A nationwide $15 dollar minimum wage is harmful and dumb. We should advocate wage subsidies and UBI.

[Casprings]

Last edited Sun Jul 23, 2017, 07:14 PM - Edit history (1)

First a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage is dumb. Two basic reasons.

1. The whole country isn't San Francisco. If you pass a 15 dollar an wage, you will destroy economies in places like West Virgina, where you be pushing the minimum yearly salary close to the current average income. This will kill the job market and all sorts of unexpected consequences. Heck in Seattle, raising it $15 hurt economic growth in a study commissioned by Seattle itself:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.9bce08b1918d

In it, they find that employers have cut their payrolls, are putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go.

If that is what happens in a city with strong economic growth, what the hell is going to happen in West Virgina?

2. The policy is going to kill small business and favor large corporations. The profit margins for large corporations is often much high and they can afford to reallocate more money for payroll. Small employers cannot.

With both of the reasons, if you are going to have a minimum wage hike, you should target it to areas that have economic growth and to large employers.

However, I think there is a better solution, if we agree that the problem is the poor do not have enough resources to live. A Universal basic income and wage subsidies would directly get money into the hands of the poor and also generate economic growth.

[exboyfil]

1. Agree totally with this post

Two things that I think cost more votes than they won (not to mention poor economic/social policy)

The first was $15/hr.

The second was free tuition and loan forgiveness without also a call for reform of the post-secondary institution high school to college pipeline. Obama started this process with for profits, but the reforms also has to address the situation of too many people pursuing (some very marginally) degrees that do not enhance future employment employment at the public and private non-profit colleges and universities. Too much push to fill seats without a question of whether these individuals are pursuing the best course of action for them.

[bitterross]

2. I agree with you. One size fits all doesn't work.

You are correct, I believe. The issue is Congress doesn't do well with complex issues. See the ACA for example. It works a hell of a lot better than nothing but it has flaws.

I'm just trying to imagine what boondoggle they'd come up with if they tried to implement some sort of formula for a minimum wage based on a what a living wage in a particular place is. And then what number of exceptions they'd add to the law for their closest friends and contributors. Somehow I'd bet the seasonal and fast-food wage earners would all get excluded. Despite them all being part of those most in need of a living wage.

[Lee-Lee]

3. Agreed on many fronts. The "Fight for 15" movement hurts our brand in many areas

In the area where I work $15 an hour is a great, above average wage. $15 an hour full time would put a single person above the average household income.

It's more than starting pay for virtually every public service job. Your EMT's responding to an accident start around $12 an hour and if they move up to Paramedic and start for 5 years or so can get over $15.

When all of these folks who work hard at what they do see people in urban areas demanding $15 an hour for something like fast food work they don't sympathize with them. They don't jump on board and support them.

They are offended by it. They see someone who has what they see as an easy entry level job demanding more money than what they make in a job that is harder, requires more skill and training, and has more serious responsibilities.

And they know that their employer, be it the public sector or private sector ones there, can't afford to increase it wages to go up proportionally if such a law was passed.

One paramedic I was having lunch with said to me once when that was on the tv "If that shit passes I'm coming right down here and getting a job busing tables. I make $15.75 an hour now, and I have to work a 24 hour shift in dangerous conditions with a threat of everything from a dangerous scene to exposure to pathogens to combative patients, in a job where most of us end up on the disabled rolls from back injury or an attack by a patient before we ever reach retirement age. That extra .75 isn't worth all that if I can come bus tables and my biggest responsibilities are getting the crumbs up and not breaking plates" when I tried to explain to him his wages would go up too because a rising tide lifts all boats he responded "I work the budget committee every year. We have ambulances 3 years past when they should have been retired and can't afford to even upgrade our defibrillators that are 3 generations behind what is current technology. Where will that money come from? We don't have county income tax it's all sales and property tax and no way that will go up enough and fast enough to give a proportional pay differential to what we have now"

I really couldn't argue it.

That is how the movement and it's publicity hurts our cause when you get outside urban areas.

[Amishman]

140. Couldn't say it better myself, a lot of urban-bubble thinking in this thread

$15 an hour is $31200 annual for full time

That's more than the average person capital income in PA
That's close to the average household income in some counties

And this averages are very skewed. Chester county has a per capita income of $41.2k. Fayette county has a per capita income of $19k

Chester county businesses could probably absorb this over a couple years.

Fayette county businesses would probably need 20.

A lot of rural counties are low cost of living and low wage and would be the most impacted. They also tend to have the highest unemployment rates. (Fayette for example has 7%, double that of Chester county).

Implementation would have to be slow with potentially major public assistance to businesses in harder hit areas.

A better approach than a flat minimum wage would be to have a floating minimum wage based on the median income in each individual county.

[Motownman78]

189. You have to remember how far $31,200

buys in an urban environment. I make that yet to rent a 1 bedroom apartment on the outskirts of Nashville is $800 a month with no utilities paid.

[Amishman]

206. That's the other half of the argument but makes the same point

One size doesn't fit all. Better to set a minimum wage tied to the median income of a county than try to force one solution that won't fit in some places.

[Lee-Lee]

219. And that is my whole point- it's not the same fit.

I work in East Tennessee and here you can rent a 2br 1.5 bath home for $600. I just saw a 4dr/2ba listed for rent for $1000.

So when people who live here and work hard for $13-16 an hour in what is considered around here a desirable and good job- and it is one you can live on- see a protestor in Nashville demanding $15 for working fast food they don't have empathy for them, they don't feel any unity with them. They see them as greedy and lazy.

[Lee-Lee]

214. Exactly. I know the bulk of the Democratic Party is in urban areas

But party leaders and policy makers really need to spend time in rural areas and understand just how different things area in those places. So many times they lose voters who should be a natural for us by pushing very obviously urban-centric policies that don't fly in rural areas or with rural voters.

That rural voter would love to make $15 an hour. But they also understand the economics of it enough to know that a change in the law is as likely to make their scarce enough job go away as it is to give them that pay raise. And the rural voter making $15 in a job like a Paramedic or in a Manufacturing plant just sees it as people who are not willing to work as hard as they are to get ahead demanding the same money for doing less work or less important work and that breeds resentment, not unity:

[Not Ruth]

4. Denmark does it successfully, along with most other social program goals

[nycbos]

28. Denmark has 5.7 million people with....

... a large percentage of the population living around Copenhagen.


The Untied States have 320 million people with much more disparities in terms of locations.

[Bradical79]

78. So a larger sample size than the centerpiece of the OP's argument -nt

[Not Ruth]

5. All this does is force low paying employers to WV

Not very equal, and propagates working poor.

[Sunlei]

56. low paying corporations use the 20 cent an hour prison slaves. America has millions of slaves

ready to work and about 400,000? making our lovely high profit 'made in america' items.

They also fight our wildfires (contractors love their slave gangs), work on gaslines and die for us.

That's the reason Congress won't raise the Federal Minimum wage-the contractors/for profit prisons are paid that per slave worker.

[GeorgeGist]

6. Hold your horses ...

The study, published as a working paper Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has not yet been peer reviewed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. There have been several criticisms of that study

eg

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/news/2017/06/28/435220/five-flaws-new-analysis-seattles-minimum-wage/

http://fortune.com/2017/06/27/seattle-minimum-wage-study-results-impact-15-dollar-uw/

[DefenseLawyer]

8. You ease it in over several years

Over time, having a base wage of $15 would do wonders for the economy, not "even" in West Virginia but "especially" in West Viginia. I don't think people realize how every sector of the economy (other than predatory lending and buy here pay here used cars) would benefit from people having more money to spend.
It's kinda funny that every single time the minimum wage has been increased, armchair Milton Friedmans all scream that it will "destroy the economy". But that's not based on fact. In fact, that has never happened.

[Voltaire2]

9. There were two studies of the Seattle area.

Neither of them were peer reviewed. They reached opposite conclusions. Guess which one got the most press?

We've had a national minimum wage since 1938. The national min is the floor, the states have always been free to adjust their min above that. Other than the fact that the min wage is used as a political football and should be COLA automatically, it seems like a system that works fairly well.

That said, a universal basic income is a great idea, but it is not a good idea to scrap the min wage and consider UBI it's replacement. That would just incentivise the walmarts of the world to increase their use of tax revenue to subsidize their workforce.

