Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Labor The Minimum Wage: Putting Some Myths to Rest
Posted by Kshama Sawant on Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:28 PM
This a guest post by Kshama Sawant, who has a Ph.D. in economics from NC State University, teaches at Seattle Central Community College, and is a Socialist Alternative Candidate for Seattle City Council.
With seven strikes of fast food workers in eight weeks, demanding $15/hour and the right to a union, a discussion of raising the minimum wage has begun to stir up the predictable frenzy of pro-market mythology.
As in every previous discussion of raising the minimum wage, it has been asserted that such a move would increase unemployment, be harmful to the most underprivileged workers, bad for small businesses, and indeed, disastrous for the wider economy. In this same narrative, low-wage jobs are stepping stones, and hard work and higher education are reliable paths to middle class employment.
Is any of this true?
Who Are Low-Wage Workers?
Let's start with a useful benchmark of a low-wage job as one that keeps a full-time worker and their family of four at or below the federal poverty threshold - $23,005 per year, or $11.06/hour in 2011.
Contrary to the myths, the working poor are an ever-expanding contingent of America's labor force, while the middle class has been steadily shrinking. Over 25 percent of all workers qualify as low-wage workers.
Lest we think this is an issue only in Tennessee and Alabama, nearly 20 percent of Washington workers qualify as low-wage workers, with an additional 40 percent living within what is known as the supplemental poverty measure.
The road of higher education also increasingly leads nowhere. Low-wage workers are better educated than ever before, with over 26 percent having had some college education. Low-wage workers now carry sizable sums of student debt.
Conditions have deteriorated even more rapidly since the Great Recession began. Low-wage jobs comprised about 35 percent of jobs lost in 2008 and 2009, yet they accounted for 76 percent of net job growth in 2010.
Minimum Wage Already Too High in Washington?
It is true that Washington is currently the only state with a minimum wage above $9.00/hour.
What this demonstrates, however, is not a lavishness of wages here, but rather the abysmal standard of living faced by tens of millions of hardworking people nationwide. A full-time job at Washington’s minimum wage fetches about $18,000, clearly far less than necessary to meet basic expenses.
A more useful benchmark is a living wage. The Alliance for a Just Society defines living-wage jobs for Washington state, assuming full-time hours, as $16.13/hour or $33,544 annually for a single adult. Those figures would rise to $28.71/hour or $59,715 a year for a household of one adult and one child, and $29.42/hour or $61,188 a year for a family of four with one adult working. Keep in mind, many low-wage workers are unable to get full-time employment.
What Would the Fallout of $15/Hour Be?
Much is made of the impact a higher minimum wage would have on small businesses. But what about Starbucks, McDonald's, Subway, Pizza Hut and the vast array of huge corporations whose mega profits rest on the poverty wages of their workforce?
The CEO of YUM! Brands (KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell) made $20.5 million last year. The average worker in one of the stores made $7.50/hour. Restaurant chains spent nearly a million dollars in 2006 to fight minimum-wage increases in six states.
The past several decades have seen worker productivity skyrocket, and wages for most stagnate. Where did the balance go? It went to the top one percent. If minimum wage had kept pace with productivity, it would be approximately $22/hour. If it had grown at the same pace as the income to the one percent, it would be around $33/hour.
Increasing the minimum wage to $15/hour is surely reasonable in the face of the massive siphoning of income to the very top. Should those who work hard every day have to struggle to pay for rent and groceries?
Research does show that a minimum wage increase can initially pose difficulty to some small businesses. However, this can be addressed by increasing taxes on big business (which are at historically low rates) and eliminating corporate welfare to subsidize small businesses, along with cutting B&O and property tax burden on small businesses.
But the main danger facing working people and small businesses is the continued proliferation of low wages. The economy is reeling with over 20 million people unemployed or underemployed, a low-wage workforce, a collapse of the housing bubble, and staggering consumer and student debt. Raising wages is a vital measure to break out of the depressionary spiral.
Statistical studies show a positive impact of wage increases on jobs. When working people have more income, their spending power goes up, which in turn boosts sales, which further increases jobs and overall spending power, and so on.
The idea that raising the wage would harm the most disadvantaged workers is a fig leaf to justify anti-worker policymaking. In fact, increasing the minimum wage raises the bargaining power of all workers, and has the effect of raising wages across the board.
The Great Recession has left in tatters the idea that capitalism works. It works well for the billionaires, but for the rest of us, it has meant fast eroding standards of living. The American middle class was created on the edifice of courage and sacrifice of a mobilized labor movement. Let us support the workers demanding $15/hour. They are a sign of the times.
1
Ms. Sawant is right. On all counts.
(And yet The Stranger can't scrape together this tiny pitance for it's interns. Yet demands it of everybody else.)
(And yet The Stranger can't scrape together this tiny pitance for it's interns. Yet demands it of everybody else.)
3
Just out of curiosity, how many businesses has Kshama Sawant actually run? Any real-life experience as a business owner or operator to back up this claim?
4
If a living wage is $28.71/hour for a household of one adult and one child, then why not make that the minimum wage for people in that situation? Otherwise those families might not earn living wages. Likewise, single parents with four children would earn $29.42.
5
I support a high minimum wage. Especially for large profitable corporations that can obviously afford it,
But if we had a $15 wage, AND you didn't provide subsidies to my small business, I would have to lay off 2 of my 7 workers. That would also have ripple effects in my family because I would have to work more than 60 hours a week to cover those lost employees. That would mean I wouldnt spend time raising my 3 children as I do now and I wouldn't have the time to take on small consulting side projects which help me and my family meet our financial obligations. We live paycheck to paycheck and pay for our own health insurance and that of our employees.
So don't kid yourself into thinking that everything would work out and small business would be fine because there would be more people to buy my services. That is not reality.
Also an often overlooked side effect of a much higher minimum wage is that you compress wages and make it very hard to retain good employees. If you start a kid out now at $9.17 and mentor them, invest in their training and development and move them up the ladder, you can keep them longer term. If you have to start them out at $15, I can't afford to give that person, at the lowest level of responsibility in my company, any raises for a long time. So they are essentially stuck at $15 until they move up the responsibility ladder which takes years. When a worker is stuck, with no cola or raises for years, they become disgruntled and become bad workers, they also leave the company and you have to start the process all over again which is incredibly costly,
It has obviously been a major challenge to raise the minimum wage. It was hard enough to get it to $9.17 and now you are trying to climb a mountain to $15. I have no reason to believe that you can simultaneously raise it to $15 and somehow find a new pot of taxes to help subsidize my small company. God bless if you find a way but until that legislative fantasy comes true, please leave my small business, my employees and my family alone,
More...
But if we had a $15 wage, AND you didn't provide subsidies to my small business, I would have to lay off 2 of my 7 workers. That would also have ripple effects in my family because I would have to work more than 60 hours a week to cover those lost employees. That would mean I wouldnt spend time raising my 3 children as I do now and I wouldn't have the time to take on small consulting side projects which help me and my family meet our financial obligations. We live paycheck to paycheck and pay for our own health insurance and that of our employees.
So don't kid yourself into thinking that everything would work out and small business would be fine because there would be more people to buy my services. That is not reality.
