, correct?

 

How does every small business and corporation absorb such a cost?

 

Even the really profitable companies, do they just eat it? Of course not, they probably cut some costs around the edges (such as benefits for employees) and raise the cost of the underlying product or service they provide.

 

What about the semi profitable companies? They cut costs and benefits for their employees, raise costs of their products and probably look at ways to cut human capital. Less Jobs, more automation.

 

What about those borderline profitable companies? Many of those simply go under.

 

Any new startup will now look at a brand new huge obstacle along with the healthcare law as impediments to succeeding. The cost of capital opportunity suddenly becomes that much more risky. Without doubt, you get less startups, innovation and less overall job creation.

 

Jobs that are being provided should never be about a "living wage" but a fair wage. I can't think of a more fair system than the market dictating your value. It's not perfect and there are certain cases and instances that employers abuse the market for their purposes. But just like anything in a market, sometimes prices get over inflated and vice versa under priced but at the end of the day they end up correcting themselves to a more optimum price level. Same as the job market.