It looks like Initiative 1433 — pushed by Raise Up Washington, a union front group — made it to the ballot. So, come November, Washington voters will decide whether or not to raise the statewide minimum wage to $13.50 per hour and require employers to provide up to seven days of paid sick leave per year.
Voters will have a lot to consider, so it should come as no surprise that union front group Raise Up Washington is already touting misinformation in hope of swaying voters its way. Here are three such claims that I-1433 supporters are telling voters:
- What’s the business impact of increasing the minimum wage?
“Employers who already pay above the minimum wage won’t see a difference in labor costs. Past experience tells us those who do pay minimum wage will find ways to manage the increase and remain profitable…”
- Will increasing the minimum wage increase unemployment?
“The short answer is no. Economists have studied this many times and the evidence overwhelmingly shows a minimum wage increase does not reduce the number of jobs available…”
- What’s the economic impact of increasing the minimum wage?
“In a consumer-based economy like ours, one company’s worker is another company’s customer. When workers have more money to spend, businesses have to hire more employees to keep up with increased demand. People earning the minimum wage right now have to spend too much of what they earn on basic expenses like rent and groceries, so the increased wages will help stimulate economic growth.”
Now, here’s the reality:
- What’s the business impact of increasing the minimum wage?
Small businesses across the state have responded to I-1433 by expressing concern over how many employees they could afford to retain. Simply put, it’s a job-killing measure. Many businesses owners are predicting that they would be forced to scale back the number of employees or reduce employee work hours should the initiative pass.
But, it’s not just small businesses that may react to an increase in the minimum wage with job cuts and/or hour cuts. Starbucks cut work hours/shifts from full-time to part-time workers in California due to the statewide $15 minimum wage.
- Will increasing the minimum wage increase unemployment?
Yes, for certain segments of the work force. University of Washington Professor Jacob Vigdor recently pointed out that Seattle’s $15 minimum wage places young, inexperienced and unskilled workers in “a tough position.” The reasoning makes sense: If businesses are going to pay employees as much as $15 per hour, they aren’t “taking a chance on a teenager, they are looking for a more experienced worker to fill that job.”
“Low paying jobs are the often first step up the ladder and by imposing a minimum wage, we’re basically saying we want people to be higher up the ladder and the way we’re going to do that is we’re going take away the bottom rung. Some people are going to be able to climb all the way up to that second rung, but there are certain workers for whom if they don’t have a first rung they’re not going to have a job.”
- What’s the economic impact of increasing the minimum wage?
Again, University of Washington Professor Jacob Vigdor recently pointed out that, while the impacts of Seattle’s $15 minimum wage must be measured using a variety of factors, it is not true that prices have not increased (as proponents of wage hikes like to claim). It may be true that grocery, retail and rent prices increased by just a couple of percentage points. However, prices in the food service industry have increased significantly — an average of 9% higher than just a year ago.
Advocates of the $15 minimum wage made a lot of promises when they pushed for the wage jump in Seattle. They painted a rosy picture in which workers would see a jump in their paychecks while assuring that no one would lose their jobs and hiring practices would remain healthy.
That didn’t happen.
Unfortunately, the failures have not kept them from making the same promises for I-1433.
ShiftWA
did you get Tensors approval before writing this article? The ultra progressive self anointed ‘editor-in-chief’ and ‘conscience-in-chief’ would never have allowed this article to be printed-there is way too much truth to put out to the people.
Small businesses across the state have responded to I-1433 by expressing concern over how many employees they could afford to retain. Simply put, it’s a job-killing measure. Many businesses owners are predicting that they would be forced to scale back the number of employees or reduce employee work hours should the initiative pass.
If only we’d heard that all before…
If the current minimum wage law in Washington is so good, why do we need to increase it? The 1998 law provides for regular increases based on the states economy. If we play with it do we risk poor results? The expert say yes.
If we play with it do we risk poor results? The expert say yes.
That’s always the argument, isn’t it? Could you please answer me these:
— Given how many predictions of doom we hear, why does it never come?
— Given how these predictions have all failed in the past, why do you give credence to new ones? Shouldn’t you first demand explanations for why the previous predictions all failed?
— For how long does a high minimum wage have to correlate with low inflation, low unemployment, and solid economic growth before we treat predictions of doom with skepticism?