Also an often overlooked side effect of a much higher minimum wage is that you compress wages and make it very hard to retain good employees. If you start a kid out now at $9.17 and mentor them, invest in their training and development and move them up the ladder, you can keep them longer term. If you have to start them out at $15, I can't afford to give that person, at the lowest level of responsibility in my company, any raises for a long time. So they are essentially stuck at $15 until they move up the responsibility ladder which takes years. When a worker is stuck, with no cola or raises for years, they become disgruntled and become bad workers, they also leave the company and you have to start the process all over again which is incredibly costly,
It has obviously been a major challenge to raise the minimum wage. It was hard enough to get it to $9.17 and now you are trying to climb a mountain to $15. I have no reason to believe that you can simultaneously raise it to $15 and somehow find a new pot of taxes to help subsidize my small company. God bless if you find a way but until that legislative fantasy comes true, please leave my small business, my employees and my family alone,
6
I am in agreement with higher wages, however, when it comes to Seattle you're pulling the string on one side and seeing it shrink on the other.
The biggest problem here is the incredibly high rents and home prices. As long as Washington State fails to develop more land for affordable single family homes, and clings to the "urban density" model -- which benefits on the very few real downtown real estate holders -- you're never going to get people into viable middle class life styles that doesn't involve high taxes for everyone else and some form of supplemental dole, again at the expense of the middle class.
Rather than apodments at Othello Station, we need more tract homes in Centralia and Yakima with high speed transportation links across the whole state.
The biggest problem here is the incredibly high rents and home prices. As long as Washington State fails to develop more land for affordable single family homes, and clings to the "urban density" model -- which benefits on the very few real downtown real estate holders -- you're never going to get people into viable middle class life styles that doesn't involve high taxes for everyone else and some form of supplemental dole, again at the expense of the middle class.
Rather than apodments at Othello Station, we need more tract homes in Centralia and Yakima with high speed transportation links across the whole state.
7
Kshama Savant should have her salary cut back to minimum wage, which is more than generous considering the rotting tripe she shovels in to the minds of her students.
Fast food is not a career, all workers are not equal.
Some of us put the time and effort in to acquiring skills.
8
@5
7 employees, an additional $6/hr, 40 hours/wk, 50 weeks/year = $17K per year.
what kind of business with apparently 8 employees is so close on margins?
maybe 6 employees at a higher base wage is a better way to go...
7 employees, an additional $6/hr, 40 hours/wk, 50 weeks/year = $17K per year.
what kind of business with apparently 8 employees is so close on margins?
maybe 6 employees at a higher base wage is a better way to go...
9
Fast food workers have the same rights to unionize as any other group of workers. This idea that they don't is ridiculous. So why don't they?
11
Excellent article - clearly lays out the case against the usual bullshit arguments.
Her point regarding the positive impact of higher minimum on all wages is quite important. Prior to the labor movement in the 30s in the US there was a very small middle class. Then, as now, corporations paid as little as they could get away with.
It's in the interest of all of us that the minimum be raised - it servers as the floor from which other wages are derived. What's happening instead is historically unprecedented inequality.
The way to change that is for workers to organize and fight back, and the Fast Food Forward movement is a step in that direction.
Her point regarding the positive impact of higher minimum on all wages is quite important. Prior to the labor movement in the 30s in the US there was a very small middle class. Then, as now, corporations paid as little as they could get away with.
It's in the interest of all of us that the minimum be raised - it servers as the floor from which other wages are derived. What's happening instead is historically unprecedented inequality.
The way to change that is for workers to organize and fight back, and the Fast Food Forward movement is a step in that direction.
12
@9
All employees have a right to unionize; however some employees are easier to replace then others.
All employees have a right to unionize; however some employees are easier to replace then others.
13
Just Jeff, fast food corporations use their massive financial resources to swoop down on any attempts to unionize and attempt to crush them by legal and sometimes non-legal means. They will also close stores, as needed, when unionization drives are successful. The "right" to unionize has also been severely limited by a raft of anti-union legislation.
That means mass movements are required to overcome that imbalance, and that is what movements like Fast Food Forward are about.
That means mass movements are required to overcome that imbalance, and that is what movements like Fast Food Forward are about.
14
Rather than raising the minimum wage, why not institute a basic income?
There are lots of reasons why a basic income would be great policy:
- There are no distortions or perverse incentives, since everyone gets the same amount of money regardless of what they do.
- People who are unable to find work are still able to feed and shelter themselves.
- Since a basic income is per-capita, larger families would automatically have more money.
- Small business owners aren't any worse off, since the amount they have to pay is unaffected.
- Conversely, no one has to take a job just to feed themselves, so employers will have to offer compelling jobs if they want to have any employees.
- People have more freedom to take risks, like starting companies, or leaving bad jobs without having a new offer in place.
How would we raise enough money for a basic income? Most things that we could tax (like income, sales, improved property) are things we like, and so it would be difficult to significantly increase those taxes without damaging economic activity. However, there's one thing that no one can create or destroy: land. There is no such thing as "tax evasion" when it comes to land taxes; you can't move land to an overseas holding company!
A land tax is not only economically efficient, but also environmentally efficient. It encourages people to do more with less. A land tax is a natural incentive towards productive uses, and a natural disincentive towards slums and parking lots. A land tax is also a natural incentive towards construction, which is a great source of good, local jobs.
I would enthusiastically vote for any candidate who advocated for a basic income, paid for by a land value tax.
More...
There are lots of reasons why a basic income would be great policy:
- There are no distortions or perverse incentives, since everyone gets the same amount of money regardless of what they do.
- People who are unable to find work are still able to feed and shelter themselves.
- Since a basic income is per-capita, larger families would automatically have more money.
- Small business owners aren't any worse off, since the amount they have to pay is unaffected.
- Conversely, no one has to take a job just to feed themselves, so employers will have to offer compelling jobs if they want to have any employees.
- People have more freedom to take risks, like starting companies, or leaving bad jobs without having a new offer in place.
How would we raise enough money for a basic income? Most things that we could tax (like income, sales, improved property) are things we like, and so it would be difficult to significantly increase those taxes without damaging economic activity. However, there's one thing that no one can create or destroy: land. There is no such thing as "tax evasion" when it comes to land taxes; you can't move land to an overseas holding company!
A land tax is not only economically efficient, but also environmentally efficient. It encourages people to do more with less. A land tax is a natural incentive towards productive uses, and a natural disincentive towards slums and parking lots. A land tax is also a natural incentive towards construction, which is a great source of good, local jobs.
I would enthusiastically vote for any candidate who advocated for a basic income, paid for by a land value tax.
15
Having worked in another type of service industry (caregivers for the disabled) I'm not unaware that unionizing any workplace - particularly a network of smaller workplaces within an industry - has challenges.
However, for anyone to claim that these workers don't have the right to unionize is flat out false. It takes a lot of work, collective will and vocational risk-taking to do so, but that right does exist. Ask any grocery store clerk. Most are members of UFCW.
However, for anyone to claim that these workers don't have the right to unionize is flat out false. It takes a lot of work, collective will and vocational risk-taking to do so, but that right does exist. Ask any grocery store clerk. Most are members of UFCW.