[Casprings]

14. I would not say scarp the min. wage

I would say think about the level that makes sense for the whole economy and set it to increase at a rate that makes sense. I am not against the minimum wage. I am against a good political slogan becoming an unworkable national policy.

[Lochloosa]

10. $21.72

I have another study for you.


Minimum Wage Would Be $21.72 If It Kept Pace With Increases In Productivity: Study

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2680639

[Casprings]

13. Likely true... but also not that important to the consequences of a $15 nationwide minimum wage NT

[panader0]

89. This is the first thing that comes to mind for me too.

The minimum wage should not just keep pace with productivity, but with
inflation too. It has not and your figure of $21.72 is about what I have read too.
Where'd the money go? To the one tenth of one percent.
The largest transfer of wealth in history.

[Blue_Adept]

11. The outlier study strikes again and influences the easily influenced

This is like believing the 1% of studies that says climate change isn't real but ignoring the other 99% that says it works.

[Casprings]

12. I never said ignore the problems

I just think a UNiversal Basic Income and wage subsidies are a better means to deal with the problem. The basic issue is that you need policies that redistribute capital and do so with less unintended consequences. A minimum wage of $15 nationwide has huge problems.

[Exilednight]

15. Those "huge problems" have no empirical evidence to back them up.

From the article: "And critics of the research pointed out what they saw as serious shortcomings. In particular, to avoid confusing establishments that were subject to the minimum with those that were not, the authors did not include large employers with locations both inside and outside of Seattle in their calculations. Skeptics argued that omission could explain the unusual results."

This has the same stench as Cheney looking for evidence to invade Iraq. Draw the conclusion first, and then look for any evidence that fits your argument while dismissing any evidence that does not.

[Casprings]

17. While I won't do a lot review for you. simple question. why stop at $15? Why not a $40 or $60 rate?

NT

[leftstreet]

21. Ah, so that's what you're worried about

why stop at $15? Why not a $40 or $60 rate?

OMG I know, right?!

What happens if we let blacks or women vote - won't they like take over or something?

Can't let em get too much!

[Casprings]

22. I know right! It's worked great in Venezuela. NT

[leftstreet]

23. LOL n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

157. Well, at least in the US as opposed to Venezuela.......

you won't have the CIA and American capitalists undermining the ELECTED socially democratic government every chance they get.

Then again, I suppose you might.

[NCTraveler]

141. Next thing you know people will be marrying cats and dogs.

Gotta love that line of argument.

[Exilednight]

24. So much for honest debate.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't spend much time here.

If you want an honest debate, then show me a COMPLETE study of what the actual impacts are on Washington.

[BannonsLiver]

45. This reminds me a lot

Of the "well what happens if we let gay people marry, are dogs and cats next? Will people be able to marry their goldfish?" mantra.

[NobodyHere]

49. Cats and Dogs living together...

MASS HYSTERIA!

[HughBeaumont]

125. Oh good. Strawmen.

Hey, as long as we're doing that, why stop at $7.25? Why not LOWER it to $6.00 an hour? How about $4? $2.00?

You pretty much showed your slip with the "Venezuela" comment.

[Casprings]

129. No it isn't

How does one determine how to set the rate? Why not a $30 rate? That is a direct question that has important policy ramifications.

[HughBeaumont]

138. Yes, it very much is.

A straw man is a logical fallacy which occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version, and rebuts said version — rather than their opponent's genuine argument.

It is common to represent an opponent's position as being an extreme position -- eg, that pro-choicers think all abortions are acceptable, or that pro-lifers think no abortions are acceptable.

This exaggerated wage is being bandied about by libertarian and conservative extremists who think minimum wage should be abolished; which in turn is based on another hyper-assumptive argument that wealthy bosses will 100%, each and every time, pay their workers BETTER than the current buying power LOSS that $7.25 is.

My number would at least be $11 an hour. Correcting for inflation is not bad capitalism. Grossly underpaying your workers is.

[Casprings]

144. Avoiding relavent questions and talking on tangents

Is avoiding relavent questions and talking on tangents. How should one determine the rate?

[HughBeaumont]

146. That assumes profit should have a say in what's right for humanity.

What it comes down to is that BECAUSE of the greed-fueled ruin that Capitalism and profit-above-all caused in the Gilded Age, there HAS to be a minimum wage. Otherwise, we'd all be working for pennies at 75 hours a week. It's about as stupid as saying men should have a say in what happens with a woman's body, or that corporations should have a say in a person's health.

The rate should be determined by what one could successfully live on.

Before you say "Well, if you have minimum skill, you should expect a minimum wage.", how does one attain more ridiculously costly "skill" in 2017 on $7.25 an hour? A worker should not be penalized for wanting to better themselves. My generation wasn't.

[Casprings]

147. Okay... how does one determine what the rate should? NT

[HughBeaumont]

149. Did you not read the bold statement in the middle or are you just being wilfully ignorant?

This is an example of "I don't like the answer so I'm re-writing the question".

Nowhere in America does $7.25 an hour even put a roof over your head. If basic needs cannot be met, your set wage is too damned LOW.

[Casprings]

154. Yes. Still does not answer the question. How does one determine what the rate should be?

[socialist_n_TN]

160. I believe the answer was a living wage..........

That would be my answer anyway. A living wage as calculated by trade unions, representing the entire working class with real COLA, also calculated by the trade unions, so the owners couldn't get away with raising prices and sparking hyper-inflation. And if they couldn't meet those conditions, then their businesses would be expropriated and run by the workers themselves at full pay, and without a "profit" margin which would give the buyers a break.

[HughBeaumont]

169. Completely does. You're being willfully obtuse.

[Casprings]

170. No I am not. How much does a person need to live on? How do you determine that?Does that rate vary?

[Motownman78]

193. That is easy

To determine the minimum wage, take the average cost of a 1 bedroom apartment in the locality and multiply it by 3.3. There you go. The minimum wage in Nashville would be $2,640 a month, in West Virginia it might be $1,400 a month.

[Casprings]

199. So you are suggesting a rate of 7.77 in WV and 14.66 in Nashville... far enough, but which..

would be the national rate.

I think my math is right on the rates.

[Motownman78]

200. No national rate

As cost of living varies far too much in this country.

[Motownman78]

201. Actually, make the idea I had national law n/t

[Casprings]

203. So you are saying totally get rid of what we know as the min. wage. Seems a little unpopular...

[kcr]

150. How about whatever supports the workers who help their business?

How about they acknowledge that they don't exist without those workers? If small business owners want to turn their backs on labor then screw them. If they can't understand that supporting labor actually benefits them then they're stupid. If they can't understand that joining with the big corporations that are helping to destroy them in the first place won't help them, then they deserve to die. They'll have already helped murder labor and the middle class.

[Casprings]

153. How does one determine the rate? NT

[kcr]

175. You do realize that things cost money? That poverty is a real thing? NT NT NT NT NT

[Casprings]

177. Yes. NT

[kcr]

180. Well, then. There's your answer.

You seem to think that areas that have a low cost of living are the reason for a low minimum wage, and these magical little bubbles of easy, low-poverty living must be protected. It's ridiculous. For one thing, 15 an hour doesn't even begin to cut it for the most expensive areas. That's the reason I actually think fighting for one flat rate for the entire country is the wrong way to go. But 15 an hour is the bare minimum it should be anywhere. For another, low cost of living doesn't mean poverty free.

[Casprings]

184. You still avoid the question

I understand you are saying that there is a cost of living. There certainly is. The question I have is, how do you determine what the nationwide rate should be? How do you come to the $15 dollar rate? Why not $20? Would $20 dollars be enough in some high cost areas? I doubt it.

All I am asking is, for you to walk me through it. How should I come up with a nationwide rate? If I am taking cost of living into account, okay. Am I using the national poverty line? Am I using a higher figure? How am I coming to the rate of $15 dollars an hour?

[kcr]

186. I'm not avoiding the question

I'm rejecting the premise that you can't determine such a number, therefore we shouldn't fight to raise it. Although I didn't avoid it altogether. I did state that my preference wasn't for one flat rate for the whole country. But I have a feeling my alternatives wouldn't align with yours. Our country's minimum wage is way too low, so it is important to raise it and I support that fight.

[Casprings]

187. I don't disagree you shouldn't have one rate..

I think the federal government should stop states from blocking cities and or other political subdivisions from raising the rate higher.