Nope not always, but sometimes it is good information to consider.
I don’t know which predictions of doom you are talking about – the sky falling, or the eruption of Yellowstone Park. If you are talking about predictions of raising minimum wage costing jobs – it does come true. Starbucks is being sued by employees in some states (California) because the higher minimum wage forced them to cut hours and reduce staff. Other businesses, in some states that have higher minimum wage, have replaced workers with machines. Those are just two examples of predictions (sorry if they aren’t enough doom and gloom for you) that have and are coming true. Higher overhead of any kind means an adjustment of some kind must be made to maintain profits. High school math and economics covered that fact of business. Usually that means higher prices or cuts in employee costs, and you can find many examples of such happening now by using Google.
Oh – I got a twofur. My last answer works here too. Those predictions came true and lend credibility to the expert’s opinion.
The minimum wage is just one factor in the economy and high a minimum wage does not necessarily correlate with low inflation, low unemployment, or solid economic growth.
And, if you pay any attention to financial news, you know that those experts (pesky things, experts and facts) agree that only one of your correlations is true. Inflation is low, but artificially kept there by the Fed keeping interest rates low. Watch out when they start edging it up. The low unemployment is a skewed number the government provides hoping we don’t look further or with any skepticism – good word. They count those collecting unemployment, but not those who no longer receive it and/or have given up looking for work. There are about 90,000,000 people in the country who should be but are not participating in the work force. The experts (sorry) say we have do some growth, but their words for it are “weak” and “anemic”. Those are not their predictions but their assessment of the current economy. The growth is less than half what it should be to be healthy.
So, I hope you are not offended when I treat your comments and opinion with some skepticism.
I don’t know which predictions of doom you are talking about – the sky falling, or the eruption of Yellowstone Park.
Since the topic here is minimum wages in the state of Washington and their effects (if any) on jobs, the predictions of doom I meant were those like the one I already quoted in this very thread:
Scott Ostrander, former general manager of the Cedarbrook Lodge in SeaTac, said before the law was passed he would close several rooms in his hotel to avoid having to comply. However Cedarbrook Lodge is now moving forward with a 63-room expansion and recently started paying the $15 per hour minimum wage.
See, that’s a prediction of doom (loss of employment) which simply didn’t happen. That’s the problem with trying to understand our modern economy with high school math.
There were similar predictions made before we enacted I-688, in 1998. While you’re showing off your Google skills to tell us exactly what those predictions of doom were, I’ve already given some of the actual results of our passing I-688 elsewhere in this comment thread. Please let me know if you’re continuing to have trouble with finding that.
Well, you did make the predictions of the professor sound worse than they were, so I used a little humor. Sorry you didn’t appreciate it.
Your example of predictions not coming true (I notice you’ve used it twice now) and business owners changing their minds is just 1 example.
“Scott Ostrander, former general manager of the Cedarbrook Lodge in SeaTac, said before the law was passed he would close several rooms in his hotel to avoid having to comply. However Cedarbrook Lodge is now moving forward with a 63-room expansion and recently started paying the $15 per hour minimum wage.”
I believe I provided more than that earlier. To prevent you going there again, how about Boeing moving it’s corporate offices to Chicago and building new plants on the east coast. While not directly tied to minimum wage the cost of doing business in Washington had something to do with that. Labor costs were part of it. Likewise Buck Knives, Cabelas and others have chosen Idaho instead of Washington for similar reasons. Businesses and states can and do price themselves out of competition. Basic economics.
Regarding I-688, without looking up the predictions, pro or con, I do know that I-688 gave us our current minimum wage. I can guess that the predictions, pro and con, were about the same then as they are now. I can’t say for sure, but I think I voted for it to get a good starting point and keep minimum wage at a reasonable level based on the economy.
But this is not 1998 and we do not have the low minimum wage (comparatively) we did then. I-688 worked. We still have one of the highest minimum wages in the country. It is damn good pay for someone just entering the work force. Minimum wage never was and should not be considered a “living wage” for a family. Since this is not 1998 and the economy is much different now (not as strong or good for starters) adding more costs to the small businesses seems rather – well, not smart at this time. Especially since the well crafted I-688 has done what it was designed to do – keep the minimum wage at a good and reasonable level.