16
For those interested in the struggle of low-wage workers and the labor movement in general, I'd recommend this short online book from Socialist Alternative:
http://socialistalternative.org/publicat…
If you're interested in getting involved in the Kshama Sawant campaign, the website is here:
http://www.votesawant.org
http://socialistalternative.org/publicat…
If you're interested in getting involved in the Kshama Sawant campaign, the website is here:
http://www.votesawant.org
17
@south
It doesn't work that way. If a new employee comes in with no exp and makes $9.17, my managers might be making, for example, $21 with benefits. So if you jack up the $9.17 to $15, I can't just keep paying managers who have many more responsibilities $21. I now have to pay them $32.83 otherwise I am devaluing them and they will leave. And that also is just simply unaffordable. And that doesn't even include the dramatic increase in L&I payments that would come from the higher wages x hours worked.
So I could either lay off two lower rung employees and try to do all that work myself. Or, probably, more likely, I will lay off the managers who make more and do their job and keep the lower rung workers. Either way, it hurts the economy, my business, my employees and my family.
and regarding using a different mix, my business requires a certain number of work hours per day to cover the manual workload. So I just can't get by without having the same number of employee coverage. The service would suffer and clients wouldn't be happy, which would lead to lower revenue, etc.
Unfortunately my business and probably most others don't operate like a simple math equation.
I would also love to hear where this magic pot of new revenue the author suggests will come from to subsidize my business. Any thoughts? It's hard enough to get a budget out of Oly. See:McCleary
It doesn't work that way. If a new employee comes in with no exp and makes $9.17, my managers might be making, for example, $21 with benefits. So if you jack up the $9.17 to $15, I can't just keep paying managers who have many more responsibilities $21. I now have to pay them $32.83 otherwise I am devaluing them and they will leave. And that also is just simply unaffordable. And that doesn't even include the dramatic increase in L&I payments that would come from the higher wages x hours worked.
So I could either lay off two lower rung employees and try to do all that work myself. Or, probably, more likely, I will lay off the managers who make more and do their job and keep the lower rung workers. Either way, it hurts the economy, my business, my employees and my family.
and regarding using a different mix, my business requires a certain number of work hours per day to cover the manual workload. So I just can't get by without having the same number of employee coverage. The service would suffer and clients wouldn't be happy, which would lead to lower revenue, etc.
Unfortunately my business and probably most others don't operate like a simple math equation.
I would also love to hear where this magic pot of new revenue the author suggests will come from to subsidize my business. Any thoughts? It's hard enough to get a budget out of Oly. See:McCleary
18
Should we raise the wages for the sure but $15 may be too much, but that may be a tactic to get to $11-12. Remember salary is based on skill and type of job. Fast food does not seem to be a $15 an hour job.
Capitalism in tatters? Everyone I know is middle to upper middle class and is doing well.
Capitalism in tatters? Everyone I know is middle to upper middle class and is doing well.
19
@7 (Cascadian Bacon): My guess is that the taxpayers of wherever you went to school put a lot of their money into allowing you to acquire those skills you're so proud of. And if you went to a public educational institution in any state but Vermont, the minimum-wage taxpayers you're pissing on very likely paid a higher percentage of their incomes toward your education than shits like you.
20
Instead of putting such weight on a minimum wage, which has at-best-small positive impact in those studies mentioned (and that's in aggregate, with some parts of the low income population gaining and other parts losing), the better course would be to use some sort of direct transfer program, as mentioned above, such as a negative income tax, which have been found to have much greater positive impacts on the poor and many fewer negative impacts.
21
@18. Hmm.... you agree 15/hr seems too high to you for unskilled workers.....but where to set it then.....hmmm....if only there were some sort of system that would efficiently determine what a worker deserves based on how much he or she is worth....anyone? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Oh wait. I remember now. That's called capitalism.
Oh wait. I remember now. That's called capitalism.
22
Costco, McDonalds, Starbucks etc can afford $15 an hour. Your local barber, convenience store owner, sole proprietor can't.
Please keep that in mind my fellow liberal friends. We need to draw the distinction or we will lose this argument.
Please keep that in mind my fellow liberal friends. We need to draw the distinction or we will lose this argument.
23
@7 Considering that you seem to spend most of your waking hours spamming the comments of every post I read here, I'm sure you haven't just skated through life on mediocre effort and white male privilege.
24
Finally someone who is willing to stand with the workers and demand $15/hr! All the Democratic politicians that showed up to the rally said they supported the strike, but in reality don't support the demands or refused to take a position. We need more people like Kshama who are willing to use the platform given to candidates to highlight this issue and build support for an increase in the minimum wage.
25
Russell, it's true that minimum wage is just one way to address inequality, and that there are other possible policy approaches. But the point here is that a raising of the minimum wage would make life better for millions of people, improve the economy, and that there are workers in the streets demanding it.
If there was a movement for "direct transfer" as you say, I think we should support that as well. But we shouldn't let the theoretical existence of policy alternatives stand in the way of what could be a huge step forward for working people.
If there was a movement for "direct transfer" as you say, I think we should support that as well. But we shouldn't let the theoretical existence of policy alternatives stand in the way of what could be a huge step forward for working people.
26
@21 Capitalism is great for many things, but when it comes to an economically feasible distribution of wages it doesn't. It's the Wal-Mart cycle. Wal-Mart lowers prices by squeezing down wages causing their workers to only be able to shop at Wal-Mart and the cycle continues. This is a prime example of where the government needs to step in and change the situation.
27
@18 - "Everyone I know is middle to upper middle class and is doing well."
I can give anecdotal evidence to the contrary, so who is correct? To get at the truth we have to look at the picture overall, not just our own circle of friends/family.
The latest statistics show that about 15% of Americans are living in poverty, with nearly 1 in 4 children living in poverty. Over 55% of low-wage workers are women - many of them single parents working really really hard to put food on the table.
All you have to do is look at the unemployment rate, the increase in suicides, the $1 trillion debt amassed by college students, and the increase in homelessness to know that the capitalist system, where decision making is based on increasing profit, is not working for the vast majority of us.
The majority of jobs created in the US are low-wage service sector jobs - they accounted for 76 percent of net job growth in 2010. So, college students that are graduating with an average of $24,000 in debt are somehow supposed to find their dream job that pays enough to cover $400/month in student loan debt each month on top of food, rent, healthcare, etc. The 50% unemployment or underemployment rate of recent college graduates (since 2009) shows that this is is clearly not happening. So, yes capitalism is not working for the vast majority of us.
Of course it works for a few, who continue to tell themselves (and others) that they don't see what the big deal is, they worked hard and it paid off, everyone they know is doing well.
I can give anecdotal evidence to the contrary, so who is correct? To get at the truth we have to look at the picture overall, not just our own circle of friends/family.
The latest statistics show that about 15% of Americans are living in poverty, with nearly 1 in 4 children living in poverty. Over 55% of low-wage workers are women - many of them single parents working really really hard to put food on the table.
All you have to do is look at the unemployment rate, the increase in suicides, the $1 trillion debt amassed by college students, and the increase in homelessness to know that the capitalist system, where decision making is based on increasing profit, is not working for the vast majority of us.
