Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I thought the Seattle thing was being phased in over a good number of years.

Either way, I just moved north to Everett so I don't have to deal with that stupidity. Yep. Got a whole new bag of stupid I have to live with now.

In principle, a brilliant thing. All for it.

It just needs to be done on the federal level to be more effective, to stop businesses moving out of the local area.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Australia has a comparable minimum wage, slightly higher actually, and we are doing quite well.

Blackhoof wrote:
Australia has a comparable minimum wage, slightly higher actually, and we are doing quite well.

To be fair, once you look at the relative strength of our dollar to the USD (by PPP, not direct exchange rate the swap is about 80c USD to the AUD), then our $16.37 minimum wage would be about $13.10 in the US. So $15 an hour would actually put them over our rate by quite a bit. Then there's other factors on top of that - the US still has a pretty sizable low skilled manufacturing sector, whereas we lost that decades ago, so the job loss of a similar minimum wage would be much greater to them than it was to us.

So $15 does seem pretty high as a national rate, even when your consider it won't be in place for a few years yet.

From another thread, since it was possibly off topic there:

(Frazzled and another talking about living wages and if dependents should be a factor)

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Keep it in your pants.

What happens if the dependent is not your child but rather a family member who you care for?

Then you have Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Wick, etc. etc.

That's where the whole thing is really a wash.

The current scenario: No living wage, people with dependents have to rely on welfare to get by, you and me pay for that welfare, pay less for goods and services.

The "living wage" scenario: Everybody gets paid enough, less people rely on welfare to get by, you and me pay less in taxes, you and me pay more for goods and services.

We are going to pay to support the poor. The only argument left is "who is the middleman between us paying and somebody else getting it" and would we rather it be a business that is going to take a big chunk out of that money due to greed or a government agency that is going to take a big chunk out of that money due to inefficiency.

But this argument is probably better moved to the "minimum wage" thread...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:
One of the weirdest things about travelling around the US is that the listed price out the front, or even the price on the menu, had nothing to do with what you end up actually. Over here, when it says the steak costs $22 then $22 is what you actually pay. You get to look at a menu and know what you're going to pay for a piece of food.

One of the greatest things about Germany that I miss the most... No matter the store or what I was buying, the price on the label was what I had to pull out of pocket. No calculating how much I need to cover relevant taxes, etc. It may be due to taxing codes/methods being different, but I've honestly no idea, but at times I'd much rather deal with the German/European style system than ours.

Its an excellent way to cover up how much tax you are paying. Its like paying for gasoline. You see the end price and think "evil oil companies" You don't see that half of it is taxes.
Thanks Obama!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:
One of the weirdest things about travelling around the US is that the listed price out the front, or even the price on the menu, had nothing to do with what you end up actually. Over here, when it says the steak costs $22 then $22 is what you actually pay. You get to look at a menu and know what you're going to pay for a piece of food.

One of the greatest things about Germany that I miss the most... No matter the store or what I was buying, the price on the label was what I had to pull out of pocket. No calculating how much I need to cover relevant taxes, etc. It may be due to taxing codes/methods being different, but I've honestly no idea, but at times I'd much rather deal with the German/European style system than ours.

Its an excellent way to cover up how much tax you are paying. Its like paying for gasoline. You see the end price and think "evil oil companies" You don't see that half of it is taxes.
Thanks Obama!

Gas prices have been lower for the last 6 years than they have been under Bush in 2008!

Thanks Obama!

Mmm..no they haven't.

 Frazzled wrote:
Mmm..no they haven't.

Yes, yes they have.

You're comparing a spike in 2008 vs. all of 2011-2014? Nuts.

Average prices are substantially higher. Look at your own chart.

 Frazzled wrote:
You're comparing a spike in 2008 vs. all of 2011-2014? Nuts.

Average prices are substantially higher. Look at your own chart.

But the price has never reached as high as it was in 2008. If you can quote where I said "the mean of the gas prices from 2009-2014 has been statistically lower than it was during the tenure of President Bush the Younger" then please do so.

All I said was "Gas prices have been lower for the last 6 years than they have been under Bush in 2008", and they have never been higher than the high of 2008.

Ok then ON AVERAGE gas prices are really higher in the Obama administration then now.

Thanks Obama (seriously, think you EPA and RINS prices).

 Frazzled wrote:
Ok then ON AVERAGE gas prices are really higher in the Obama administration then now.

Thanks Obama (seriously, think you EPA and RINS prices).