Nope, no trouble finding what I needed.
Did you really spend 4 days looking up information for your response?
I was referring to “predictions of doom,” made against I-688 *before* we enacted it, not the ‘predictions’ of positive outcomes recounted second-hand and long, long after the fact by die-hard opponents of that increase.
Specifically, the Voters’ Guide to our 1998 General Election contained specific predictions in the “Statement Against” section: that it would “hurt smaller and rural communities,” and the only way “to keep prices from rising out of control” would be to “vote No on I-688.”
Strangely, those predictions are never cited by opponents of increasing our minimum wages. Maybe our state’s low rates of inflation and unemployment ever since have something to do with that?
Yep, I know what you were referring to. I also predicted that you would not care to hear anything that doesn’t support your position. The stuff in the voter’s guide, from both sides needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The authors, both sides, are biased. I like to read both views, apply some critical thinking, and make up my own mind.
The second hand predictions I provided were first hand predictions in 1998 (before it was enacted) – with facts and statistics to report on the results from then until now. Here is where you can find the information. http://www.freedomfoundation.com/sites/default/files/documents/I-688%20-%20WAs%20Failed%20Minimum%20Wage%20Experiment.pdf
The article actually provides the source and date of the quoted predictions and researches the results of I-688 as related to that rosy prediction. The author also gives his sources for statistics and had the article reviewed by 3 economic professors for accuracy before publishing it. There we are – those pesky facts and experts again.
And, if the rosy predictions failed, to some extent the predictions of doom may have come true, however minimally. But I will let you read it for yourself.
The rate of inflation is down for the entire country, not just here. The federal minimum wage and that of most states is less than it is here. The unemployment numbers we are given by the government and MSM have been tweaked and are not correct – but for this discussion I will let you have them. Again, those numbers are down nationwide despite the federal minimum wage and that of most states is lower than ours. Perhaps Washington state’s numbers are an anomaly and we are just lucky enough to have the rest of the country propping us up.
Strangely, while I have provided you with studies, statistics, and sources of information, you have not cited any specifics except one anecdotal story to support your position. Perhaps you have none.
Perhaps Washington state’s numbers are an anomaly and we are just lucky enough to have the rest of the country propping us up.
Recent unemployment figures for Seattle, Washington state, and at the federal level are on Page 2 of this report. Seattle’s declining unemployment rate led the state and federal levels for five consecutive years, helping to keep the state level at or below the federal level for the entire time. This is pretty much the opposite of what would be required to have the rest of the country “propping us up” economically. It’s also the opposite of the very clear predictions made by opponents of our state’s high minimum wage.
… you have not cited any specifics except one anecdotal story to support your position.
My position is simple: current predictions of economic damage from increasing the minimum wage should be considered in light of the very clear failures of previous predictions of economic damage from increasing the minimum wage. You’re right in one respect: there’s very little support for such critical examinations around here.
The discussion is about minimum wage and specifics to support raising it again. Not unemployment. But, the study I cited indicates that entry level minimum wage jobs have been lost since 1998 as a result of I-688.
So – to be clear – I have provided specific information that some specific claims of how good I-688 would be did not come true. And you can point to some general and ridiculous claims that did not come true. The examples you gave from 1998 were not even believable predictions. They do not compare to the more studied and reasonable opinions in this article and the study I cited.
Your position may be simple, but you have not proven it. Unless you can, with specifics, I reject your general opinion in favor of statistics, facts, and experts.
The discussion is about minimum wage and specifics to support raising it again. Not unemployment.
Go back and read harder:
Small businesses across the state have responded to I-1433 by expressing concern over how many employees they could afford to retain. Simply put, it’s a job-killing measure.
Please let Shift know exactly how much more simply you need that put.
That’s simple enough, and true, since small business owners are expressing that concern. But you have deflected again. I have pretty good reading comprehension, a skill you apparently lack. I asked you to provide information to support your position and opinion. You have not. It must be because you have none. Unless you have some relevant statistics or studies to share there is no need to reply again. Without those your position is weak.