The majority of jobs created in the US are low-wage service sector jobs - they accounted for 76 percent of net job growth in 2010. So, college students that are graduating with an average of $24,000 in debt are somehow supposed to find their dream job that pays enough to cover $400/month in student loan debt each month on top of food, rent, healthcare, etc. The 50% unemployment or underemployment rate of recent college graduates (since 2009) shows that this is is clearly not happening. So, yes capitalism is not working for the vast majority of us.
Of course it works for a few, who continue to tell themselves (and others) that they don't see what the big deal is, they worked hard and it paid off, everyone they know is doing well.
28
I agree with what Mr. Sawant has to say. I think this is an issue that's been seriously under-addressed.
29
why stop at $15 an hour you stingy cunt.
why can't the minimum wage be $45 so those folks can land in the middle class?
why do you hate working people, bitch?
why can't the minimum wage be $45 so those folks can land in the middle class?
why do you hate working people, bitch?
30
People who say that fast food workers don't deserve 15/hour, who are you to say that some people don't deserve the right to a decent standard of living. There are too many people in this world for everyone to get prestigious jobs. Someone has to flip burgers and take out the trash. Without these people you the "hard workers" wouldn't survive. The least you can do is treat workers like human beings.
31
how many paychecks does this lady sign?
how many payrolls has she ever met?
how many small businesses has she ever run?
S.T.F.U.
how many payrolls has she ever met?
how many small businesses has she ever run?
S.T.F.U.
32
@8 a lot of small businesses are around those margins. Most small businesses don't make a profit for the first few years. The same goes for franchises, its easy to say the CEO of taco bell makes millions, but when I was working at a taco bell it was franchised, and franchise owners have the same problem as small business owners.
33
So basically I have never made a "living wage" in my life.
What's with this expectation of one wage-earner per family?
What's with this expectation of one wage-earner per family?
35
@8; that's $84,000 plus another $6000 in add'l taxes. So, $90K hit to the business's NET profits. Yeah, a lot of small businesses would tank under that pressure.
36
Um, what? 7 x $6 x 40 x 50 = $84,000
We could improve the estimate by working backward; if 2 of 7 employees need to be fired to spend the same total on labor, then let n = current wage, 7 x n = 15 x 5, n = 15 x 5 / 7, which is to say, current wages are ~$10.71 an hour. So the difference without firing anyone would be $(15 - 10.71) * 7 * 40 * 50, or $60,060 -- probably still a pretty big sum for a small, sole-proprietor business.
7 employees, an additional $6/hr, 40 hours/wk, 50 weeks/year = $17K per year.
Um, what? 7 x $6 x 40 x 50 = $84,000
We could improve the estimate by working backward; if 2 of 7 employees need to be fired to spend the same total on labor, then let n = current wage, 7 x n = 15 x 5, n = 15 x 5 / 7, which is to say, current wages are ~$10.71 an hour. So the difference without firing anyone would be $(15 - 10.71) * 7 * 40 * 50, or $60,060 -- probably still a pretty big sum for a small, sole-proprietor business.
39
Every time this issue comes up, small business owners (or Small Business Owners) pipe up with their problems. The fact is that no one has forced anyone to become a small business owner. It's a choice. If you can't run your business and paying a living wage to your employees, then maybe you should get out of business. This is not 1940; there is no magic anymore to small businesses.
40
@37 me too, they're a huge scam...that said we should recognize there's franchise owners in the middle of this, and a bunch of them are making closer to what their min wage employees are making, not what the CEO is making.
41
@39
You're right, it's kind of annoying that the strikes have only targeted big national corporations, when tons of small, locally owned businesses are paying far less than $15/hr to their workers.
You're right, it's kind of annoying that the strikes have only targeted big national corporations, when tons of small, locally owned businesses are paying far less than $15/hr to their workers.
42
After 5 years of surviving the Great Recession, I am thankful we didn't cut wages at our place of business. My goal is to pay everyone a balanced wage, but I won't get to even give raises for another business cycle or two... Can't raise prices enough to compensate for the hit we took. We can strive to create a sustainable business model, but guess what? takes time to find a new mode of profit in a very damaged economy and as a small business owner who employs about 25 people. Not every business has the gloss of tech dollars, you know?
43
@39. So the fact that my employees make between $12.75 and $16.50 and hour, and that looking at the records for last year, I made roughly 10% more than the lowest wage earner, you'd prefer to see me shut down and not employee anyone? Really? You are kind of an idiot or just don't have a clue. I keep 3 employees and myself employed. I'm a corporation and I don't make millions. Each month I struggle to put a little into the company savings. My emoployees get health insurance for which I pay 75% of the cost. They also get paid vacation time. About 3 weeks per year. Which is more than I take. In fact, today for instance, I got to work at 7am and left the office at 7:20pm. That's how it's been for about 20 years. Should I just throw in the towel and go to work for someone else? I think I do more good by giving someone a job. My company savings account is very small. My personal wealth is very small. It's because I've always made sure my employees are taken care of. In 2008 business significantly dropped off, yet I kept one employee on for almost a year. Keeping him busy doing anything I could find. Sometimes just paying him to come in and clean. Because he'd just had a baby and I couldn't stand the thought of laying him off. I went without paying myself anything so he could get paid. Today my credit is pretty poor, I pay my bills, but not always on time, because I make sure my employees are paid first. Then vendors, then myself. Fortunately, my spouse makes enought that if I miss a paycheck we aren't forced out on the streets. But the line is thin. I'd rather work for myself and help others than work for someone else. If suddenly I had to pay entry level $15/hr it would indeed hurt and I'd have to lay someone off. There isn't enough margin in what I do to make up for that kind of increase.
More...
44
@14: We have a "basic income." Most people call it welfare. You can receive money purely on the merits of your heart still beating and you not being in this country illegally (and even then, there are exceptions to the latter). It's a good and necessary system, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how your sunshine-and-roses "basic income" system would do anything to actually produce more work in aggregate to, you know, raise the money to pay for itself.
45
I have two MAs and five years experience in my field. I *dream* of finding full-time, long-term employment at $15/hr. Not sure that's ever going to happen.
46
{apology for spelling/grammar issues in my #43 post. Typing on a phone when extra tired has drawbacks.}
Before someone jumps in and says that I don't have to lay someone off, you are wrong. Currently, I have about about 1.3 FTE extra in labor. Why? Because I can actually purchase already manufactured product from out of state, have it shipped to my facility, repackage it, and then resell to my customers....for about 3% LESS than what it costs me right now. So why don't I lay off 1 employee and move the other to PT and buy out of state? Because these are people that I care about and I'm willing to keep them employed. But if that cost differential suddenly jumped to over 10%, ummm, bye-bye.
Before someone jumps in and says that I don't have to lay someone off, you are wrong. Currently, I have about about 1.3 FTE extra in labor. Why? Because I can actually purchase already manufactured product from out of state, have it shipped to my facility, repackage it, and then resell to my customers....for about 3% LESS than what it costs me right now. So why don't I lay off 1 employee and move the other to PT and buy out of state? Because these are people that I care about and I'm willing to keep them employed. But if that cost differential suddenly jumped to over 10%, ummm, bye-bye.
