SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
You probably remember Subway's famous "five-dollar footlong" promotion as much for the obnoxiously catchy jingle as for the sandwiches themselves. (Sorry for getting that stuck in your head all day.)
The sandwich chain recently resurrected the promotion in a national advertising campaign promising foot-long subs for just $4.99—but the special deal won't fly at one Subway restaurant in Seattle, where owner David Jones posted a sign this week giving customers the bad news.
Sadly, the consequences of high minimum wages, excessive taxation, and mandate-happy public policy are not limited to the death of cheap sandwiches. The cost of doing business in Seattle is higher than the Space Needle, and the unintended consequences of those policies are piling up too.
The biggest cost driver, as Jones' sign mentions, is Seattle's highest-in-the-nation minimum wage. It went from $9.47 to $11 per hour in 2015, then to $13 per hour in 2016, with a further increase to $15 per hour planned.
The result? According to researchers at the University of Washington's School of Public Policy and Governance, the number of hours worked in low-wage jobs has declined by around 9 percent since the start of 2016 "while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent." The net outcome: In 2016, the "higher" minimum wage actually lowered low-wage workers' earnings by an average of $125 a month.
And now those same employees will have to pay more for sandwiches from Subway—and everything else too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @07:19PM (2 children)
Could be, how so?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 14 2018, @03:07AM (1 child)
When the mind not working properly, it often fails to notice this. It's not working properly, after all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 14 2018, @03:20PM
Of course, the feedback is great because it often fails to notice.
External input is required, thanks.
But to improve things, a little more detailed input would be useful.
Was there something specific about the UI proposal that made you think the writer was nuts?
Lacking that, it would be near impossible for a broken brain to sort out who's the nut.
Perhaps the numbers can't add up.
It's missing the concept of how many hours one works.
Also, perhaps a bit over the top on the consequences of the current welfare.