However, the argument still comes down to, why the $15 national rate? If you have no real argument for why that is the right rate, thats fine. I think there are strong arguments why that is way to high for the whole country.

[mythology]

44. There really aren't many other studies of such a high level increase

because moving the minimum wage that far hasn't really been done before in this country. Both the study that says the move was bad and the study that says the move was good need more analysis and review.

Yes most of the studies on smaller level increases show increasing the minimum wage has a positive impact, but it is a very different thing to increase the wage this far.

[Casprings]

47. Yes.. I would agree. NT

[Sunlei]

57. I think Henry Ford did it?

[sharedvalues]

109. Even this UW study says the $11 wage seemed positive

If you look at the study, they don't find any evidence of negative effects with the smaller increase.

[Squinch]

76. Thank you! That study chose to look at only one segment of an economy that, as a whole, is

absolutely booming.

Seems like the propaganda is bamboozling even a good number here, which is tragic.

[pnwmom]

16. I agree generally, but that poorly designed study in Seattle doesn't prove anything. It failed to

include 40% of job holders, for one thing.

Seattle's economy is one of the best in the country, with a record low unemployment rate below 3%.

[Casprings]

18. I believe they account for that. Read the study last week..

But would have to look.

[pnwmom]

19. They didn't account for 40% of employees. That in itself is enough to throw the whole study

into question.

[Casprings]

20. But you are talking about the 40 percent that are getting 1040s versus W2s

Because the data isn't there... not really sure that effects results and if they didn't correct for the problem.

It might be a case of, we commissioned a study and don't like the results. I imagine if the results were different, the methodical questioning wouldn't be there.

[pnwmom]

25. Of course it affects the results not to include a whole group of employees who comprise

40% of the total.

The study was released, by the way, without peer review.

[Casprings]

26. Why? What is different regarding the population and why can't you correct for it?

[pnwmom]

27. Have you read this critique?

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/uw-minimum-wage-study-doesnt-reflect-reality-of-work-in-seattle/

Specifically, let’s look at all the workers who are simply left out of the analysis. By the UW team’s own admission, nearly 40 percent of the city’s low-wage workforce is excluded from the data: workers at multisite employers like Nordstrom, Starbucks, or even restaurants with a few locations like Dick’s. Even worse, any time a worker left a job with a single-site employer for one with a chain, that was treated as a “lost job” that was blamed on the minimum wage — and that likely happened a lot since the minimum wage was higher for those large employers.

Similarly, every time an employer raised its pay above $19 per hour — like Jimmy John’s did — it was counted not as a better job, but as a low-wage job lost as a result of the minimum wage.

The truth is, low-wage workers are making real gains in Seattle’s labor market. In almost all categories of traditionally low-wage work, there are more employers in the market than at any time in the city’s history. There are more coffee shops, restaurants and hotels in Seattle than ever before. The work is getting done. And the largest (and best-paid) workforce in the history of the city is doing it.

[Casprings]

33. Are their problems with all studies? Yes.. but this looks pretty reasonable to me

Are there trade offs on any data set you decide to use? Normally. That said, this is a reasonable sound decision, at least to me. Again, one needs some argument why the excluded population would have vastly different results. For the population included, this is a very sound database.

This is still more about, I don't like what the study says, IMHO.

https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/NBER%20Working%20Paper.pdf

We study the impact of the 2015 and 2016 minimum wage hikes in Seattle using administrative employment data from Washington State covering the period 2005 through the third quarter of 2016. Washington’s Employment Security Department collects quarterly payroll records for all workers who received wages in Washington and are covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI).9 Washington is one of four states in the US that collects not only data on earnings, but also on hours worked during the quarter. Employers are required to report actual hours worked for employees whose hours are tracked (i.e. hourly workers), and report either actual hours worked or total number of hours assuming a 40 hour work week for employees whose hours are not tracked (i.e. salaried workers).10

This unique dataset allows us to measure the average wage paid to each worker in each quarter.11 We measure hourly wage rate as total quarterly earnings divided by quarterly hours worked, which corresponds to average hourly earnings, or realized hourly wage rate. As such, we can identify jobs that would appear to be affected by an increase in the minimum wage, and track trends in both employment counts and calculated average hourly wages.12 As a result, unlike the prior literature, we can plausibly identify low-wage jobs across industries and in all demographic groups, obviating the need for proxies based on those factors. We can estimate effects solely for low-wage jobs within all industries.
The data identify business entities as UI account holders. Firms with multiple locations have the option of establishing a separate account for each location, or a common account. Geographic identification in the data is at the account level. As such, we can uniquely identify business location only for single-site firms and those multi-site firms opting for separate accounts by location.13 We therefore exclude multi-site single-account businesses from the analysis, referring henceforth to the remaining firms as “single-site” businesses. As shown in Table 2, in Washington State as a whole, single-site businesses comprise 89% of firms and employ 62% of the entire workforce (which includes 2.7 million employees in an average quarter).

Multi-location firms may respond differently to local minimum wage laws. On the one hand, firms with establishments inside and outside of the affected jurisdiction could more easily absorb the added labor costs from their affected locations, and thus would have less incentive to respond by changing their labor demand. On the other hand, such firms would have an easier time relocating work to their existing sites outside of the affected jurisdiction, and thus might reduce labor demand more than single-location businesses. Survey evidence collected in Seattle at the time of the first minimum wage increase, and again one year later, increase suggests that multi-location firms were in fact more likely to plan and implement staff reductions.14 Our employment results may therefore be biased towards zero.
The ESD data exclude jobs not covered by the UI program, such as contract employment generating IRS 1099 forms instead of W-2s, or jobs in the informal economy paid with cash. Our estimates may overstate actual reductions in employment opportunities if employers respond to the minimum wage by shifting some jobs under the table or outsourcing workers on payroll to contractor positions.
The ESD data contain industry (NAICS) codes, which permit us to estimate results using the restaurant industry proxy used in much of the prior literature (Addison, Blackburn and Cotti, 2012, 2014; Dube, Lester and Reich, 2010; Dube, Lester and Reich, 2016; Neumark, Salas and Wascher, 2014; Totty, 2015; Allegretto, Dube, Lester and Reich, 2016).15

We measure employment both as the number of jobs (headcount) and the number of hours worked during the quarter. Because the data provide information on all jobs that were on payroll during a quarter, including jobs which lasted only for a few weeks or even days, we follow prior studies in focusing on the number of beginning-of-quarter jobs, defined as a person- employer match which existed both in the current and previous quarter.16 The hours worked measure includes all employment, regardless of whether a person-employer match persists for more than one quarter. Because the hours measure captures shifts in staffing on both the intensive and extensive margins, we focus on it in our preferred specifications.

[pnwmom]

36. Leaving out 40% of the employees, including ones who work at employers such as Nordstrom,

isn't some trivial flaw in the study. And counting as a job loss an employee who switches from a job at one location in a chain to another -- or who gets an even higher paying job -- is absurd.

From the Economic Policy Institute

http://www.epi.org/publication/the-high-road-seattle-labor-market-and-the-effects-of-the-minimum-wage-increase-data-limitations-and-methodological-problems-bias-new-analysis-of-seattles-minimum-wage-incr/

Summary
A team of researchers at the University of Washington has released an analysis of the economic impacts of the 2015 and 2016 increases in the Seattle minimum wage. The study, Jardim et al. (2017), looks at the first two stages of a phased-in set of increases that will eventually take the minimum wage in the city to $15.00 per hour. The authors of the study argue that they find large job losses associated with these first two rounds of increases, in which the minimum wage for most workers rose from $9.47 per hour to $11.00 per hour in April 2015 and then to $13.00 per hour in January 2016.1

The authors’ analysis, however, suffers from a number of data and methodological problems that bias the study in the direction of finding job loss, even where there may have been no job loss at all. One initial indicator of these problems is that the estimated employment losses in the Seattle study lie far outside even those generally suggested by mainstream critics of the minimum wage (see, for example, Neumark and Wascher [2008])—as the authors themselves acknowledge.