48
@44: A basic income is actually very different from welfare. Here's a (very recent) article from the Washington Post's Wonkblog on the issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk…
The crucial difference between traditional welfare and a basic income is that welfare is means-tested, while a basic income is not. Everyone, even Bill Gates, gets a check for the exact same amount. Means-tested welfare creates a severe disincentive to work, since the more you work, the fewer benefits you get. A basic income eliminates that disincentive, because you keep your benefits even as your income grows.
Of course, if everyone is receiving a basic income of about $800 per month, why would anyone work at all? Well... maybe because they want more than $800 per month. Or because they enjoy being productive, and actually don't want to sit around all day.
The point of the basic income is not to turn everyone into wards of the nanny state. It's to target poverty in a way that doesn't create any income traps or work disincentives. And where it's been tried (in communities in Canada, Brazil, India, and others), it's been quite successful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk…
The crucial difference between traditional welfare and a basic income is that welfare is means-tested, while a basic income is not. Everyone, even Bill Gates, gets a check for the exact same amount. Means-tested welfare creates a severe disincentive to work, since the more you work, the fewer benefits you get. A basic income eliminates that disincentive, because you keep your benefits even as your income grows.
Of course, if everyone is receiving a basic income of about $800 per month, why would anyone work at all? Well... maybe because they want more than $800 per month. Or because they enjoy being productive, and actually don't want to sit around all day.
The point of the basic income is not to turn everyone into wards of the nanny state. It's to target poverty in a way that doesn't create any income traps or work disincentives. And where it's been tried (in communities in Canada, Brazil, India, and others), it's been quite successful.
49
Kshama Sawant's article above makes a really good point that raising the minimum wage to $15/hour would actually help small business owners because more low-wage workers would now be earning a LOT more money which they would spend at small businesses. It would have a massively stimulating effect on the economy. Small businesses would get more business and they could afford to pay a living wage.
Also, if we elect Kshama Sawant to City Council, her article above says any harm imposed on small businesses by raising the minimum wage "can be addressed by increasing taxes on big business (which are at historically low rates) and eliminating corporate welfare to subsidize small businesses, along with cutting the B&O and property tax burden on small businesses."
We shouldn't let the politicians give tax breaks and bailouts to big business while small business and low-wage workers are overtaxed and under-supported.
By supporting the fast food workers struggle and independent candidates who are sympathetic to small business like Kshama Sawant, we can help out both low-wage workers AND small business owners. Vote for Kshama Sawant! www.VoteSawant.org
Also, if we elect Kshama Sawant to City Council, her article above says any harm imposed on small businesses by raising the minimum wage "can be addressed by increasing taxes on big business (which are at historically low rates) and eliminating corporate welfare to subsidize small businesses, along with cutting the B&O and property tax burden on small businesses."
We shouldn't let the politicians give tax breaks and bailouts to big business while small business and low-wage workers are overtaxed and under-supported.
By supporting the fast food workers struggle and independent candidates who are sympathetic to small business like Kshama Sawant, we can help out both low-wage workers AND small business owners. Vote for Kshama Sawant! www.VoteSawant.org
50
Never forget that almost all jobs are created by small business, and the median income of small business owners is LESS than the median income of Seattle citizens.
51
This is a great article, and I don't wish to detract anything from it, but it is always subjects in this category which are discussed, as opposed to the most obvious one we should all be ruminating about:
Why does a select group of sociopaths get to control the creation of the money?
Now shouldn't that be the real question everyone is discussing?
Why does a select group of sociopaths get to control the creation of the money?
Now shouldn't that be the real question everyone is discussing?
52
Microsoft, Amazon, and Boeing have been dodging taxes for years and this vast amount of wealth could be used, as Kshama Sawant states, to subsidize the small businesses you all claim will be hurt by raising the minimum wage.
Ms. Sawant is an ECONOMICS professor. She knows what she's talking about. She's spent her career studying the intricacies of the system and focusing on the inequalities of wealth in this country and beyond. Ask any economist; these numbers are not only accurate they are totally DO-ABLE. But we cannot rely on greedy career politicians to tax the rich, to tax corporations, to raise the minimum wage. We must elect people working to get a voice in city government for the workers like those that rallied last week.
Ms. Sawant is an ECONOMICS professor. She knows what she's talking about. She's spent her career studying the intricacies of the system and focusing on the inequalities of wealth in this country and beyond. Ask any economist; these numbers are not only accurate they are totally DO-ABLE. But we cannot rely on greedy career politicians to tax the rich, to tax corporations, to raise the minimum wage. We must elect people working to get a voice in city government for the workers like those that rallied last week.
53
The fact is small business is getting their asses kicked by big business, not by fast food workers. A big part of the strategy used by big business is to play small business against workers, resulting in more yachts for the super-rich, MAYBE a decent living for small business, and poverty for millions.
Raising the minimum wage is not about charity for the pitiful. It's fundamentally about raising the confidence of working people to get involved and use their social power as a counterweight to big business.
Can we really keep giving the keys for the government and economy to the Wall Street magnates who really don't give a shit about either small business or workers? How can we defeat their dominating power without mobilizing the tens of millions of low-wage workers who need immediate issues of wages, cost of living addressed?
Raising the minimum wage is not about charity for the pitiful. It's fundamentally about raising the confidence of working people to get involved and use their social power as a counterweight to big business.
Can we really keep giving the keys for the government and economy to the Wall Street magnates who really don't give a shit about either small business or workers? How can we defeat their dominating power without mobilizing the tens of millions of low-wage workers who need immediate issues of wages, cost of living addressed?
54
@50 It's not entirely accurate that jobs are "created" by small business or "creators" for that matter. Creation of jobs is a bit more complex than the Republican propaganda. First of all, without a market of consumers your business is not going to go anywhere, so you need people with money in their pockets, no paupers. And that's increasingly not possible without huge student loans, mortgages, etc -- or a big business to sell your product to. Furthermore, almost all small businesses is dependent upon financing from the banks, who have enormous control over capital outlays in the US.
That's why I would be in favor of not only raising the minimum wage immediately to $15/hr, but also taking the banks into public ownership, and running them democratically and in the interest of the vast majority - not the sociopaths competing for the largest fortune in the history. On that basis, we could give cheap credit to small businesses. And communities could decide whether a small business is important -- not Walmart and their Wall Street buddies.
That's why I would be in favor of not only raising the minimum wage immediately to $15/hr, but also taking the banks into public ownership, and running them democratically and in the interest of the vast majority - not the sociopaths competing for the largest fortune in the history. On that basis, we could give cheap credit to small businesses. And communities could decide whether a small business is important -- not Walmart and their Wall Street buddies.
55
I'm also a small business owner in Seattle. No one is stopping me from offering contracts that pay only $2 an hour. Small business owners on this thread could let their W2'd workers go today, then put out contracts for work at $1 an hour tomorrow. No one at the federal, state, or local level would bat an eye. If you don't want to pay a living wage to your workers then don't hire anyone and just use contractors and pay them what the market will bear. It's not rocket science you know? But to put someone on a W2, then pay them less than a living wage, isn't running a business, it's running a sweatshop. The owners profits are offset by the increased burden their workers place on their municipalities, for healthcare, childcare, education, and food assistance. We all pay more when a business owner profits primarily by exploiting their workers or the system rather than by competitively offering a better product or service. As a small business owner, I consider ceo's who skimp on employee pay to be competing in the market unfairly.