I tried to see once if the average has risen more under Bush or Obama (mostly because I remember filling up in 1999 and having the $ be lower than the gallons (got $15 bucks? Fill 'er up!). But then gasbuddy didn't go back more than 11 years and I got lazy.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Ok then ON AVERAGE gas prices are really higher in the Obama administration then now.

Thanks Obama (seriously, think you EPA and RINS prices).

I tried to see once if the average has risen more under Bush or Obama (mostly because I remember filling up in 1999 and having the $ be lower than the gallons (got $15 bucks? Fill 'er up!). But then gasbuddy didn't go back more than 11 years and I got lazy.

Best I could find. Stops in 2012:



From: http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_21545019/trick-question-who-had-higher-gas-prices-obama

What was the deal with that weird giant drop right at the beginning of 2009? I don't remember what caused that.

 d-usa wrote:
What was the deal with that weird giant drop right at the beginning of 2009? I don't remember what caused that.

The Great Recession.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What was the deal with that weird giant drop right at the beginning of 2009? I don't remember what caused that.

The Great Recession.

Yep, demand tanked when the global economy tanked.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:
One of the weirdest things about travelling around the US is that the listed price out the front, or even the price on the menu, had nothing to do with what you end up actually. Over here, when it says the steak costs $22 then $22 is what you actually pay. You get to look at a menu and know what you're going to pay for a piece of food.

One of the greatest things about Germany that I miss the most... No matter the store or what I was buying, the price on the label was what I had to pull out of pocket. No calculating how much I need to cover relevant taxes, etc. It may be due to taxing codes/methods being different, but I've honestly no idea, but at times I'd much rather deal with the German/European style system than ours.

Its an excellent way to cover up how much tax you are paying. Its like paying for gasoline. You see the end price and think "evil oil companies" You don't see that half of it is taxes.
Thanks Obama!

There's absolutely nothing preventing companies from listing what part of the price is tax and how much isn't, while still taking the full cost into account.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's absolutely nothing preventing companies from listing what part of the price is tax and how much isn't, while still taking the full cost into account.

I don't tend to look at my fuel bill (as it is just horrifically large even for a small, relatively efficient car ) so I can't remember what breakdown they apply to the cost in terms of the horrific taxes they apply to fuel, though I seem to recall they include all the tax except VAT in the base price, then charge you VAT on the cost of the fuel and the other tax as well

However, everything else I buy has a subtotal at the end with and without VAT.

 d-usa wrote:


The "living wage" scenario: Everybody gets paid enough, less people rely on welfare to get by, you and me pay less in taxes, you and me pay more for goods and services.

We are going to pay to support the poor. The only argument left is "who is the middleman between us paying and somebody else getting it" and would we rather it be a business that is going to take a big chunk out of that money due to greed or a government agency that is going to take a big chunk out of that money due to inefficiency.

But this argument is probably better moved to the "minimum wage" thread...

The issue is: a living wage surcharge doesn't go to the employee, it goes to the big business. There are all these attempts to force the rich and 'big business' to pay but it seems that they always get out of it and only hurts consumers and small businesses.

If I have valet parking, and he fetches 10 cars this hour and I have to pay him 15$ an hour, let's look at the 'surcharge' collected. If every car ticket is 40-80$ at the airport, the living wage of 8.5% surcharge is going to add up to 50-60$ an hour. And the employee gets 7.50$ of that. Who get's the rest? Who do we trust to supplement employees?

And then now we have people who don't need the subsidy getting it and those who need it not getting it.

Finally, 'consumer taxes' don't impact the rich as the rich don't consume more in relation to their income. If I make 10 times what you make, I don't eat 10 times more food, drive 10 times more cars or consume 10 times more gas per mile traveled. I may consume more on average, but no where close to my potential earning. So when you add consumption fees or taxes, it is disproportionately hitting those who consume over those who have wealth.

Boils down to if we as society feel that basic living conditions need to exist and needs to be subsidized by society, it is not best left in the hands of the 'rich' to voluntarily do it which is what the living wage debate seems to think will happen. They think somehow by raising the minimum wage that somehow it will target specific profits and the problem is solved. We all know that won't happen and 'living wage' surcharges proves that. And the alternative is to have oppressive tax laws which liberate profit from successful businesses with surgical precision to guarantee other rates and impacts don't change and profit margins go down to pay for the wage increases... and that won't happen either.