In this report, we describe the most important shortcomings in the new analysis and make suggestions for how the researchers can attempt to correct for these problems in future iterations of their long-term study of the Seattle minimum wage. These shortcomings include:

The employment responses estimated by the authors are well outside the bounds of most published research, and indeed all of the research cited by the authors implies much smaller and even no employment changes in response to wage increases similar to those experienced so far in Seattle. After accounting for Seattle’s much higher wage structure, the increase of the minimum wage to $13.00 in the city is within the range of increases that other research has found to have had little to no effect on employment.
The study implausibly finds employment changes due to the minimum wage in parts of the labor market where there should have be none. The study’s own estimates inaccurately imply the minimum wage caused large gains in the number of jobs paying above $19.00 per hour and in the number of hours worked in those jobs—even though those jobs are well above the wage range where the $13.00 minimum wage should be having measurable effects. These spurious results strongly suggest that the study’s methodology fails to account properly for the booming Seattle labor market during the period being studied—a labor market that has been shifting employment from lower-paid to higher-paid jobs.
The study excludes an important group of workers, representing roughly 40 percent of the workforce: those working for employers with businesses in multiple locations. By omitting all multi-location businesses, such as chains, in Seattle, the authors bias their results toward showing job loss if there has been a shift in employment from small, single-location establishments toward larger firms with multiple locations.

SNIP

[Casprings]

39. Wow! A liberal think tanks hits on that issues and says to dis-regard the study based on that..

Very surprising. That said, one needs to have some theory on why the excluded population is foundamentally different. From there, you can look at that population and see if that holds.

Again, every study has tradeoffs. However there is nothing foudamentally unsound with the decision they made. Does it set up further study? Certainly.

[pnwmom]

41. You would need to prove that excluding 40% of workers doesn't invalidate the study. When a study

counts it as a job LOSS when a worker moves from one location at a chain to another, that is clearly a flaw. When a study counts moving to an even higher wage as a job loss, that is a flaw.

A team of researchers at the University of California reached very different conclusions about Seattle's minimum wage law.

http://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2017/Seattles-Minimum-Wage-Experiences-2015-16.pdf

[Casprings]

46. The Berkeley study is looking at the at the restaurant industry

So if you are so upset in the data set used by WU, how are you happy in a study that comes to conclusions about one industry?

I would note, that they say there is an a "sweet spot" for the rate.

There is good reason to believe that increasing the minimum wage above some level is likely to cause greater employment losses than increases at lower levels.

That said, I don't doubt that it helps in certain circumstances. In fast food industry in high income areas, it will likely be fine. But the US economy is not Seattle and we need to actually think about what policies are needed.

I am not against the goal. We have to get more capital to the poor. I am against not being thoughtful in how that is done.

[pnwmom]

116. I don't think the $15 would work equally well in large cities like Seattle and in small, rural towns

with a much lower cost of living. (Seattle's median rent for a STUDIO apt. is $1500 a month. )

But that study you're citing doesn't prove anything -- and everyone who lives here knows that the increasing minimum wage here hasn't hurt our economy.

[Casprings]

119. It does say something..

It says among the population studied, there was were effects. You can disagree with the data set. You can disagree with the methodology. But to say it says nothing is foolish.

[pnwmom]

161. No, it doesn't even say something reliable about the subset it studied. For example, it counted

as a job LOSS when someone decided to switch from one branch to another. And it counted as a $15 dollar job LOSS when an employer decided to raise the salary to $19. This study was deeply flawed.

[suffragette]

179. Pnwmom counters with facts and data and you attribute that to emotion "upset" and "happy."

Your argument is dishonest at the core.

[Squinch]

205. You noticed that too, huh?

[suffragette]

210. Yes, that tactic jumps right out, doesn't it?

[Voltaire2]

207. That study justified their choice as a sector that is highly sensitive to changes in the min wage.

But it is also a limited non peer reviewed study and it would be wrong to draw conclusions from either one.

It turns out that accurately determining the effect of min wage changes is extremely difficult because it is basically impossible to isolate the wage change from all other factors. Over the last 80 years many studies have been conducted and none of them have been conclusive. What we do know is that, so far, no increase has resulted in the economic catastrophe economic (neo)liberals claim must invariably happen.

[Sunlei]

29. It is the JOB of OUR Congress to raise the Federal minimum wage-$7.25 today. States must match the

Federal Minimum wage.

West Va. does NOT have to copy California paying $15 an hour.

OUR CONGRESS NEEDS TO RAISE THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE TO ABOUT at least!-$10- $15 an hour.

[Casprings]

110. Well congress should also outlaw states from banning city increases nt

[Sunlei]

124. states can give a generous holiday bonus to make up the difference if they really wanted to pay well

[JCanete]

30. I doubt it would hurt economic growth if companies didn't have other US alternatives, and I'd like

to see what other elements correlated to the problem of economic growth in Seattle after the wage improvement. The bottom line is, the more money you have in the hands of the people at the bottom, translates into more money locals have to spend locally. The big box stores, the big retailers, have far far more employees than the little guy. That's a huge infusion of cash at the bottom, coming out of the pockets of the big companies. That means the little companies, that yes, might have a hard time in theory, paying those wages but are far more dependent on local business, are likely to have an improved customer base, not a diminished one. The way we do things now, it doesn't take rocket science to understand that low wages paid by huge national and international big box stores, translates to more money leaving the community than staying. Otherwise their business model wouldn't make sense. This would absolutely mitigate that and make local businesses more sustainable, because the communities wouldn't be being entirely drained, and if box stores didn't think it worth it to drop down a shop in these places because there isn't enough profit to be made for the cost at the prices they now need to charge, well ultimately, that is GOOD for the local businesses.

On the other hand, if they still do drop those shops, well, now the workers will actually be able to afford to buy stuff, and they'll be able to save money, and maybe have more opportunity to start their own businesses and compete.

I do agree with you though. UBI is something we should be moving towards.

[David__77]

31. I would support a $15 minimum wage.

Would it cause disruption in the economy? Yes, I think it would. That said, I think that it would cause the development of important efficiencies in the economy. It would be optimal to couple such an increase in the wage with generous provisions for worker training and education.

[Sunlei]

32. $15 an hour is about 25 cents a minute. when you pay an employee to sweep, clean, flip burgers for

25 cents a minute- the employee works hard- they want to keep that job because it pays well. They do a better job, the business thrives because the customers are happy and your business looks great!

The business gets repeat customers, people pay sales tax- & sales tax is great news for any local economy. The employee/employer pays income tax & federal tax like social security- and that is great for our Federal government.

[mythology]

53. But if every job pays at least that much, the incentive doesn't exactly work that way

I think the minimum wage should be increased because we shouldn't be supporting jobs that don't pay for people to live (and that we need to have a real plan in place for the increase in automation), but I don't think the minimum wage is really a motivator to work harder as the jobs are relatively easy to swap between.

[Sunlei]

55. I've managed people who started at $10 and worked up to much higher wages. people work hard to

keep those jobs. Everyone's happier.

[ileus]

59. If every job pays well why do a better job?

That argument only holds up if there's "worse" jobs out there. Undesirable jobs would still be a revolving door no matter the pay unless we can mandate who holds what job.

[Sunlei]

60. because people don't want to lose a job by fucking off, stealing or standing around. They get fired

for cause in my world.

[Demsrule86]

34. None of that will happen...not a $15.00 minimum nor wage subsidies.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

35. If minimum wage went to 15?

What would happen to workers in jobs paying 11 to 13 per hour?

[NobodyHere]

51. They would be earning 15/hr

[hunter]

37. A business that can't pay a comfortable living wage doesn't deserve to exist.

Otherwise you are promoting slavery and wage slavery.

If a company like WalMart goes out of business (as they did in Germany because they had to pay living wages and accept unions) it opens the door back up to the smaller businesses they displaced.

FUCK CORPORATE WELFARE.

A Universal basic income, no strings attached, is a good idea, wage subsidies are not.

[Casprings]

40. I will let every local business in my hometown know that. NT

[hunter]

43. You didn't like what I said, so you NT'd it.

I think evey local business in your hometown, and those yet to be created, would be happy if Wal-Mart went away and everyone in town had the sort of income that they didn't have to eat crap food and struggle just to pay the rent.

Subsidizing wages for giant corporations, or even local businesses that have ties to corrupt small town government, is a terrible idea.

[Casprings]

48. 1. In an environment of a $15 rate, all you will have is Walmart. They aren't going anywhere

2. It's the snotty remarks that ensure that areas like my hometown will never support the the policy positions you advocate. When you say, "if you can't pay $15 an hour, you deserve to go out of business", you alienate a large section of the people and the people who know those people. That is fundamentally the guy down living on the corner, not the CEO sitting in his office.