56
There have been several studies documenting the detrimental health effects of high stress / low wage jobs on the working class. Increasing the minimum wage would help workers to be healthier and happier people.
57
What's this nonsense in the comments about Kshama not having business experience??
Big businessmen want to take as much profit as possible and leave everyone else to the dogs!
I'm from Australia and we have a minimum wage of $15 p/h and our country is a bloody Capitalist bonanza! If someone is arguing against a $15 p/h minimum wage they're either ignorant or they want to suck their worker's dry of their labour for as little money as possible.
The top 500 most wealthiest companies should be taxed HEAVILY and some of the money from them used to subsidize small business so they can pay their worker's $15 p/h if they can't afford it.
Big businessmen want to take as much profit as possible and leave everyone else to the dogs!
I'm from Australia and we have a minimum wage of $15 p/h and our country is a bloody Capitalist bonanza! If someone is arguing against a $15 p/h minimum wage they're either ignorant or they want to suck their worker's dry of their labour for as little money as possible.
The top 500 most wealthiest companies should be taxed HEAVILY and some of the money from them used to subsidize small business so they can pay their worker's $15 p/h if they can't afford it.
58
@57; Australia is much more expensive than the US. In fact, you purchasing power is about 30% less, so in effect A$15 is equal to about US$10 in terms of purchasing power here in the US. Which is a 0.81 more than the minimum wage.
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/com…
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/com…
61
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/thedai…. $15.00 an hour is not a revolutionary demand folks. A worker has to make $14.65 per hr to afford a studio apartment in Seattle. Workers and the poor are lucky to have an independent left candidate on the ballot for city council. I wish we had that in Tacoma. As it stands our anti- worker, pro big business incumbents are pretty much running unopposed.
62
One point not yet made: if, under capitalism, the only choices are a poverty minimum wage or layoffs by small businesses (or inflation), if that's all capitalism can afford - then we can't afford capitalism. The fact that, under capitalism, all businesses that want to stay in business have to make profit - by getting more in revenue from the sale of their products than they're paying their workers (which is what those workers use to buy products) - means the workers/consumers can't ever be paid enough to buy back what they produce. The consequence of that fact is, a capitalist economy has to grow FOREVER just to maintain the workers/consumers' standard of living. When a capitalist economy reaches its limit for growth within its own borders, it either "withers on the vine" (Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria come to mind) or becomes an imperialist country - able to grow into other countries' economies by force. So basically wherever capitalism "works", it's really imperialism that's "working". The only thing that has saved capitalism was World War II, which spurred growth by destroying massive numbers of homes, massive amounts of infrastructure. So anyone advocating that we hang on to such a dangerous system is (maybe unwittingly) asking that we have a world war - killing billions of people - every so often to restart the growth cycle. If you correctly react with disgust to that, get active in challenging capitalism as the only viable social system. It HAS to end, for the sake of humanity.
63
@62
Also, I've noticed that if I only read the comments as a reductive dipshit, then logically the only possible response I can write is one of reductive dipshittery.
Also, I've noticed that if I only read the comments as a reductive dipshit, then logically the only possible response I can write is one of reductive dipshittery.
64
Oh no, the Stranger commentators at it again. For a bit more depth on the topic, go to Dissident Voice (dot) org:
Some of the preface to the reprint of Kshama's piece:
First, some transparency — I worked with Kshama Sawant in Seattle when I was tasked with the ungodly job of organizing thousands of workers in Washington state, by myself, at 11 of the state’s non-profit private colleges.
Adjunct academic workers. Low pay, no-way benefits, nowhere respect. As an adjunct myself, I’ve seen my huge stack of essays teaching composition (used to be the bedrock of ALL academic majors, and, alas, still is, but is being cut and cut by many disciplines, like Economics and the IT crap) as part of my nightly and weekend duty. Getting paid $1500 a class in 1986 and then in various places, $2000 (at the rich campus, Gonzaga) and then $3000 at SFCC in 2001, ending up with $3700 by 2011, and lots of other weird schemes in between, such as Green River Community College in Auburn, WA, paying $3300 a class.
Again, one class, 40 students, you get a stipend, at $3300 for the entire class, broken up in four pay checks. Take out taxes and state crap, and you get the picture. Plus, we are forced to stay under a certain percentage that would be considered Full-time. AND, our so-called brothers and sisters in the tenured tracking full-faculty gang can and do TAKE away classes from us, in what is called moonlighting or overloading, to get some more cash for their various needs. Screw the adjunct!
You want to do the math? Less than minimum wage working as a COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY teacher, preparer, reader, coach, facilitator, adviser, grader, evaluator, inspiration, and in-class-office hours worker, who then has to take home 150 essays to read closely, mark up, give holistic responses to, provide professional tips on how to make each essay GOOD, and ways to redraft — well, welcome to the Brave New World of Work for someone with two graduate degrees and decades teaching, making less than minimum wage. Throw in life skills and job skills. Other skills. Friendship? Community direction? Shoot, role-modeling. I’ll take minimum wage with that order of crow to eat.
Oh, the irony that SEIU — Service Employees International Union — those in the upper echelon, that is, get a cool $100-K a year, easily, on average, and of course more $$ in regard to more time in the organization, i.e., perks, and they are organizing fast food workers to fight for $15 an hour. Not a living wage, to be sure. Bizarre relationship — big bucks working to bring no bucks up to little bucks. Wow!
When we live in this sub-human capitalism, that’s all we can ask for — $15 an hour? Now, that would be bare bones “okay” IF we had built public transportation, free for all, and had built a movement around health care for all, single-payer, for all, then, shoot, those One Percenters and their Little Eichmanns could possibly ram that down our our throats.
More...
Some of the preface to the reprint of Kshama's piece:
First, some transparency — I worked with Kshama Sawant in Seattle when I was tasked with the ungodly job of organizing thousands of workers in Washington state, by myself, at 11 of the state’s non-profit private colleges.
Adjunct academic workers. Low pay, no-way benefits, nowhere respect. As an adjunct myself, I’ve seen my huge stack of essays teaching composition (used to be the bedrock of ALL academic majors, and, alas, still is, but is being cut and cut by many disciplines, like Economics and the IT crap) as part of my nightly and weekend duty. Getting paid $1500 a class in 1986 and then in various places, $2000 (at the rich campus, Gonzaga) and then $3000 at SFCC in 2001, ending up with $3700 by 2011, and lots of other weird schemes in between, such as Green River Community College in Auburn, WA, paying $3300 a class.
Again, one class, 40 students, you get a stipend, at $3300 for the entire class, broken up in four pay checks. Take out taxes and state crap, and you get the picture. Plus, we are forced to stay under a certain percentage that would be considered Full-time. AND, our so-called brothers and sisters in the tenured tracking full-faculty gang can and do TAKE away classes from us, in what is called moonlighting or overloading, to get some more cash for their various needs. Screw the adjunct!