Right now, Businesses are probably laughing their asses off, If I could put a arbitrary politically charged 'tax' for my store on my bill for service or product and shrug 'blame your politician' and such surcharge is not regulated or monitored so I can be making gross profit off it, It is a great thing for businesses to have. And none of it helps employees, and actually hurts them in the form of reducing tips and functionally giving those tips to the employer.

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What was the deal with that weird giant drop right at the beginning of 2009? I don't remember what caused that.

The Great Recession.

Yep, demand tanked when the global economy tanked.

Yeah, that would be it. I just don't seem to remember it actually dropping this much.

Well, except that a lot of industries are especially price-sensitive. Grocery stores, fast food, and bulk stores like Walmart are all highly price sensitive. If McDonalds slaps a $.50 surcharge on their prices, the buyer will go to the Burger King across the road that didn't. I can see how a parking lot at an airport might have the ability to inflict whatever cost they want on their customers, but most businesses are going to need to compete, and should avoid doing this. (I think a study showed a very marginal increase on big macs would be necessary to offset a $15 min wage, one that, with their current profits, McDonald's could easily absorb to maintain low prices.)

And even the parking lot at the airport has some competition, in the form of airport shuttles and getting a ride from a friend. They can slap a surcharge on there, and maybe consumers will accept it, and maybe others won't. There's that sweet spot on the supply/demand chart, and a price increase of 20%, regardless of how they explain it, may well push them out of it.

 Redbeard wrote:

And even the parking lot at the airport has some competition, in the form of airport shuttles and getting a ride from a friend. They can slap a surcharge on there, and maybe consumers will accept it, and maybe others won't. There's that sweet spot on the supply/demand chart, and a price increase of 20%, regardless of how they explain it, may well push them out of it.

To be fair, if your "friend" is slapping a living wage surcharge on giving you a ride you need a new friend.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Besides... guess which group spent the most money advocating this? Once you find that out, then ask why?

We could attempt the same exercise with the groups that opposed it, it wouldn't mean much. I mean, it could turn out that the biggest people in favour of an increase in minimum wage was the Nazis, and the biggest opponents were the Scientologists, and the question of whether it was good or not would still rely essentially on economic realities - jobs lost vs poverty relieved.

The point I was trying to make Seb is that many Service Oriented Unions generally peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.

That's all I was pointing out.

This thing should've been done at a Steve level...

:shrugs: we'll definitely see what sort of impact, for good or ill, this will have rather quickly.

 Redbeard wrote:

Well, except that a lot of industries are especially price-sensitive. Grocery stores, fast food, and bulk stores like Walmart are all highly price sensitive. If McDonalds slaps a $.50 surcharge on their prices, the buyer will go to the Burger King across the road that didn't. I can see how a parking lot at an airport might have the ability to inflict whatever cost they want on their customers, but most businesses are going to need to compete, and should avoid doing this. (I think a study showed a very marginal increase on big macs would be necessary to offset a $15 min wage, one that, with their current profits, McDonald's could easily absorb to maintain low prices.)

And even the parking lot at the airport has some competition, in the form of airport shuttles and getting a ride from a friend. They can slap a surcharge on there, and maybe consumers will accept it, and maybe others won't. There's that sweet spot on the supply/demand chart, and a price increase of 20%, regardless of how they explain it, may well push them out of it.

An 8.5% increase on a 5$ meal is 42 cents... Define 'marginal'? And why raise prices when you can fight back and put a surcharge on to shift the blame and responsibility? An 8 cent increase on a 99cent burger is marginal. So either I sell 1.08$ burger or a 99cent burger with an 8 cent surcharge...

People won't go across the street because everyone will be doing it either in the form of surcharges or price increases. The idea that businesses will absorb the costs opposed to passing it completely over to the consumer simply doesn't pan out. And if they can't increase prices, they cut material costs or portions. Never profits.

And it doesn't actually address the issue, in the form of getting support to those who need it. That 15 year old doesn't need 15$ an hour but that mother of 3 kids does... The problem is we can't pay people what they need, only for what they do. We shouldn't be trying to raise basic wages to solve the 'living wage' issue of all situations and relying on corporations to magically spend profits to fix society because it won't happen. We have basically given that teenager an advantage and devalued that mother of 3's buying power and not at all addressed the issue.

I would much rather see government support programs to those who need it to augment wages for those who don't earn enough opposed to thinking that businesses will somehow lower profit margins and throwing more money at people solves all these issues.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Now that's quite interesting... makes it easier to plan a trip, eh?