Conservatives have the market on uneducated anger. Liberals do very well with sanctimonious and snide BS.

[Sunlei]

61. the 'guy living on the corner' isn't really a part of the ready to work & be hired goup of average

Walmart hires.

[hunter]

65. Walmart was unable to survive in Germany. The certainly *did* go somewhere.

They fled Germany with their tails between their legs to places more hospitable to wage slave state subsidized "capitalism."

Somebody needs to tell small town white U.S.A. they've bought a load of crap from a spray tanned city slicker. But fucking voices on the radio and TV and in their heads are telling them otherwise, and they'll keep on digging their own graves deeper. Maybe they just haven't been hurt enough yet. Maybe they haven't yet tired of seeing their best and their brightest children leaving town forever, burning all bridges behind them; the kids who know racism is bullshit, Creationism is bullshit; the kids who are artists and dreamers; the LGBTQ kids, the kids who join the military, see the world, and decide never to go home again...

I don't see the Democratic Party has anything to gain by feeding small town delusions, and there's nothing's going to change the minds of small town businessmen and politicians and preachers who are benefiting from less than living wages and telling everyone it's all Obama's fault.

We need to stop romanticizing small town U.S.A..

Yeah, I've experienced places where fucking and drinking are the only thing teens have to look forward to on a Friday night, places where all the big men in town (big fish in small ponds) are rotten to the core.

You see the same shit in Mexico, but I guess if you are a white Republican male in the U.S.A., you are some kind of special snowflake, favored by a small, petty, and mean spirited god.

The sorry truth is that the U.S.A. has always been a "developing nation." We have a lot more in common with so-called "Latin" America than we do Canada or any of the European social democracies. But we've got a bad ass military with nukes and we speak English (just like Jesus did) so I guess that makes us grade-A-number one best winners.

Maybe small town U.S.A. hell need some of their own who are willing to tell it like it is. I'm not one of them. Yeah, I'll confess, I quit high school and took the first ticket out of the Ivory Soap 99.44 percent pure white affluent suburban hell I grew up in (kept that way by duplicitous real estate agents, lenders, and cops whose favorite sport was DWB's), and I've never looked back.

[Casprings]

67. My home town is 60 percent African American

Not all of rural America is white and this will hurt a lot of non-white people too.

[hunter]

79. I'm a minority white guy in my town.

Still got the privilege, whether I want it or not.

[Bradical79]

86. That won't happen, but assuming it did, I have a question

Lets say I'm an employee making $7.25 an hour (which I have been). Why would I prefer working at a small business making a wage that I can't live on rather than a big business where I can make a living wage? Why should I care if that small business stays in business if I have to struggle to house, feed, and clothe myself?

[Casprings]

88. Because there will be less of those jobs so it is likely you just won't be working. NT

[Voltaire2]

208. Actually you won't have Walmart as they won't pay that rate.

Instead it might open up opportunities for smaller retail chains that couldn't compete with Walmart but could pay a non-24/7 staff 15/hr.

[Demsrule86]

71. People will never go for universal income...it won't happen...and promoting it hurts us.

[hunter]

83. Who is "us?"

We are Democrats.

I am practical in my politics. I can do the math.

I support incremental progress. I've been an enthusiastic supporter of Jerry Brown, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, even though they are all center right from my perspective. The U.S.A. is a center right nation. All three are extremely competent politicians in this environment.

I have no expectations that my own vision of utopia will ever be achieved, not in my lifetime, but knowing which direction I'd go and who will push forward and who will push back along the way isn't wrong.

I'm not writing the Party Platform here.

[Demsrule86]

191. Democrats...I do not think it will ever happen and will allow the GOP to paint Dems are desiring

to give lazy people money...I understand it but most won't.

[hunter]

196. I know I'm fringe. I think human "work ethics" are destroying this world.

I'm a radical environmentalist, with formal training and field work in environmental and evolutionary biology. But I'm no fucking innumerate "green." Ralph Nader and Jill Stein have never impressed me, rating too high on my grifter meter.

This thing we now call economic "productivity" is a direct measure of the damage we are doing to whatever is left of Earth's natural environment and our own human spirit.

We ought to be paying people to experiment with lifestyles that have very small environmental footprints. Those who succeed at happiness without using more than their fair share of this planet's resources are successful.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The original concept in that phrase was "pursuit of property," not happiness, but some of our founding fathers thought that was too crass, and others were afraid it might be misconstrued as to apply to people they considered beneath them, especially women and non-white people, even more especially women of color and openly queer people. They couldn't even imagine that.

Yep, they said, let's go with "happiness." That's vague enough... some of them were already were having problems with the all-men-created equal stuff. Certainly not black men. Or Native American "Indians."

We might appeal to the good old Christian "love your neighbor" ethics. Allowing your neighbor to die for lack of shelter, food, or appropriate medical care is wrong. If you do that to your neighbor then you go to hell, do not collect $200, get fucked for eternity by demons with cholla cactus cocks.

I'll freely confess I have no idea how to appeal to the white 33% Trump deplorables, but there's no way in hell I'm ever going to pander to them.

Worst comes to worst they will fade away by simple demographics. Their miscegenist and religiously rebellious children will say "Fuck you, mom and dad. I'm out of here. You will never know your grandchildren."

Lucky me, all those horrors were resolved in my grandparent's and my great grandparent's and my great great grandparent's generations. The family religious warfare I experienced as a kid was merely walking upon coals. I can walk on coals, and I've got calluses against the few that burn. I'm a rebel, why would you expect otherwise, I rebel.

My last immigrant ancestor to the U.S.A. was a mail order bride to Salt Lake City. She didn't like sharing a husband so she ran away with a monogamous man.

Smearing the Democratic Party with Hunter's opinions would be madness.

[Demsrule86]

216. Your views are interesting. I don't agree with them completely. However, the country will never

go for such extreme views. We need to win elections...this day shows it clearly when millions may lose healthcare because some did not vote for the Democrat.

[hunter]

220. Barrack Obama and Jerry Brown won elections and they are very competent politicians.

How'd they do that?

I place some of the blame for Clinton's loss on the misogynist left. They could get excited about Barrack Obama or Bernie Sanders, but not a strong woman, especially Clinton.

Republican expertise at dirty politics such as voter suppression, gerrymandering, and gaming the electoral college system also played a part.

Russia supplied the dirty internet expertise.

[Casprings]

100. Why? UBI is a perfectly workable policy that would be extremely popular once in place...

If we get the white house and Congress, why not do it? Obama certainly thinks this debate is coming: https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview

[Demsrule86]

190. It will never be put in place. It will be viewed as welfare for lazy people...yeah I know it is not

But I have to say, it let's business skate and pay shitty wages.

[JI7]

115. that would mean more power for the wealthy as most small businesses will disappear

[hunter]

152. How? Why would small businesses disappear?

If they are holding employees, or even their own children, in conditions of wage slavery, don't they deserve to disappear?

If mom and pop are the sole proprietors, they have no employees, and they're not making a minimum wage, well, that's on them. They are not stifling the economic opportunities of any employees.

[treestar]

148. then no new business deserves to start up

and the corporations that exist have more power.

[hunter]

151. Where did I say that?

A universal basic income, no strings attached, and small business loans might make it much easier to start small businesses than it is now.

[treestar]

212. The ACA does

But if you're saying a business that can't afford the wage doesn't deserve to exist, that's going to include start ups.

The rich should be taxed rather than employers be responsible for social benefits.

[Casprings]

215. Yes! That is absolutely the point

[Trial_By_Fire]

38. That's what the greedy corporate executives want you to believe...

Wages have been flat for over 30 years...

[Casprings]

50. The tax system is a better way to deal with this problem, IMHO

Did redistribution and for the government to provide a UBI

[taught_me_patience]

42. I agree the 15 minimum wage hurts Democrats

$15 minimum is high even for Los Angeles. I can't imagine how harmful it would be in rural America. I'm a small business owner in Los Angeles and the constant rise of the minimum wage has been devastating for small business. I'd support a $10 national minimum wage, which would match the inflation adjusted max from the 60's.

[Not Ruth]

52. Short term maybe, long term, more customers for you

[Orrex]

54. Every pro-worker initiative in the past 150 years has been predicted to kill the company

"We can't end slavery, because paying the workers will destroy the company."