You want to do the math? Less than minimum wage working as a COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY teacher, preparer, reader, coach, facilitator, adviser, grader, evaluator, inspiration, and in-class-office hours worker, who then has to take home 150 essays to read closely, mark up, give holistic responses to, provide professional tips on how to make each essay GOOD, and ways to redraft — well, welcome to the Brave New World of Work for someone with two graduate degrees and decades teaching, making less than minimum wage. Throw in life skills and job skills. Other skills. Friendship? Community direction? Shoot, role-modeling. I’ll take minimum wage with that order of crow to eat.
Oh, the irony that SEIU — Service Employees International Union — those in the upper echelon, that is, get a cool $100-K a year, easily, on average, and of course more $$ in regard to more time in the organization, i.e., perks, and they are organizing fast food workers to fight for $15 an hour. Not a living wage, to be sure. Bizarre relationship — big bucks working to bring no bucks up to little bucks. Wow!
When we live in this sub-human capitalism, that’s all we can ask for — $15 an hour? Now, that would be bare bones “okay” IF we had built public transportation, free for all, and had built a movement around health care for all, single-payer, for all, then, shoot, those One Percenters and their Little Eichmanns could possibly ram that down our our throats.
65
MIT has a much more accurate living wage calculator, which shows that for adults with no dependents, Washington's $9.19 minimum wage is definitely higher than the living wage requirement (http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/53), so why should we mandate by law that these unskilled workers be paid even higher than their current excess above the living wage? Workers with dependents and no other source of income, however, clearly need assistance. But why is should we force their employers to shoulder the burden by themselves? State welfare should take care of these people, that way everyone pitches in together, not just those who hire unskilled labor.
Raising minimum wage expenses to $15/hour will cause big chain stores to close locations with lower revenue... the more popular stores will stay open, but there's no way out of the fact that lots of people will lose their jobs because it doesn't make sense for the companies to keep open worse-performing locations. What does a minimum wage do for those without work?
On "Statistical studies show a positive impact of wage increases on jobs," that's 1 study, not plural. It regarded a 19% wage increase, not 63% increase being advocated in Washington, and that cost of labor change could destroy small businesses. Good science requires repeating studies before reaching definite conclusions (and therefore advocating giant policy changes), so get some more evidence.
Also, from the final paragraph, "It works well for the billionaires, but for the rest of us, it has meant fast eroding standards of living" is Americanized ignorance. Capitalism has taken 1 billion people out of poverty in the past two decades (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21…), albeit somewhat to the detriment of millions of American workers, but by several orders of magnitude American working-class losses are more than offset by the gains of the masses worldwide.
More...
Raising minimum wage expenses to $15/hour will cause big chain stores to close locations with lower revenue... the more popular stores will stay open, but there's no way out of the fact that lots of people will lose their jobs because it doesn't make sense for the companies to keep open worse-performing locations. What does a minimum wage do for those without work?
On "Statistical studies show a positive impact of wage increases on jobs," that's 1 study, not plural. It regarded a 19% wage increase, not 63% increase being advocated in Washington, and that cost of labor change could destroy small businesses. Good science requires repeating studies before reaching definite conclusions (and therefore advocating giant policy changes), so get some more evidence.
Also, from the final paragraph, "It works well for the billionaires, but for the rest of us, it has meant fast eroding standards of living" is Americanized ignorance. Capitalism has taken 1 billion people out of poverty in the past two decades (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21…), albeit somewhat to the detriment of millions of American workers, but by several orders of magnitude American working-class losses are more than offset by the gains of the masses worldwide.
66
Business experience? You realize she has a doctorate in economics right?
Businesses under capitalism operate solely to generate profit. They don't exist to increase the quality of life of their workers, and there is no incentive to do so. Seattle is lucky to have someone like Sawant and an organization like Socialist Alternative focusing their efforts on abolishing poverty and increasing labor standards for everyone. Anyone who trades their labor for a paycheck needs to be rallying behind Sawant in this campaign.
Businesses under capitalism operate solely to generate profit. They don't exist to increase the quality of life of their workers, and there is no incentive to do so. Seattle is lucky to have someone like Sawant and an organization like Socialist Alternative focusing their efforts on abolishing poverty and increasing labor standards for everyone. Anyone who trades their labor for a paycheck needs to be rallying behind Sawant in this campaign.
67
I enjoy that everyone thus far has completely ignored Nador. All that needs to be said is that the person he's ranting specifically mentioned that he was talking about business owners who COULDN'T stay open if the wage was increased who were fighting against paying above the current minimum wage.
Now, to the person speaking about the adjusted minimum wage of australia compared to the U.S. (I see now that this was also nador) $10/hr is NOT .81c above minimum wage it is $2.75 above it. Washington being the State with the highest minimum wage could be compared to the fact that the Aussie minimum wage only applies to workers in industries that don't already have a guaranteed higher wage(which is most of the population). On top of this there is also a minimum per week(I'm not privy to the specifics) which contrasts the U.S. where you can get hired somewhere and scheduled four hours for an entire two week period at $7.25/hr and you're not allowed to apply to any "competing company" at the place you're working at's(or the place you apply to's) sole discretion. There are MANY other differences between the economies and worker regulations of the two countries.
Now, to the person speaking about the adjusted minimum wage of australia compared to the U.S. (I see now that this was also nador) $10/hr is NOT .81c above minimum wage it is $2.75 above it. Washington being the State with the highest minimum wage could be compared to the fact that the Aussie minimum wage only applies to workers in industries that don't already have a guaranteed higher wage(which is most of the population). On top of this there is also a minimum per week(I'm not privy to the specifics) which contrasts the U.S. where you can get hired somewhere and scheduled four hours for an entire two week period at $7.25/hr and you're not allowed to apply to any "competing company" at the place you're working at's(or the place you apply to's) sole discretion. There are MANY other differences between the economies and worker regulations of the two countries.
68
My squeamish liberal heart is jarred a bit by the idea of an overnight shift to 15 per hour. I think incremental raises (say, to 10.50, 11 or 12, for a while plus cpi) is something more politically feasible as beloved small biz would not be purged.
At that more modest price, and likely even at the higher one, most affected biz wouldn´t be small, anyway.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19…
How does govt contracting work? Could a city hire a lot of people via some contracting template without having to pay them a pro salary, benefits and pension? I wish everyone for whom the market hasn´t found interesting work could be paid a gently improved wage to teach yoga, tutor (ESL for immigrants, important FL by immigrants, math, music instrument), care 4 childz, play music in cafes and bars, paint pretty nature scenes in n on ugly schools and govt buildings, act as low-intensity personal trainers and dieticians for people with diabetes etc. Basically local govts could purchase low-skilled, high value labor whose customers couldn´t ordinarily pay for the services consistently enough, themselves, to keep the workers who can provide them from seeking steady employment at grocers, pizzerias. Are there any progressive cities in Right 2 Work states that have had a go at this? It seems like towns have plenty of money to spend on big machine-intensive projects. Why not spend it on people?