Makes it easier to manage your finances day by day. I mean, if you want to keep to say, $50 a day, then there's a lot of value in being able to see a price and knowing whether it fits in to your budget or not.

It's actually, the comparison may be closer than you think.

It's the policies, like raising the min wage like this, is a microcosm of the policies that failed Detroit.

Trying to write Detroit as a story of failed policies is re-writing history to suit politics. Car manufacturing left the city, for the basic economic reality that it was no longer viable to centralise car manufacture.

Besides... guess which group spent the most money advocating this? Once you find that out, then ask why?

We could attempt the same exercise with the groups that opposed it, it wouldn't mean much. I mean, it could turn out that the biggest people in favour of an increase in minimum wage was the Nazis, and the biggest opponents were the Scientologists, and the question of whether it was good or not would still rely essentially on economic realities - jobs lost vs poverty relieved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
One of the greatest things about Germany that I miss the most... No matter the store or what I was buying, the price on the label was what I had to pull out of pocket. No calculating how much I need to cover relevant taxes, etc. It may be due to taxing codes/methods being different, but I've honestly no idea, but at times I'd much rather deal with the German/European style system than ours.

You're required by law to post the full price, tax included, here. I suspect Europe is the same.

One of the few things I really miss about Australia is that thing I've bolded.

My god america get on your feet and look around and see that we are just being dupped by the Bourgeoisie :/

*sigh*

It is a good thing they increased the minimum wage. But the problem is that we need raises everywhere, and for companies to have a max price they can charge and it needs to be set low so that they cannot increase just because the minimum wage went up. It also has to be done nation wide, and the companies need to be better controlled so they don't keep doing what they are doing which is increasing the money they make.

More regulated it gets the easier it is to control the companies and their fluctuating prices.

But this time it is on the side of the government doing a property tax :/

15$ for minimum wage is quite high. Why would make it that high? If you increase it slowly it would increase the growth of the entire area! An increase of 1 dollar over months might ease people into it, and might trick them into thinking maybe this works. That is the only way to do it in a capitalist economy otherwise it will crash and burn. Like the stock markets in wall street. (Too soon?)

nkelsch wrote:

An 8.5% increase on a 5$ meal is 42 cents... Define 'marginal'? And why raise prices when you can fight back and put a surcharge on to shift the blame and responsibility? An 8 cent increase on a 99cent burger is marginal. So either I sell 1.08$ burger or a 99cent burger with an 8 cent surcharge...

Or, you take a smaller profit, and sell an actual $.99 burger, and win business that the store across the street isn't winning.

People won't go across the street because everyone will be doing it either in the form of surcharges or price increases.

You have no evidence to support this statement. We live in an era where some companies regularly take a loss on items to drive traffic. And, this isn't even taking a loss, it's generating lower profit. I find it far more likely that competition will trump surcharges than that every business will slap the same surcharge on in spite of the possibility for a competitive edge in not doing so.

The idea that businesses will absorb the costs opposed to passing it completely over to the consumer simply doesn't pan out. And if they can't increase prices, they cut material costs or portions. Never profits.

Right, tell that to Amazon.

And it doesn't actually address the issue, in the form of getting support to those who need it. That 15 year old doesn't need 15$ an hour but that mother of 3 kids does... The problem is we can't pay people what they need, only for what they do. We shouldn't be trying to raise basic wages to solve the 'living wage' issue of all situations and relying on corporations to magically spend profits to fix society because it won't happen. We have basically given that teenager an advantage and devalued that mother of 3's buying power and not at all addressed the issue.

I would much rather see government support programs to those who need it to augment wages for those who don't earn enough opposed to thinking that businesses will somehow lower profit margins and throwing more money at people solves all these issues.

But government support programs are inherently more unbalanced that what you're describing.

Currently, I pay taxes. Walmart has workers who don't make a living wage. These workers need to eat or they couldn't work at Walmart. Rather than Walmart paying them more, Walmart expects my tax money will pay their employees, and Walmart keeps the extra profit. Indirectly, I'm paying Walmart's workers, even though I don't shop there and get nothing out of this transaction.

How you can think that a teenager making $15/hour for doing the same work as the mother of three (even though he may not need that extra money) is more unfair than people paying employees of companies they don't even use is beyond me.