"We can't end child labor, because ending child labor will destroy the company."

"We can't require workplace safety, because requiring it will destroy the company."

"We can't allow a 40-hour work week, because a 40-hour work week will destroy the company."

"We can't allow paid time-off, because paid time-off will destroy the company."

"We can't allow paid maternity leave, because that will destroy the company."

"We can't offer pensions, because offering pensions will destroy the company."

"We can't have a minimum wage, because a minimum wage will destroy the company."

"We can't provide healthcare, because the cost of providing healthcare will destroy the company."

"We can't raise the minimum wage, because raising the minimum wage will destroy the company."

Notice a pattern? The excuse is always the same, and it's always bullshit. In every single case.

Employers complain that they can't afford to pay non-starvation wages. Well too fucking bad for them. If they can't pay a livable wage, then they don't deserve to have a business. They sure as fuck don't deserve to have tax dollars subsidizing their payroll in the form of public assistance. If they can't pay a livable wage, then they aren't employing people; they're exploiting them. That's true for Walmart, and it's true for the mom-and-pop diner at the end of the street.

When employers decide that their electric bill is too high, do they simply refuse to pay it? Or pay only what they think they should pay? How does that work for them?


And let's not forget: "We can't possibly limit the endlessly swelling CEO compensation, because that will destroy the company."

[Phoenix61]

63. Exactly!

and yet, business has survived. The idea that raising taxes will not impact business but forcing them to raise wages will is a flawed argument. They will pass the increase on to the consumers who won't necessarily be getting any increase in wages.

[Casprings]

68. Raise it taxes on high income, from all sources

That way you actually do target the Walmart CEO

[octoberlib]

87. +1 Great post!

[NewJeffCT]

137. Not just those major things you pointed out

but, the Family Leave act, Clean Water act, ADA, etc were all predicted to harm the economy as well

[Orrex]

164. Absolutely correct!

Great examples, all.

[NewJeffCT]

174. True

but, the items you mentioned were items that the right predicted would completely tank the economy. The items I mentioned were predicted to harm the economy or slow it down - so, not quite so gloomy.

[alarimer]

139. It is so blindingly obvious.

Those talking points all come from the same place, the mushy middle. Democrats have been guilty of this forever, decrying what they see as impossible or too "expensive" as soon as activists start having some success. The Democratic Party is the very last entity to get behind any sort of pro-worker position and they only do so when to do otherwise would cost them electorally. The party knows what it would take to win nationally (a full-throated defense of the social safety net and broad, effective economic policies that help EVERYONE) but they refuse to lead the parade. They only jump on the bandwagon when it is safe to do so.

[Casprings]

143. Yes, the UBI is totally in the middle NT

[Orrex]

163. Here's the practical problem with the UBI

It's a brand new program for which there is no real precedent in the US economy, and you're going to have to convince a hugely hostile majority that it's the best way to go, which frankly isn't entirely certain either.

Or you can raise the minimum wage nation wide, which has been repeatedly shown to benefit workers and the economy as a whole.


Even if you do want to chase the UBI dream, raise the minimum wage in the meantime, because for fuck's sake people shouldn't have to starve while busting their asses 50 hours a week.

Hell, afterwards, when you actually find the Holy Grail and manage to get UBI passed, you can even lower the minimum wage again, with UBI picking up the slack. That should placate the kneejerk corporate naysayers.

[Casprings]

165. I am not against increasing the min. wage..

I am against not doing it thoughtfully and in a way that works for the entire country.

[Orrex]

194. Great. Then $15/hour is a terrific place to start.

Higher as needed.

[Casprings]

197. How high? How do we determine the rate?

[Orrex]

204. $15 is good for a federally-mandated baseline...

then let cities & states set their own higher, as needed.

Honestly, this isn't difficult, and there is absolutely no solid argument against raising the minimum wage. In fact, 90% of the arguments weakly made against raising it are in fact very strong arguments in favor of paying the claimant a higher wage, which simply won't happen when the baseline is so damn low, as it is now.

[KG]

181. thanks for the straight talk, counter to the swill of the o.p.

[Orrex]

195. :thumbsup:

I welcome the OP to DU and look forward to years of positive contributions...

[Casprings]

198. Thanks!

[treestar]

213. Still not everything should be put on the employer

the US seems to have this fetish about not having the government do it directly. Single payer would be better than tying health insurance to the employer. Tieing everything to the employer makes it harder to change jobs or to start a business. Tax the rich instead, directly.

[Orrex]

217. Definitely tax the rich.

Until that happens, raise the minimum wage to a livable level.

[ileus]

58. 15 will work if we can get every position controlled by a central government.

We take profit out of the equation, and put people first.

[NobodyHere]

70. No thank you

I don't want to be North Korea

[TexasBushwhacker]

62. Take the time to read this

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/18/to-my-fellow-plutocrats-you-can-cure-trumpism-215347

No one is suggesting that minimum wage should be raised to $15 overnite. It should be phased in and then indexed to inflation. While wage subsidies might be appropriate for some small businesses, companies like Walmart need to get off the government teat. Their low wages are subsidized by SNAP, Medicaid, EITC and subsidized housing to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while they use extra cash for stock buybacks that primarily benefit the Walton family genetic lottery winners.

[moondust]

64. One alternative to the minimum wage

is a pay ratio scheme like the Swiss "1:12" referendum.

"The proposal would have meant executives would have been unable to earn more in a month than their lowest-paid workers in a year."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/24/switzerland-votes-against-cap-executive-pay

That would limit runaway executive salaries resulting from the gross exploitation of people, whether in small business or large. No matter how big or how well the company does, all employees enjoy the fruits of their collective efforts rather than a handful of decision-making assholes making the decision to hoard it all for themselves.

The Swiss referendum overwhelmingly failed, probably because Swiss voters were told that: "Multinational corporations could easily switch their headquarters elsewhere." The assholes will always threaten to pick up and move elsewhere if anyone tries to limit their exploitative behavior and level the playing field, and there will always be other places beckoning with open arms. I suppose you would simply have to deny them access to your markets if they chose to move elsewhere in order to keep feeding their out-of-control greed disease.

I agree that it doesn't make sense to make Main Street businesses with limited traffic and revenues comply with the same compensation regulations as multinationals with billions in revenues every quarter.

But globalization and automation may indicate UBI or something else in a future without jobs.

[Casprings]

66. I would note that most of this thread doesn't address the solution I am suggesting

A UBI that is funded by an increase in taxes on high earners is a far better policy and would foudamentally change the nation.

[Demsrule86]

72. It won't happen.

I don't think the will is there.

[Bradical79]

84. It's not just about will here

When people here are more aware of multiple studies on the minimum wage increase leading to positive outcomes, you need more than a dataless proposal to spur conversation about an alternative superior plan.

[Casprings]

94. Find me a study that shows an increase of this size won't have negative consequences.. NT

[Demsrule86]

192. Honestly, I understand what you mean. But I am way more interested in winning the next election.

That is not a winning message in my opinion.

[Exilednight]

80. I would note that you haven't actually provided any evidence that

suggests your proposal is a solution with a better outcome.

Until you provide real data and peer reviewed studies, everything you suggest is a moot point.

[Bradical79]

82. Why address your solution?

You presented an argument that ignores most other studies and is based on a non-peer reviewed outlier. Calling it "dumb" and "harmful" when it often is shown to be neither isn't a good way to get people to take your personal solution seriously. You're making unsubstantiated assumptions at this point.

[metalbot]

85. You're trying to have it both ways here

You argue on the one hand that a minimum wage isn't viable because of economic variances within the US.

Why would UBI be any better in this regard? A UBI that allows you to live comfortably in rural Kansas might not get you a 1 BR apartment in San Francisco.

I can make all sorts of arguments why a UBI would be a good thing, but it just strikes me as odd that it doesn't address your primary criticism of minimum wage...

[Casprings]

93. You can set different amounts for different areas..

You wold want it to drive a local economy by getting capital into the hands of those who will spend it and fuel further economic growth. You should have some structure that allows for the UBI to vary based on local economic conditions and rather the economy is expanding or in recession. An organization like a federal reserve (e.g. a technocratic organization of economics) could set and change the UBI and use it as a tool to manage overall economic growth.