At that more modest price, and likely even at the higher one, most affected biz wouldn´t be small, anyway.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19…
How does govt contracting work? Could a city hire a lot of people via some contracting template without having to pay them a pro salary, benefits and pension? I wish everyone for whom the market hasn´t found interesting work could be paid a gently improved wage to teach yoga, tutor (ESL for immigrants, important FL by immigrants, math, music instrument), care 4 childz, play music in cafes and bars, paint pretty nature scenes in n on ugly schools and govt buildings, act as low-intensity personal trainers and dieticians for people with diabetes etc. Basically local govts could purchase low-skilled, high value labor whose customers couldn´t ordinarily pay for the services consistently enough, themselves, to keep the workers who can provide them from seeking steady employment at grocers, pizzerias. Are there any progressive cities in Right 2 Work states that have had a go at this? It seems like towns have plenty of money to spend on big machine-intensive projects. Why not spend it on people?
69
I wonder how boldly degrading some of these bloggers would be in the face of the fast food worker who is going to make their next Big Mac. I think we should treat people who prepare our food very nicely. That is common sense. SimeOn (#55), apparently you are not educated on payroll laws in Washington State despite claiming to be an employer. Maybe you are one of the employers stealing from your workers by shorting their checks. You cannot pay someone $1.00 an hour or $2.00 an hour, not even under contract. Even if you solely pay someone commission, that commission has to meet or exceed the minimum wage. So, if you expect the worker to be at a specific place at a given time, you cannot skirt the state wage laws.
In a socialist society, you would likely have guarantees that you wouldn't even give your workers. Yes, the working class would give you the guarantee of cradle to grave healthcare, free higher education, decent affordable housing and get this.... A LIVING WAGE JOB! Yes, the working class would guarantee you more income than the pennies you threaten to pay your workers.
In a socialist society, you would likely have guarantees that you wouldn't even give your workers. Yes, the working class would give you the guarantee of cradle to grave healthcare, free higher education, decent affordable housing and get this.... A LIVING WAGE JOB! Yes, the working class would guarantee you more income than the pennies you threaten to pay your workers.
70
The Case for a $15 Minimum Wage, by a Seattle Central student and Sawant supporter. http://caseyjaywork.wordpress.com/2013/0…
71
The Case for a $15 Minimum Wage, by a Seattle Central student and Sawant supporter.
http://caseyjaywork.wordpress.com/2013/0…
http://caseyjaywork.wordpress.com/2013/0…
72
I am a small business owner, and I can tell you that if the minimum wage is $15 then I will
be hiring only the smartest, best, most experienced people.
be hiring only the smartest, best, most experienced people.
73
I own a restaurant. We do $1 million in sales a year. profits are around 7.5 percent. Labor is $380,000. If labor goes up by 60 %, I now go from making $75,000 a year to losing $115,000 a year. I have worked very hard for 20 plus years. Many 16 hour days, many 70 hour weeks. I started at $3.15 an hour. I busted my ass, struggled my way through college, waited until I could afford to have a family, reinvested in my business and now I have a good job.
I will not let go of my dream. I will be forced to raise my prices, say 20%. I will be forced to lay off half of my workforce, cut the restaurant hours and my employees will have to work 75% harder. I will not lose my dream, but half of my staff will lose their jobs.
I will not let go of my dream. I will be forced to raise my prices, say 20%. I will be forced to lay off half of my workforce, cut the restaurant hours and my employees will have to work 75% harder. I will not lose my dream, but half of my staff will lose their jobs.
74
So I just read an article written by Kshama Sawant. She has a Ph.D. in economics, so I find it abhorrent that she thinks the things she does... As I suspected, she genuinely thinks that the super rich CEOs are going to take a hit to their millions of dollars in yearly earnings just to keep ALL their employees. What a load. They're just going to fire people, and make the remaining people work harder. It's going to make it that much harder to get introductory positions, since everyone is going to have to produce more as there are less people doing it, there will be less room for learning a job over time. It's going to leave so many young, inexperienced people out of jobs. She also thinks that the harm this will do to small businesses can be offset by taxing big business at a higher rate, thereby allowing the taxes for small businesses to be lowered... except this hasn't happened yet and likely never will. She's delusional. There's a reason socialism is outside of the norm. It doesn't work in America.
On a related note, I make roughly $17 an hour. Do you know what I did to do that? I took out a loan from the government for roughly $30,000 to pay for higher education. $15 is entry-level skilled labor pay, whether it be blue- or white-collar. You now want to give people $15 an hour for unskilled labor? Where's the incentive to improve yourself, to educate yourself?
On a related note, I make roughly $17 an hour. Do you know what I did to do that? I took out a loan from the government for roughly $30,000 to pay for higher education. $15 is entry-level skilled labor pay, whether it be blue- or white-collar. You now want to give people $15 an hour for unskilled labor? Where's the incentive to improve yourself, to educate yourself?
75
So I just read an article written by Kshama Sawant. She has a Ph.D. in economics, so I find it abhorrent that she thinks the things she does... As I suspected, she genuinely thinks that the super rich CEOs are going to take a hit to their millions of dollars in yearly earnings just to keep ALL their employees. What a load. They're just going to fire people and make the remaining employees work harder. It's going to make it that much harder to get introductory positions since everyone is going to have to produce more as there are less people doing it. There will be less room for learning a job over time. It's going to leave so many young, inexperienced people out of jobs. She also thinks that the harm this will do to small businesses can be offset by taxing big business at a higher rate, thereby allowing the taxes for small businesses to be lowered... except this hasn't happened yet and likely never will. She's delusional. There's a reason socialism is outside of the norm. It doesn't work in America.
On a related note, I make $17 an hour. Do you know what I did to do that? I took out a loan from the government for roughly $30,000 to pay for higher education. $15 is entry-level skilled labor pay, whether it be blue- or white-collar. You now want to give people $15 an hour for unskilled labor? Where's the incentive to improve yourself, to educate yourself?
On a related note, I make $17 an hour. Do you know what I did to do that? I took out a loan from the government for roughly $30,000 to pay for higher education. $15 is entry-level skilled labor pay, whether it be blue- or white-collar. You now want to give people $15 an hour for unskilled labor? Where's the incentive to improve yourself, to educate yourself?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Why We're Voting "YES" on Gun Control Initiative 594, and Why You Should Too by Stranger Election Control Board
-
SL Letter of the Day: Why Are All My Straight Boyfriends Fucking Dudes? by Dan Savage
-
This Month in Bike Lane Blockages: Delivery Trucks, Armored Trucks, and Bollards by Ansel Herz
-
A Majority of Our City Council Is at a Swanky Resort With the Seattle Chamber of Commerce by Ansel Herz
-
Black Man Doing Time Is Now as Natural as Sunshine by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: The End Is Near by Dan Savage
-
Mark Driscoll Resigns from Mars Hill Church by Brendan Kiley
-
Absolut Phoney: A Giant Conglomerate Is Bringing Its "Local" Liquor to Ballard by Bethany Jean Clement
-
The Morning News: Washington Police Fight Limits on Drones, Plus, Our Endorsements for the November Election! by Ansel Herz
-
The Morning News: Tweet Leads to Arrest in Connection with Alleged Westlake Groping by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Comments (75) RSS