Walmart needs living workers. Walmart has the money to pay to keep their employees alive (shelter, food, transportation, healthcare, etc). Why people who don't shop at Walmart should be forced to pay this is so blatantly more unfair that I can't even follow your logic. If Walmart wishes to push the cost of keeping their employees alive onto their customers, that's their right, but at least then the people who don't shop at Walmart aren't penalized for Walmart's business decisions.

 Redbeard wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

An 8.5% increase on a 5$ meal is 42 cents... Define 'marginal'? And why raise prices when you can fight back and put a surcharge on to shift the blame and responsibility? An 8 cent increase on a 99cent burger is marginal. So either I sell 1.08$ burger or a 99cent burger with an 8 cent surcharge...

Or, you take a smaller profit, and sell an actual $.99 burger, and win business that the store across the street isn't winning.

People won't go across the street because everyone will be doing it either in the form of surcharges or price increases.

You have no evidence to support this statement. We live in an era where some companies regularly take a loss on items to drive traffic. And, this isn't even taking a loss, it's generating lower profit. I find it far more likely that competition will trump surcharges than that every business will slap the same surcharge on in spite of the possibility for a competitive edge in not doing so.

The idea that businesses will absorb the costs opposed to passing it completely over to the consumer simply doesn't pan out. And if they can't increase prices, they cut material costs or portions. Never profits.

Right, tell that to Amazon.

And it doesn't actually address the issue, in the form of getting support to those who need it. That 15 year old doesn't need 15$ an hour but that mother of 3 kids does... The problem is we can't pay people what they need, only for what they do. We shouldn't be trying to raise basic wages to solve the 'living wage' issue of all situations and relying on corporations to magically spend profits to fix society because it won't happen. We have basically given that teenager an advantage and devalued that mother of 3's buying power and not at all addressed the issue.

I would much rather see government support programs to those who need it to augment wages for those who don't earn enough opposed to thinking that businesses will somehow lower profit margins and throwing more money at people solves all these issues.

But government support programs are inherently more unbalanced that what you're describing.

Currently, I pay taxes. Walmart has workers who don't make a living wage. These workers need to eat or they couldn't work at Walmart. Rather than Walmart paying them more, Walmart expects my tax money will pay their employees, and Walmart keeps the extra profit. Indirectly, I'm paying Walmart's workers, even though I don't shop there and get nothing out of this transaction.

How you can think that a teenager making $15/hour for doing the same work as the mother of three (even though he may not need that extra money) is more unfair than people paying employees of companies they don't even use is beyond me.

Walmart needs living workers. Walmart has the money to pay to keep their employees alive (shelter, food, transportation, healthcare, etc). Why people who don't shop at Walmart should be forced to pay this is so blatantly more unfair that I can't even follow your logic. If Walmart wishes to push the cost of keeping their employees alive onto their customers, that's their right, but at least then the people who don't shop at Walmart aren't penalized for Walmart's business decisions.

Well walmart pays their people enough money to survive and to be able to work but just barely.

Such is the game of capitalism. :/

Man that communism thing is sounding more attractive with every passing day.

Walmart actually gets quite a bit of welfare money, so it's better for them to force their employees to go on welfare.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Walmart actually gets quite a bit of welfare money, so it's better for them to force their employees to go on welfare.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/wal-mart-company-statistics/

This might be an interesting read. Its not like Walmart makes as much money as a country.
Wait....

They make 36 Million dollars... An Hour! Oh my goodness! How many workers do they have? 2,000,000 (estimation)? Lets see minimum wage is around 8.50 (A good estimation)

so 16 million dollars is taken away from that 36 million dollars!
So the major CEOs, Managers and higher staff, which number around 500. Get 20 Million Dollars.
YEAH CAPITALISM!

Its not like they could I don't know decrease the wages of the CEos and higher staff to I don't know a maxmimum amount, because its not like they do anything important and have to maintain their families.

Lalala.

Face it they can take a pay cut.

 Asherian Command wrote:


Well walmart pays their people enough money to survive and to be able to work but just barely.

And then it is a 'living wage'. Life is not expected to be good on a 'living wage' simply live. Basically society functions on a form of economic slavery. If you want a good life for all your citizens, then you need to forcibly seize profits and hand out assistance based upon personal situation.

Minimum wage increase doesn't solve anything, it is pandering for votes at a basic level with no attempts to fix the disparity and to keep people institutionalized in poverty. People think they are better off with more money but as we are finding a majority of these people have less money when all is said and done. In SEA-TAC, the loss of overtime, Free food and reduction in tips has caused a large portion of the workers to have less money at the end of the day.