I have cited predictions of economic damage made by opponents of raising the minimum wage. I have cited subsequent examples and statistics showing those predictions could not possibly have been more wrong. My position is simple: we should therefore treat such predictions with extreme skepticism, and we should demand accountability from any opponent of the minimum wage who makes such a prediction. You’re free to disagree if you like; if you do, your gullibility is your problem, not mine.
As for the study you cited, while it is not relevant to my position, I disregard it primarily because I don’t need a bevy of economists to tell me how well the economies of Washington state, Seatac, and Seattle have performed after the increases in minimum wages in those places.
The other reason I ignore it also appears in this thread: the study Biff referenced, by an economist who purported to show huge job losses in Seattle after our recent increase in our minimum wage. That study was quickly and easily shown to be utterly worthless, the result of an undergraduate (if not freshman) level error in basic statistical analysis. So no, I don’t care how many economists can dance on the cover of such pin-headed work.
I never said high employment and good wages were bad. In fact I have said more than once it was good. You need to read closer. The discussion is whether or not a $15 minimum wage will improve things.
What you have cited:
1) One year of stats (only) for one business group (only) in one city (only). Not very compelling for an overall economy discussion.
2) The Ostrander anecdote (twice)
3) Your (snarky) response to Biff.
4) The ADP index showing good growth for one (only) quarter.
5) Predictions in the 1998 voters pamphlet (con) that failed to come true. There were also predictions (pro) that did not come true, but you refuse to acknowledge, much less read, the study. Note: The bevy of economists are all from your side of the state.
You asked:
1) If I-688 had caused unemployment. The study you refuse to read found that it caused a loss of minimum wage jobs – regardless of overall unemployment levels.
Your statistics are, even you have to admit, limited. One year, one city, one business, one quarter. If we are allowed to pick the best stats we can find for our argument I choose 2009 when the entire country had unemployment of double digits and claim the predictions of doom in the 1998 voter’s pamphlet were correct. Based on how you present things – Since the unemployment numbers sucked, and I say it was caused by I-688 you can not disagree with me. Pretty ludicrous isn’t it. You have refused to acknowledge any of the information I provided that countered your position.
There is one of your quotes I will leave you with:
“Washington state in particular hit a sweet spot of both strong employment and wage growth, the report found.”
If we are in the sweet spot, will increasing the minimum wage by 50% over a few years be an improvement? I think not. I think the small business owners have good reason to express concern.
“Bottom line: More Washington residents are now employed at higher wages than ever before.” I am fine with that – if you want to leave the sweet spot and lose jobs by increasing minimum wage by 50%, please explain why.
What you have cited (other than the “claims of doom”)…
You left one out:
“Seattle’s declining unemployment rate led the state and federal levels for five consecutive years, helping to keep the state level near or below the federal level for the entire time.”
And what do you know, this citation — the one you just so happened to have not mentioned — easily eviscerates all of these points you tried to make:
One year of stats (only) for one business group (only) in one city (only). Not very compelling for an overall economy discussion.
Oops.
The ADP index showing good growth for one (only) quarter.
Oops.
Your statistics are, even you have to admit, limited. One year, one city, one business, one quarter.
Oops.
If we are allowed to pick the best stats…
Oops.
If I-688 had caused unemployment. The study you refuse to read found that it caused a loss of minimum wage jobs – regardless of overall unemployment levels.
So, that study you repeatedly cited claims I-688 killed minimum wage jobs for ten years, after which Washington state — led by Seattle! — easily exited the national recession. Sounds like the economic damage caused by I-688 was minimal at worst — if indeed it ever even existed.
If we are in the sweet spot, will increasing the minimum wage by 35% (plus) be an improvement? I think not.
If only we’d heard it all before:
“Statement Against
“A 32% increase in the state minimum wage now…”
f you want to leave the sweet spot and lose jobs by increasing minimum wage by 35% (plus), please explain why.
Because the last time we tried it, the naysayers predictions of doom were all revealed to be utter garbage.
A more accurate statement would be that the last time we tried it the unrealistic predictions, both pro and con, did not come true. Your problem is that, like most tyrannical types, you refuse to give any opposing information a fair look.
Going back to where you got at least some of your information – Seattle Times “Washington state ranks No. 1 for combined job and wage growth”.
