Minimum wage hike closing Seattle restaurants

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by mostpost

You really are an arrogant jerk. An arrogant jerk that I am putting on ignore.

That's funny...coming from someone with a posting history such as yours over recent years.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Thebart

To be specific Conservatives are generally "full of crap." Yes, this is my view and yes it is true.

As opposed to what group of "not full of crap?"

Liberals?

[classhandicapper]

Mosty,

There is probably little to no correlation between the minimum wage and inflation because the price increases will generally ONLY IMPACT THE BUSINESSES THAT EMPLOY MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS. That's a fraction of a percent of all business.

Even there, it won't impact OVERALL prices dramatically because some businesses may choose to lay workers off, reduce worker's hours, or simply close shop depending in circumstances. Furthermore, if some restaurants (for example) do raise prices, that means people will have less money available to spend elsewhere (which could be is deflationary elsewhere).

The bottom line to all this nonsense is quite simple.

THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.

If you give some workers higher wages, it will be a positive for THEM, but there will be offsetting OR MORE negatives elsewhere and for others.

As I keep saying, if there weren't offsetting negatives that eventually swamp the increased salaries, we could just raise the minimum wage to 20, 30, 50 or 100 and wipe out poverty for good. There is a reason no one is stupid enough to suggest that. It's because THERE ARE NEGATIVES that you refuse to acknowledge.

[Tom]

THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.

Especially if you raise the cost of a Happy Meal!

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It's because THERE ARE NEGATIVES that you refuse to acknowledge.

Even the moonbat government in San Francisco acknowledged that before enacting a minimum wage increase eventually reaching $15/hr.

Just before the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Rules Committee’s public hearing on a proposed $15 minimum wage, the City and County of San Francisco’s Controller’s Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) issued an economic impact report on the proposed ballot measure. The OEA found that the proposal will increase labor costs for business discouraging job creation. According to the report, if the proposal is approved by voters, the city will have 15,270 fewer jobs in 2019 than it otherwise would, which represents nearly 2% of private-sector jobs in the city. The two largest industries that will be affected are restaurants and foodservice.

In discussion of the increase, members of the Board of Supervisors said that the job loss was acceptable given the benefit to the city of the higher wages.

How much is $15 x 0?

http://www.calrest.org/newsroom/-san...vances-measure

[HUSKER55]

and again I say, if your employer is sooooooo bad then start your own damn restaurant and then YOU can pay $20 an hour to somebody who thinks you still owe him more.

Then YOU can increase his pay because he must know more than YOU DO!


Let us know how that works out for you.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Even the moonbat government in San Francisco acknowledged that before enacting a minimum wage increase eventually reaching $15/hr.



In discussion of the increase, members of the Board of Supervisors said that the job loss was acceptable given the benefit to the city of the higher wages.

How much is $15 x 0?

http://www.calrest.org/newsroom/-san...vances-measure

http://sfcontroller.org/Modules/Show...ocumentid=5495

If one were to only look at what you post, they would think that raising the minimum wage in San Francisco would be a bad thing. After all 15,700 people would lose their jobs. But if you read the actual report you find that no one will lose their job, and between 12,000 and 44,000 people who did not have jobs would gain them.

You see the study gives an opinion of what could happen if the minimum wage was increased compared to what could happen if it remains the same.
From the OEA report:
The OEA generally relies upon three different sources for future projections of industry
employment: the Employment Development Department (EDD), Moody's Analytics, and the
REMI baseline projection.
• While none of the three sources anticipate a recession in the 2015-19 period, they differ in
their projected job growth rate, leading to projections of overall employment growth in the
city ranging from 27,000 to 59,000 additional jobs.
and:
Under the least optimistic projection, with the proposed minimum wage increase, the city's
private sector employment would still increase by 12,000 by 2019.

The OEA report states that Workers in low-wage industries in San Francisco would likely see their pay increase by an average of over 20%. A 20% increase in pay with no loss in current jobs seems like a win-win to me. But I don't have the wisdom of the Great Clocker.

[Clocker]

I could have sworn I was put on "Ignore" here. Someone must have hacked the account.

Originally Posted by mostpost

The OEA report states that Workers in low-wage industries in San Francisco would likely see their pay increase by an average of over 20%. A 20% increase in pay with no loss in current jobs seems like a win-win to me.

We already know that jobs were lost in San Francisco due to the wage hike. We just don't know how many yet. More jobs will go away as positions open due to turnover are not filled. They made no estimate for that. And by the government's own estimate, there will be at least 15,000 fewer new jobs created over the next few years.

And we still have the pending question: where does the money come from to pay for the increased wages. Also not addressed. Here is part of the answer totally ignored by the libs:

One way employers are cutting their labor costs in SeaTac, which recently mandated a $15 per hour minimum wage for certain workers, is by stripping away the benefits they used to offer.