[mackdaddy]

69. A phased in $15 minumum wage WILL work, and is not "Dumb".

Labor is usually only a fraction of the costs of of most goods and services. If Everybody has to pay the higher costs then they do not have to worry about their competitors undercutting their prices. Yes prices will go up, but ALL worker will have much higher income to more than compensate for the somewhat higher prices. And workers will make enough that we not longer have to subsidize them with welfare and food-stamp programs. And they will be paying more overall taxes through income and sales taxes to help local governments that are all facing budget crisis. And with a rising minimum wage, other incomes will also tend to rise, so the entire workforce will rise. Some inflation is fine as long as it is controlled, and does not rise faster that personal income. This was broken with fucking Reaganomics since the 80's.

The problem has been big businesses sucking all the capital from the economy and putting it in a few oligarchs off shore bank accounts. And sending all so many jobs off shore looking for a race to the bottom. No economic model can sustain that kind of bleeding. An economic model where the cash actually circulated in the local economy does work and has worked for years.

The economy can and MUST work for the masses. Not just the "elites".

[rock]

73. Disagree

I think it's helpful and smart.

[yallerdawg]

74. As long as our value as humans is tied to a "minimum wage" we are merely slaves.

Mayday, Mayday: The Urgency of Universal Basic Income Day



Remember this game? Did we forget why we got the $200?

[NobodyHere]

75. So how much would the UBI be?

[Casprings]

81. You have to think how to structure it first

I think it should be out of the hands of politics and into a body, like the federal reserve, to control. In that, they would be able to:

1. Set the rate at the a local level. I think we should start with a structure. Economic conditions vary wildly. A Basic income rate needs to be a different rate in San Fran versus rural areas.

2. Vary by age - we still need retirement so when your body hits a certain age (or condition) the rate should go up.

3. Decide when you start to tax income above the Basic income rate. If you get $16,800 as A Basic income, the income tax rate might need to start at 25k. That would give the person 41,800k a year to live on. A progressive tax rate could start above that.

As economic conditions changed, you could adjust the tax rate and Basic income. In boom times, you would want to give out less Basic income and raise your tax rate. If the economy needs to expand, the opposite. In sum, let it be an image to keep expanding the economy.

[Squinch]

77. By "the whole country isn't San Francisco" I assume you mean that the whole country

doesn't have the high standard of living that San Francisco has.

Gosh. Can you think of a reason that might be? Might it be because people get piss poor pay in many areas of the country, and there is no economy to speak of in those areas? And gosh! How ever could we change that? Hmmmm....

As for the idea that the Seattle $15 minimum wage hurt the economy, you have been duped. Very badly. Try this as an analysis of Seattle, and an analysis of that ridiculous study you are hawking: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9360663

[MichMan]

92. Replace the phrase "high standard or living" with "unaffordable cost of living"

No, the majority of the country doesn't charge people over $2K a month for renting a damn apartment. Even a $15 minimum wage means it would only take 80% of your gross income in rent.

Not to mention buying a home.

[Squinch]

95. Yes, but I think the poster's point that I was responding to was that everywhere doesn't need a

$15 minimum wage. I disagree. Of course San Franciscans could use it, but it would boost the economies in depressed areas as well. The $15 in Seattle has created a booming economy there, and unemployment went down after it was instituted.

[Casprings]

102. Seattle had a booming economy.. which is why a $15 wage is basically fine..

That said, of course it will work in San Francisco.. but you can't live there because of housing cost. If San Fran cares about the poor, it should deregulate its housing regulations.

[Squinch]

104. Actually it didn't. And if you read the article you will see that the increased minimum

wage improved the economy.

[mvd]

120. And also with UBI, you must be careful

Some conservatives push the idea of UBI in order to get rid of the safety net. I like the idea of UBI, but you still need a safety net, or else costs will take up too much of the UBI for many people and families.

[Squinch]

122. I think, given the whacked distribution of wealth in this country and the strong trends for that

wealth to continue going to the top, that UBI is an inevitability. But I think it's a long way off because right now when I say to people that it is inevitable, they look at me like I have two heads.

So for the moment, we need to do something more acceptable to those minds while we get them used to the idea of UBI. And that thing is a huge hike in the minimum wage. Everywhere.

Your point about how the right will try to cash in on a UBI and still stick it to the poor is absolutely correct. When it comes, it has to come after some form of universal healthcare, and it has to be very carefully structured.

[Casprings]

134. In a polarized political environment.. it the same fight

If you can get a $15 min wage, you can get a UBI. A UBI will be much more popular and do more good. Go for the UBI

[Squinch]

166. Mentally for the average voter, it's not even close.

[mvd]

171. Hopefully the UBI would be made livable when things like..

health insurance, social securty, and other assistance are considered. Then you can get a job to add income. I can also see Squinch's point that the $15 wage may be able to connect right now though. Just like I want single payer, but won't rule out other aids if they can come sooner.

[Casprings]

172. Once in place, it helps everyone. Employed and unemployed. That will be popular

[mvd]

173. I agree there

Interesting thread discussion.

[Casprings]

132. Depends on the size..

If large enough, you could substitute for the safety net. GOP won't desire that. Amount and details matter a lot.

[Casprings]

101. Yeah, San Franciso.. where you can feel good, be liberal, and keep the poor out by not allowing..

housing to be build because you want to keep your cities "charm"

If you want to help the poor in places like San Fran, you should nationalize the housing regulations and let developers build some more supply.

[Squinch]

105. Yes, you could do that. You could also institute a $15 minimum wage. Why one and not the other?

[Casprings]

108. In San Fran, a $15 minimum wage makes a lot of sense..

Heck a $20 dollar minimum wage might make a lot of sense.

[Squinch]

118. A hike in the minimum wage - a large hike - makes sense everywhere.

[Casprings]

121. venezuela does large hikes all the time

[Squinch]

123. Well gosh! That means we NEVER should! ... except it doesn't mean that at all.

[Casprings]

130. No it means that economic conditions matter

[Squinch]

168. Wow. Really? Who'd a thunk?

Of course economic conditions matter. And in the US a huge hike in the minimum wage would benefit everyone.

[spooky3]

90. Why is a UBI better than ensuring a fairer pay rate for

Those who are working? I'm assuming you would offer the UBI to people who are perfectly capable of working and in a place where jobs do exist, i.e., you're not merely proposing UBI for people who can't work.

[Casprings]

91. You would want

A UBI to be added to what a person makes. In other words, the UBI is your baseline, but working would be added to that and you would start to tax that income at a certain amount

[Squinch]

96. That doesn't answer the question. How is a UBI better than a living minimum wage?

[Casprings]

97. You are redistributing wealth versus putting the cost on..

A person without a large profit margin (e.g. a small business owner). A 15 dollar an hour rate is doable by Walmart. It isn't by many smaller firms in the nation. That is especially true in economically troubled areas.

[Squinch]

103. That's a valid point. But the US will not pass a UBI any time soon, and poor people need something

now. In Seattle, the economy is actually booming after their increase to $15, contrary to what the study you referenced said, and unemployment has gone down significantly since it was implemented. It is also restoring the numbers of people who are able to live on their wages so small and large businesses alike are seeing increases in volume of trade.

[Casprings]

107. The fight for the UBI is the same as the one for a $15 min. wage. Same forces for and same against.

On Seattle, it was booming with or without a hike. That still doesn't mean it didn't have an effect.

[Squinch]

117. It's not the same fight. The fight for UBI requires a change of mindset that we are not going

to see for some time. I do think it is inevitable, but when I say that out in the real world, it is clear to me that people are absolutely not ready for the idea.

[spooky3]

202. It depends on how you define "small business." Many "small business owners" make a lot more money

than do people working for corporations who may have to pay the taxes you recommend, and they aren't making the money off the backs of people earning low wages. It's not clear that everyone's taxes in general should subsidize small business owners in general (more than currently is the case).

[Hoyt]

106. For one thing, UBI works for underskilled whose jobs will be automated.

[jmowreader]

98. This is how to do it

First, analyze the economies of every metropolitan statisticall area and find the one with the lowest cost of living. Set the FMW to that. Give every employer whose revenues can't support the new wage a subsidy.

Now for the fun part: Require more expensive MSAs to have a higher FMW.