Two more quotes from your source and the “pinhead” economist that provided information to the author:
“Washington has consistently added jobs for the last three or four years, Yildirmaz said, but it’s unclear where the trend will go next.”
Simply put, just for you – it could get better or worse.
“Boeing, the largest private employer in Washington, announced last week it plans to impose cost-cutting measures, including eliminating jobs. The extent of those job cuts is yet to be seen.”
Simply put, just for you – This is an indicator of the direction it might go (down).
Good riddance. I have no need or desire to converse with people who cherry pick their information and have a mind closed and locked tighter than a bank vault to reasonable discussion.
… the last time we tried it the unrealistic predictions, both pro and con, did not come true.
The last time we tried it, it worked out beautifully, so I’m up for trying it again. See you at the election.
Washington has consistently added jobs for the last three or four years,
When our state had the highest minimum wage of all fifty states. (Too bad the “con” side didn’t make such a prediction, eh?)
… it could get better or worse.
Well, that’s certainly a bold, insightful, and useful prediction. (At least it can’t be disproven, which may well explain its entire appeal to you.)
But I get the impression accuracy doesn’t matter much to you.
This from a guy who just got caught ignoring the very data he claimed hadn’t been supplied. Priceless.
Crickets
That’s twice now your prediction of your own departure has swiftly been proven false by your own actions. But you’re really well qualified to predict that businesses will fail years from now if we raise our minimum wage.
Put more simply, in deference to your needs: how can we miss you if you won’t go away?
OK. I have to admit I took the bait and googled I-688, pros and cons. The first thing I found was a paper by some economist titled, in part, “Failed Experiment”. The article was written in January of this year. While I-688 raised and kept the minimum high as predicted (I am not saying that is bad), there were some predictions that did not come true.
One was that “Every dollar not paid in wages will be paid in food stamps or other forms of assistance. Raising the minimum wage is an investment in ending welfare dependence.” Turns out that dollars paid in assistance continued to go instead of going down.
A second failed claim is this “Furthermore, despite claims that a
higher minimum wage would boost the economy through additional
consumer spending, the economic evidence to date continues to
indicate minimum wage hikes are a net drain on the economy. ”
Just one more. “Increasing the minimum wage is an effective tool for raising the earnings of low-wage workers without lowering their employment opportunities or harming the overall economy.”
The result: “Since the passage of I-688, Washington’s share of total
accommodation and food service jobs has substantially declined,
even while the state’s share of the nation’s population and total jobs
have steadily increased. ” The low wage jobs people need to enter the work force were cut back.
There were other failed pro predictions. The article provides numerous sources for the statistics and information used.
It ends suggesting that we be skeptical about raising the minimum wage again, based on the failed results of last time.
So it seems that sometimes rosy predictions fail as well.
Bottom line is: Based on every thing I’ve seen so far the minimum wage is fine as it is. An increase is not necessary and would be ill advised at this time.
The rich ceo can have it all, but us peon have to sweat every penny ………….
Don’t know what it has to do with this conversation, but OK. How do you know the CEO doesn’t work hard, too? I believe they have sweat glands.
All of us work hard for what we have. If someone didn’t own and run a business the others in that company would not have jobs. Based on their contribution they should rightfully have a bigger piece of the company pie. If some people don’t like it they are free to start their own company, apply for jobs where no one owns the company (whoops, forgot someone has to own and run it for there to be a company), So maybe work harder, get promoted and get a raise , or find a company with no owner, (damn, did it again).
Back to the primary discussion. Minimum wage is for people just entering the work force. Everyone at that time should be looking forward to improving themselves, getting a better job, and/or earning more money. Anyone who enters the workforce expecting to make what a CEO makes needs to do the work to get there. It is not just handed to you when you walk in the door.
And it’s just coincidence that Seattle saw the largest 3 month job loss in city history shortly after the first step of maximum idiocy went into effect.
You’ve got numbers on that, right? Numbers which are seasonally-adjusted?
Yes, it came from the City’s department of community affairs and backed up by the state generated labor statistics. However, those may not be socialist and liberal enough for your point of view.
I figured Biff had fallen hook, line, and sinker for Perry’s now-infamous statistical manipulation, but I wanted Biff to confirm it. As one of Perry’s de-bunkers noted,
…the same statistics for Bellevue and Everett, Wash., showed exactly the same percentage decrease that Perry found in Seattle, even though they haven’t increased their minimum wage.