Northwest Asian Weekly reports that employees earning the new wage in SeaTac have lost benefits such as 401k, paid holidays and paid vacation, free food, free parking and overtime hours. One hotel waitress said she is earning less because tips have decreased since the high wage has been in effect. In many cases these benefits plus the lower state minimum wage added more value to workers’ earnings than the new $15 wage.

As one SeaTac worker put it, “It sounds good, but it’s not good.”

SeaTac’s $15 minimum wage has been in effect less than six months and workers in the city are discovering the new high wage comes with a steep cost. In Seattle, a minimum wage has not even gone into effect yet, but employers warn they will be forced to use similar tactics to reduce labor costs once a $15 wage is imposed. Some say they will be forced to lay off workers.

Despite theses warnings, the Seattle City Council is meeting today to continue debating how to implement a $15 minimum wage in the city.

Yeah, that sounds like a win-win to me.

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog...-supposed-help

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

I could have sworn I was put on "Ignore" here. Someone must have hacked the account.
I did put you on ignore, but after further reflection I decided if I ignore you, I can't keep you in line.



We already know that jobs were lost in San Francisco due to the wage hike. We just don't know how many yet. More jobs will go away as positions open due to turnover are not filled. They made no estimate for that. And by the government's own estimate, there will be at least 15,000 fewer new jobs created over the next few years.
No jobs were lost due to the wage hike. There may be less jobs gained. But, according to the OEA report, there will still be between 12,000 and 44,000 new jobs created in San Francisco between now and 2019.

And we still have the pending question: where does the money come from to pay for the increased wages. Also not addressed. Here is part of the answer totally ignored by the libs:



Yeah, that sounds like a win-win to me.

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog...-supposed-help

Yeah, there is a link that inspires me. Washington Policy Center; the same folks who told us about the restaurants that were closing due to the $15 an hour minimum wage. Except when we talked to the restaurant owners we found out that the minimum wage had nothing to do with their decisions.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Yeah, there is a link that inspires me. Washington Policy Center; the same folks who told us about the restaurants that were closing due to the $15 an hour minimum wage. Except when we talked to the restaurant owners we found out that the minimum wage had nothing to do with their decisions.

The issue is real or not, regardless of who reported it. And the information about SeaTac did not come from that publication, it came from another source cited in the article.

The other article was about restaurant closings in general, for many reasons. It did not state that the four restaurants that you keep harping on were closing because of the minimum wage hike. You are trying to make it seem so by pounding on the fact that both things were mentioned in the same article.

[MrPickles]

Unfortunately, there are people that deserve less than minimum wage. To put an arbitrary minimum limit ruins it for the people that actually work hard and deserve more.

[hcap]

As Cities Raise Their Minimum Wage, Where's the Economic Collapse the Right Predicted?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...mum-wage-raise

Conservatives have long portrayed minimum wage increases as a harbingers of economic doom, but their fears simply haven't played out. San Francisco, Santa Fe, and Washington, DC, were among the first major cities to raise their minimum wages to substantially above state and national averages. The Center for Economic and Policy Research found that the increases had little effect on employment rates in traditionally low-wage sectors of their economies:

Here is how the US compares to other countries

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by hcap

As Cities Raise Their Minimum Wage, Where's the Economic Collapse the Right Predicted?

Conservatives have long portrayed minimum wage increases as a harbingers of economic doom, but their fears simply haven't played out. San Francisco, Santa Fe, and Washington, DC, were among the first major cities to raise their minimum wages to substantially above state and national averages. The Center for Economic and Policy Research found that the increases had little effect on employment rates in traditionally low-wage sectors of their economies:

Here is how the US compares to other countries

What does that pretty picture even mean as it relates to your written claim? Remember that there is a nominator and denominator for each division, and the reasons for each are myriad. That thought came to mind when I saw USA and Greece so close together in your pic. There are infinite ways to get to a number.

[hcap]

The main theme above is that so far minimum wage laws as enacted have not shown adverse effects on the cities covered by the study.

Here is the link to that study..

The Wage and Employment Impact of Minimum Wage Laws in Three Cities

http://www.cepr.net/documents/public...ge-2011-03.pdf

.................................................. ....
I tied to post the image from the MotherJones page, but could not.
Settled for the eye opening image of how the US compares to other developed nations. You can dispute that all you want, but in this case one graph is worth all the right wing blather to follow.

[classhandicapper]

Who ever predicted economic doom from raising the minimum wage?

The prediction was that at the margin it would cost some jobs in certain industries and possibly cause businesses with some pricing power to raise their prices. Even the politically motivated CBO agreed on that.

The other point has been that previous studies on the subject were flawed because they did not control for other aspects of the economy (like whether we were in a general recovery or the beginnings of a recession etc..) Unless you control for everything else, you can't isolate the impact of the minimum wage.
You are forced to use common sense and empirical evidence like real businesses coming out and saying they laying workers off, raising prices, swapping some people to part time etc... which of course they do.