Even though this article is in the Wall Street Journal, which traditionally is biased toward business,** I think they've missed some things:

*There is no explanation of what the chart means. As I see it, the percentages listed at the left are the percentages of available workers who work in the fast food industry. Give me a different explanation of the chart if you can find it explained somewhere.

*The chart and article do not mention A THING about people who are not fast food employees. Fast food employees are not the entire economy. Results for this one kind of employee constitute only one data point in the whole mess that is the reality of the situation.  It's important to be aware that a rise in one sector might mean a decline in another sector; if that declining sector is, on average, a higher-paid sector, then a rise in fast food employees is an economic loss.  Or, as someone said during Obama's second presidential run, "Yes, Obama's provided jobs.  I've got two of them."  This is not an improvement.

*While fast food workers are cited as the canaries in this mine, perhaps they're not. The study by the OMB, cited in the article linked above, states


The OMB often is at variance with politicians on either side of the aisle, and the OMB is usually more accurate than the politicians.


**I say this as a conservative who is open about the biases of different news sources.

I just realized that a fact of increasing the minimum wage is that when it is increased, more people will instantly be working at minimum wage. Anyone who now makes well over the present minimum but makes, for instance, that Seattle $15, will be added to the count of people making minimum wage. This is not an improvement.


As soon as you claim that I'm saying ALWAYS, you're misstating what I said. I said this will happen. I did not say it will always happen, and of course there will be exceptions. Your objection that it will not always happen is an objection to a criterion that I did not express or imply.

If purchases are the same in quantity and more money is to be paid to employees, prices have to go up or employees have to thin out.


That's because it's not needed for the statement to be true. Generally, in case it doesn't occur to you that I mean that.


Agreed.


Agreed.


If the minimum wages increases, people who are just squeaking by now at an income level equal to the new minimum wage will be exposed to any price increases and it will be more difficult for them to afford then what they can afford now. Our clients don't count here because they are nowhere near being on the edge like that.

Keep in mind this is a proposal, at this time. If technically approved businesses will have until 2017 to ramp up the minimum wage.

Thinking back when I started out at minimum wage $2.75 - gas was like .47 a gallon, my rent was $120 and life was actually pretty good for a young punk.

With todays gas prices, food costs and rents, it is way overdue in terms of providing a living wage. Friends of mine making $60K are even struggling (with a kid or two)... Another reason they are increasing minimum wage is because it is just so damn expensive to live in Seattle. We are right behind San Fran in cost of living.

So maybe for truth in off-topic naming you should go back to the first post and change the title to indicate that it's proposed.

I thought your "(Kind of)" referred to this being maybe off topic. I see now you may have meant "Seattle Kind of Approves" etc. Putting something to a vote is not approving it. Proposing something is not approving it.

How 'bout accuratizing the thread title?

Sure enough, Obama had to come up in this...

But it was in a positive way :P

Uh... in a sarcastic way. Oh well! LOCK IT DOWN!!!!

2 jobs > 1 job , sounds positive to me

It's for everybody in Seattle (King county).

This is EXACTLY what will happen, businesses will be forced to reduce their workforce or raise their prices or both. I like the idea of making yourself more valuable to the company you work for and deserving a raise, not the government forcing it on businesses. This will effect way more than fast food restaurants. It will effect EVRY business in some way.

It WILL effect more businesses, in that these workers will put more money back into their local economy, helping the small mom and pop stores and restaurants.

I know that with the younger dudes we deal with, we would see more business coming in from someone who is making it from paycheck to paycheck versus those who are not.

Did that occur to you? This is what it has done in other areas when the minimum wage were increased.

These wage earners will still have to prove themselves and earn their keep. It's not they will be having a free-ride!

And again this is not going to be an overnight deal.

Imagine if you were a stay at home mom, and went through a divorce, with little job skills. Suddenly you need a job. There is working at a retail store or Starbucks or whatever and earning the new minimum wage, or ... food stamps, welfare with a good chance of ending up homeless.

Could you survive on $8.00 an hour when gas is $4.00 a gallon, car insurance, apt. rents start at $1100.00? Is it being unrealistic to ask for true "liiving wage".
You would not even be able to own and operate a car at those wages. Add a kid or two to the equation now what?

Same holds true for older workers, or kids starting out and can't afford to put themselves trhough college. Just sayin'. Give it some thought.

I was opposed to this whole thing at first until I did a little research and look at the positives.

This isn't a libtard thing, it's a question of humanity and fairness. DOo we need more homeless or hungry people requiring government assistance, or going to the dark side, selling drugs and prostituting themselves in order to survive?
What quality (if any do their kids have in these circumstances)?

In doing the math, if this WERE to happen on short trem that would be approx. $800 more a month, after taxes etc. around $600 to 650. That's a world of diffrence to those not making it at the current rate. Thtas some extra $$ to spread around.

I am not sure why some people have so much concern whether the local Starbucks is going to survive and make a profit and such little concern about the workers who serve them their already overpriced coffee.

Facts are that the more the workers make the more taxes they will pay. Workers who earn more money will qualify for less benefits that the governments will have to pay out to people earning less than the poverty level.

I for one would rather have corporations who make big profits and often pay no taxes pay their employees a decent wage. This will keep my taxes lower because less people will qualify for handouts from the government.

Three years to raise all of their salaries over $6 an hour. Yeah... That's not going to hurt businesses at all at that rate.

The minimum wage should be raised regularly. And the current federal rate is a problem because it's actually lower than the welfare rate. But, an extra $12k per employee is a big chunk for employers to swallow. And you act like this will elevate a group of workers into a different economic class. But the reality is, they will still be bottom level, minimum wage workers, and other salaries and expenses in the area will go up, keeping the status quo.

Inflating labor pricing with no corresponding increase in productivity will lower the business profits, increase pricing and result in fewer job openings.

If 15hr is good, then 30hr must be great, so just pay all your minimum wage guys 30hr instead. If it works then everyone will hire more and you'll be rich!

Not to mention you'll have to pay the guys who you are already paying more than minimum wage even more since now even the cheap labor makes 15/hr.

No one wants to make the minimum, it's an incentive to do a better job and work your way up the ladder.

How dare you expose reality