L.A. raises minimum wage to $15/hr

Not at all surprising ... almost a textbook case of politically connected types trying to use "democratic processes" to gussy up their pursuit of their self-interest.

 

I tell ya, doc, if it weren't for Republicans, I'd probably start voting Republican.

 

Give the Libertarians a try ... Because election day really is one of those situations that absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.

 

Hey! We were the 1 percent (of the electorate)!

 

Off the top of my head, the only reason I can understand why they want it is a backhanded way to encourage businesses to be unionized.

A unionized business may pay $13 an hour, for instance, instead of $15, but workers will have more negotiating power in other matters, such as working conditions, scheduling, benefits.

So the business owner would have a choice: Pay $15 an hour for a possible non-union workforce, or pay less, but have a unionized workforce. Or, risk having a unionized workforce that wants more than $15/hour.

 

As Starman might say, all part of the plan:

The minimum wage is going up in a lot of places, such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Chicago. Some workers will soon earn a starting wage of $15 per hour, more than double the federal minimum of $7.25.

But the sharp boost in the lowest legal wage is largely unprecedented, and some economist are warning of dire consequences. A new study published by the American Action Forum and Manhattan Institute finds that boosting the minimum wage nationwide to $12 or $15 would end up hurting many of the people it aims to help. Yahoo Finance has an exclusive first look at the research, which finds that a Federal minimum wage increase to $15 per hour would cost the economy 6.6 million jobs and that only 6.7% of the extra $105.4 billion in new wages would go to people in poverty.

“If you raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, 55 million workers will see their wages affected—we looked at what happens after their wages are affected.”

The study also finds that increasing the minimum wage to $12 per hour would impact 38.3 million workers. 3.8 million jobs would be lost and only 5.8% of income gained would go to workers in poverty.

A $15 minimum wage could hurt those it's meant to help - Yahoo Finance

 

This is great. No one ever wants to make too much that they lose their public assistance. So, if they get a raise, instead of making more money, they'd rather work fewer hours:

Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law is supposed to lift workers out of poverty and move them off public assistance. But there may be a hitch in the plan.

Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise – in a bid to keep overall income down so they don’t lose public subsidies for things like food, child care and rent.

Full Life Care, a home nursing nonprofit, told KIRO-TV in Seattle that several workers want to work less.

“If they cut down their hours to stay on those subsidies because the $15 per hour minimum wage didn’t actually help get them out of poverty, all you’ve done is put a burden on the business and given false hope to a lot of people,” said Jason Rantz, host of the Jason Rantz show on 97.3 KIRO-FM.

Seattle sees fallout from $15 minimum wage, as other cities follow suit | Fox News

 

You must not have known many poor people in your life, if you think that's a surprise.

Really poor people have a shockingly good grasp on their total compensation that is much more like a wealthy person.

They don't think of it as total compensation though. They just know the math and what it means to their bottom line.

No different than a middle class person rejecting a better paying job because the insurance will cost them more and the resulting net is less than their current pay.

 

Why is it that we always worry that boosting the minimum wage could hurt those it is meant to help, but nobody seems to worry that increasing the compensation for executives who make 7 figures will hurt those it is meant to help?

 

Of course I understand it. People don't want to lose their benefits because they don't think they're on a ladder of success that is going to keep taking them higher, and let them leave poverty behind.

But, if this is how people react, what's the point of raising the minimum wage?

So, employers pay more for less, and the public continues to shell out public assistance.

That's not the point of raising the minimum wage.

If anything, the benefits should be on some kind of sliding scale, or continue for some brief period, to allow folks to get their feet under them, before they sunset.

The current system just subsidizes people who choose to work less.

 

Because the government doesn't set the wage for executives?

 

So you're saying the government should? I like your thinking, YF!