[Casprings]

99. Or just put it around $10 dollars, index it to inflation and outlaw states from banning cities from

creating a higher rate. I am not against a higher minimum wage. I am against doing something that would be artificially high for the whole economy. In some cities, $15 might work fine. But if you look at what the rate is adjusted for inflation, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/21/adjusted-for-inflation-the-federal-minimum-wage-is-worth-less-than-50-years-ago.html ) It is historically low. It should go up, just not to $15 an hour.

[sharedvalues]

111. Hanauer article is a good counter-point

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/18/to-my-fellow-plutocrats-you-can-cure-trumpism-215347

And here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016189521

Here is the key issue

"Over the last 40 years, corporate profits as a percentage of GDP have increased from about six percent to about 11 percent, while wages as a percentage of GDP have fallen by about the same amount. That represents about a trillion dollars a year that used to go to wages, but now goes to shareholders and executives. "

That trillion dollar transfer is what needs to be reversed. Higher min wage will help, but probably won't come close to doing it all.

[Casprings]

112. Yes I agree

But the way to do this is to tax the CEOs and redistribute that wealth with a UBI. A 15 dollar wage is a hammer that will have other consequences.

[sharedvalues]

113. OK. $11 wage plus taxes/redistribution. Maybe index wage to local median income.

[krawhitham]

114. $15 is needed everywhere

$15 bucks per hour
40 hours a week
52 weeks a year

31,200 gross

Check deductions
$222.60 FED Tax LINK
$47.17 Ohio state tax LINK
$169 SS LINK
$37.7 Medicare LINK

$476.47 per month

Required Monthly bills
$600 Apartment
$95 Average monthly electric bill LINK
$258 health insurance Ohio LINK
$310 Ford's 2nd cheapest car costs 17,255. A car loan breaks down to 310 per month
$75 car insurance LINK
$78.25 Gas LINK
$210 Food (assumes 7 bucks a day on food)

$1626.25 per month

Since it is called a living wage I'll assume you are allowed to spend money on fun stuff
I'll assume the person is a cordcutter
$46.92 Home Internet LINK
$10 Netflix
$73 Cell phone LINK

$129.92 per month


All that totals $2,232.64 per month or $26,791.68 a year

That leaves you will $84.75 a week left to deal with random stuff that always come up
New Cloths
Cleaning Cloths (your in an apartment so I assume you do not have your own washer and dryer)
Household items
Car Maintenance
OTC Drugs
Dates
Christmas presents


Not much if any wiggle room, and that is at today's costs. All these laws passing supporting 15 bucks an hour are slowly rolled out, California does not hit $15 a hour for 6 more years. $15 is living wage NOW, in 6 years it will take even more

[kcr]

126. Thank you

I can't believe how many arguments I'm seeing against this on a message board that doesn't cater to right wingers. As if there is anywhere in this country where 15 dollars an hour is a sufficient liveable wage. You didn't even get into child care expenses.

I will not support small business owners at the expense of the poor when it comes to wages. I've had it with small business owners whining about this and supporting the GOP and their right wing policies thinking it benefits them. It's shortsighted thinking and will only hurt them long term.

[Casprings]

136. The small business will not whine.. it will go away NT

[kcr]

145. Oh well. Let them then.

If their condition of operation is exploiting workers, I say don't let the door hit you. But they want to do business, so they aren't going anywhere.

[Casprings]

155. You don't do business if you can't feed your family

[kcr]

156. And their employees don't?

And they certainly don't do business without them. It's like the small business owners who take this attitude forget that. Or view them as merely a commodity and not members of their community for that matter. The argument that small business owners have to underpay and exploit their commodities because that's the only way they can compete plays right into big business interests who will in turn happily continue to undercut them anyway. They're only voting against their own interests in other words. They think they can play with the big boys.

[hunter]

209. Good.

Take a universal basic income and say good bye to wage slavery.

Like I've said, I won't romanticize small town U.S.A. and small town abusive business people.

A comfortable living wage provides employees the means to escape that hell.

[Kaleva]

127. The minimum wage back in 1968, in 2016 dollars, was a little over $11 an hour.

[Casprings]

128. Yes, and in today's dollars that was the highest it's ever been.

[Kaleva]

131. The minimum wage back in the 60's, in today's dollars, was much higher then it is now

It didn't destroy the economies of states like West Virginia.

[Casprings]

133. Yes, but $15 dollars is a lot higher then $11

And economic conditions change.

[Kaleva]

142. I would argue bringing it up to $11 over the next few years.

[exboyfil]

183. It is a valid argument if you look at historic rates

based on inflation. In 1968 it was $10.86 in 2015 dollars.

$15/hr. is too much.

On the other hand college tuition was $428/yr. in 1968 when the minimum wage was $1.65/hr so 260 hours of work (6 1/2 weeks) at minimum wage would cover annual tuition

In 2015 college tuition was $9,420/yr. At $7.25/hr you would have to work 1300 hours (32 weeks).

[Kaleva]

185. Minimum wage should at least keep up with inflation.

You give a very good example of what happens to the working poor when it does not.

[NCTraveler]

135. There are some statements in your op that I don't agree with.

That said, I think your overall direction is the one we must take. A minimum wage will have to be a part of it or else UBI will just become a corporate subsidy.

[Adrahil]

158. A one-size-fits-all minimum wage doesn't make sense.

Where I live, the MEDIAN wage is about $13/hr and that's better than a living wage here. A $15 minimum wage doesn't make sense here.

OTOH, I think $15 might be too low for high cost of living areas.

We have to index the wage based on cost of living.

The GSA already calculates cost of living adjustments for per diem purposes, and the Federal Government already pays locality adjustments for Federal salaries.

[Casprings]

167. Yes, its too high some places and too low some other places..

I would suggest that you do increase the national wage and index it to inflation. Second, I suggest that you make it illegal for states to not allow cities or any political subdivision within the sate to not increase it on their own. Economic conditions are foundationally local.

[kcr]

159. Why is this a losing fight? If this were true, why should the rest of us care?

So, we can have low wages but hey, we'll have cute little downtowns with mom and pops! We just can't afford to shop there.

Or we could tell those who support this corporatist bullshit to shove it and support workers. And everyone would benefit, including the Mom and Pops who would see their profits rise because more people could afford to shop in their stores.

[JCMach1]

162. Policy nuance matters little when you make $11 an HR.

You just know it's a starvation wage.

I am also stuck in adjunct hell where they calculate your wages on the fantasy that you only work when you are in front of your class.

$15 is at least a start. And yeah if an adjunct teaches 1/2 the classes of a FT instructor it should equal 1/2 of the salary.

[Adrahil]

178. You have my sympathy being stuck in adjunct hell.

My wife's department at her university uses almost all full time contract for non-tenure line positions. 95% of the time, they can cover additional classes by offering the contract faculty an overload. Here, the contract faculty is often long term... even complete careers, and they can get substantial raises over their careers (they are even considering offering a promotion path from "Instructor" to "Instructing Professor&quot . I agree that adjunct should be paid a prorated rate based on the base "Instructor" salary, and generally, more universities should limit use of adjuncts and add more full-time contract positions.

[JCMach1]

188. 0 FT jobs in the major metro area i live in

This year... But that is now the norm across the country. Even worse,. I have major Senior level Admin. Experience, so consequently no one will hire me for a FT Admin position. They look at me as overqualified and likely to leave.

Consequently, I live in poverty working a FT security job and teaching as an adjunct professor..

Seriously, I would have never left my overseas job had I known how horrible things are in higher ed. Back here in America.

[Joe941]

176. I need 15 and hour to survive...

[KG]

182. I lulz'd

what a pantsload.

not surprising it was printed in one of the journalistic gatekeepers to power.

[pansypoo53219]

211. higher wages for all are needed. the 2% keeps reaping all the goodies, time to share.

[Warren DeMontague]

218. a UBI is an important conversation we need to start having as we approach greater automation

but in the meantime, a sub-subsistence minimum wage is essentially public assistance for corporations that want to shaft their workers.

Really, what you're suggesting is that taxpayers shoulder the burden for the poor oppressed companies that just want that sweet, sweet cheap labor.

Fuck that.

The basics of a minimum wage should be, a livable wage. Can you LIVE on it. Can you PAY RENT on it. Can you have a decent life if you work 40 hours a week on it. If someone can't survive on what you're paying them, you don't deserve their full time work. Period.



Is that $15 in most parts of this country? Maybe in a few isolated places, it's a little bit less. Most places, though, it's probably more.