SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Jennifer Medina reports at the NYT that the the city council of nation’s second-largest city voted by a 14-1 margin to increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020, in what is perhaps the most significant victory so far in the national push to raise the minimum wage. Several other cities, including San Francisco, Seattle and Oakland, Calif., have already approved increases, and dozens more are considering doing the same.
In 2014, a number of Republican-leaning states like Alaska and South Dakota also raised their state-level minimum wage by referendum. The impact is likely to be particularly strong in Los Angeles, where, according to some estimates, more than 40 percent of the city’s work force earns less than $15 an hour. “The proposal will bring wages up in a way we haven’t seen since the 1960s," says Michael Reich. "There’s a sense spreading that this is the new norm, especially in areas that have high costs of housing.”
It's important to remember that the minimum wage hike comes at a significant direct cost to business — well over a $1 billion a year, according to the mayor's analysis — and it would be foolish to pretend that it won't lead to some job losses and business closures. Critics say the increase will turn the city into a “wage island,” pushing businesses away into nearby places where they can pay employees less. “They are asking businesses to foot the bill on a social experiment that they would never do on their own employees,” says Stuart Waldman, president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, a trade group that represents companies and other organizations in Southern California. “A lot of businesses aren’t going to make it. It’s great that this is an increase for some employees, but the sad truth is that a lot of employees are going to lose their jobs.”
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday May 21 2015, @09:31AM
> - If the business could manage with fewer workers, they would already have done so.
So we'll take the current MSNBC/bookstore case - guy employs 5. If he could get by with 4 he would. Therefore he can't get by with 4. And he can't afford 5 at the new minimum wage. So he folds. So 6 people are no longer in employment. Sure, you're right, the 1-fewer case doesn't happen, alas the 6-fewer case did instead.
But even then, it's entirely possible that the 1-fewer case might happen, he might have to change his opening hours, to not stay open so late, or open so early. He might have to staff the shop himself on Sundays rather than employing a minimum-wager to do it.
I'm guessing you don't run a business. Fortunately entrepreneurial spirit tends to enable people to ride the bumps, and the small entrepreneurs typically have longer to implement the changes, so it's less of a bump. An apparent expected change to X of deltaX rarely actually turns out to be so. Y and Z will change by deltaY and deltaZ in order to compensate, and X changes by less than deltaX.
> There was no unemployment spike in Seattle
This URL says otherwise: http://www.aei.org/publication/seattles-new-minimum-wage-law-takes-effect-april-1-but-is-already-leading-to-restaurant-closings-and-job-losses/
Sure, they're biassed, you can tell from the first line, but so are you.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @10:34AM
Sure, they're biassed, you can tell from the first line, but so are you.
Wow, all I can say is at least you are intellectually honest enough to admit that your source is worthless. So we should believe you and your obviously biased source because someone else was biased? If you want anyone to take you seriously then you should really find a real source and drop the whole "Yeah but you did it too!" routine.