No, the statistics all came from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, just as Biff wrote. Neither the city of Seattle nor the State of Washington had anything to do with the figures.
The method used by Perry on these statistics showed the results Biff recounted, but could also be used to show the same results for cities which had not raised their minimum wages. Thus, if Perry’s methods were valid, Perry was really showing any job losses in Seattle were *not* related to our recent increase in the minimum wage. Somehow I doubt Biff wanted to show this, but there you have it.
(I feel your pain, though; it’s more than a little weird to have Biff make a claim which later turns out to be true.)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/02/19/seattles-15-minimum-wage-jobs-down-unemployment-up-this-isnt-working-is-it/#72ded60a3712
Right from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Look at the chart. A seasonally adjusted, 3 month job loss number that rivals the first 8 months of the 2009 recession, in what you claim is booming Seattle, following the latest increase. And keep in mind, as you’ve said, Seattle currently doesn’t have a $15 Minimum Wage. That was only the effect of raising it to $11. Seattle hasn’t even begun to feel the negative impact of this misguided policy.
On a related note, what happened to your blowhard billionaire commissar’s “16 in 16” initiative he threatened the legislature with? It’s 2016. That must have been nothing more than empty bluster. Never look to a leftist hypocrite for substance.
I hate to admit it, but Tensor may be on to something that most people won’t admit after joining forces with Chicken Little and running around screaming that the sky is falling, falling, falling, and OMG, it didn’t fall. oh crud, it didn’t FALL!!
As a small Mom and Pop service business, we discovered years ago that paying well above minimum wage has more monetary benefit for all than paying a slave wage reflected by a low minimum wage. However, not everybody wants to pay a service company a large hourly fee so we can be socially responsible and John or Jane Q. Public tend to resent it; they would rather support the Underground Economy to avoid paying those service fees which would reflect a higher wage. Everybody supports the concept of Family Wage Jobs until they are faced with the service fees that support that wage.
While our Mom and Pop business won’t be hurt by a higher minimum wage standard, I fear the hurt we will have from the Underground Economy that will happen as a result. That’s not an empty fear; it is reality.
Minimum wage is not a slave wage. It is a beginning wage for those entering the work force, typically teenagers still living at home and finishing school. Paying more, like you do, is smart business sense if you need more than a beginner. It sounds like that is your case. Perhaps John & Jane Q Public can not afford, on what they currently make, to pay more for certain services. It’s called supply and demand, not “underground economy”.
Well, maybe my reply is more jaded since we have been in business for over 30 years, so like the Farmer’s TV Ad says “we’ve seen a thing or two”. You would have to understand that maybe we don’t seek to serve every income bracket out there because of the type of business we operate. Perhaps you should have caught my dripping sarcasm in the tongue and cheek reference to minimum wage as a “slave wage” in terms of its perceived value when John or Jane Q Public pays my business fees. I’m in a business where my perceived value is low and a few people think that I can’t be very smart since it’s not a “real job”. Imagine their surprise when they learn I have 2 college degrees but am perusing my dreams and am successful at it.
I used to get the question “what do you pay your help” to which I reply, “it’s none of your business” I pay them them more than minimum wage. The only reason I seek not to do business with that segment of people is just for the fact they can’t afford us.
But I call minimum wage a “slave wage” because if that is all business is willing to pay, then that business is truly using their most valuable asset in a bad way. Yes, there is a reason labor is referred to as a “labor burden”, but there in lies the greatest asset to any successful business.
I’m not a fan of Unions and I find their methods offensive, but if it wasn’t for them the American worker would be in a large part screwed. Unions are not needed if the business treats its employees fairly and with respect. I’m not a flaming liberal like I perceive Tensor to be, but where is common sense these days?
Minimum wage is not a slave wage. It is a beginning wage for those entering the work force with low skill levels, typically teenagers still living at home and finishing school. Paying more, like you do, is smart business sense if you need more than a beginner. It sounds like that is your case. Perhaps John & Jane Q Public can not afford, on what they currently make, to pay more for certain services.
I agree with you on unions. For the most part their time has come and passed.
How many positions were lost?