Slashdot Mirror


Seattle Approves $15 Per Hour Minimum Wage

An anonymous reader writes "The Seattle City Council announced on Monday that it has unanimously approved a $15 per hour minimum wage mandate. The new rate will go into effect starting April 1, 2015 in a tiered, gradual manner that depends on employer size. In the first year of implementation, hourly minimum wage will be raised to either $10 or $11 according to the employer size category. By 2021, hourly minimum wage across the board should be at or above $15. Seattle is the first city to implement a living wage for its lowest earners."

13 of 1,040 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Hello automation! by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least the machines will get your order right.

  2. Re:Behind the curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perhap's they can get new job's selling excess apostrophe's to people in apostrophe-poor countrie's. They seem to be plentiful around here.

  3. Re:Sweden by blahplusplus · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Oh, hang on. Sorry, he was writing about socialism, wasn't he?"

    Orwell, is a democratic socialist. He was criticizing stalin's russia

    "... for the past ten years I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the socialist movement."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

    AKA he wanted to revive the socialist movement. He stayed a socialist.

  4. Re:Behind the curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The story was later corrected... the math is off and is incredibly misleading.

  5. Re:Even higher! by captjc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Still further there is the even more ignorant people that believe that not only should there be a minimum, but that it should be a "living wage" -- because all work that must be done must also be worth enough to afford a nice cozy life.

    Whoa, back the horse up. A living wage is not about a "nice cozy life". It is about not having to choose between eating and paying the rent. Believe it or not, there are some people in this country that have to make that decision. Why should anyone have to work 2-3 jobs just to survive when corporate profits are at an all time high?

    --
    Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  6. Re:Behind the curve by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back in the 1990s, i was making $12-14 an hour rolling buritos for a restaurant chain. My wages changed if i went to a different store which is why there is a wage wiindow. Minimum wage went from 3.35 to around 5.25 or so. I only worked at minimum wage once and that was because it increased before i recieved raises.

    Anyways, that was only possible because unemployment was low. We hired in kids with no work experience at $1-1.50 an hour above minimum wage just to get people in the door. With raises every 6 months, if you actually put some effort into the job, you could increase that in no time. Skilled people were hired in at even more.

    The answer is not raising a minimum wage but lowering unemployment. That was the key to Clinton's "its the economy stupid". Anyone who wanted a job could get one and in most places, they could get one that paid somewhat better than minimum wage.

    Minimum wage is not supposed yo be a living wage. It is not supposed to be a career goal. It is supposed to be a minimum for people with no work history so they can prove thenselves. It is a sad sign when our economy and people in it have resigned themselves to accepting the minimum and are relying on the state in order to better their careers. The answer is to lower unemployment. The people will go to whomever is paying the most and companies will have to pay more on their own out of profits in order to get and keep people. Prices don't jump either because they need to stay competitive with other companies.

  7. Re:Behind the curve by cryptizard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What the actual fuck? In the worst case, if your company somehow has 100% of their costs being labor, a 5% increase in wages would be a 5% increase in costs. It is mathematically impossible for what you say to happen.

  8. Re:Behind the curve by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The story was later corrected... the math is off and is incredibly misleading.

    That won't stop anyone from using it.

  9. Who hires workers they don't need? by Bruinwar · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What business hires employees they don't need? If you lay people off because the minimum wage is raised, who takes over the work those people did? You can spread around some of it to other employees but that only goes so far. Every single place I've ever worked at had just enough or usually less than enough people to do what needed to be done. Productivity has never been higher in the U.S.

    OK so some businesses will not be able to either give up some profit or raise prices to accommodate the higher wages... they go belly up. But then whatever services they provided will be unavailable & someone will jump in & fill that gap. It's hard to believe the claims of job losses tied to the minimum wage.

    --
    SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
  10. Re:Since when is everyone guaranteed a lifestyle? by itsdapead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Keep in mind that a family would qualify for SNAP and rent support also.

    Translation: the employer can only get away with paying only $7.50 because the government makes up the difference between that and a realistic wage. Benefits without minimum living wage == state subsidy of industry. Still, don't worry, if you look around enough you'll be able to find someone faking disability to parade in front of the media, and prevent people asking awkward questions about how much taxpayers money goes to allowing working people to survive on unliveable wages.

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  11. Re:Behind the curve by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    You liberal hippies and your math are what is wrong with America these days.

    I have learned to trust that lowering costs for the rich will benefit me and my trailer-dwelling family far more than increasing our wages.

  12. Minimum wage, a bigger picture by Petron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (Wow, this got long...)
    When minimum wage became the big issue, with all the protests, I thought back when I made minimum wage. I flipped burgers and live in a house with 4 friends. Sure I couldn't afford rent and food at minimum wage, but I could afford 1/5th rent and food and have plenty left over. My friends (who also worked the same McJob) saved money, a couple bough used cars. We had every game system, a great stereo, I had a top of the line computer. We had enough and some luxury items. I thought back then and how much I made. I adjusted my wage with inflation and it came to...... $6.52/hr. WHAT? wait a sec, all those protesters with signs said if I adjusted for minimum wage, it would be 10.75/hr! What gives???

    So I grabbed every minimum wage since it's start and adjusted each one for minimum wage. Here it is (Note: I did this 3-4 months ago, there could be more inflation now):
    Year: Wage then -> Adjusted to 'today' (3-4 months ago)
    1955: $0.75 -> $6.55
    1956: $1.00 -> $8.60
    1957: $1.00 -> $8.32
    1958: $1.00 -> $8.09
    1959: $1.00 -> $8.04
    1960: $1.00 -> $7.90
    1961: $1.15 -> $9.00
    1962: $1.15 -> $8.91
    1963: $1.25 -> $9.56
    1964: $1.25 -> $9.43
    1965: $1.25 -> $9.28
    1966: $1.25 -> $9.02
    1967: $1.40 -> $9.80
    1968: $1.60 -> $10.75 $10.20
    1970: $1.60 -> $9.65
    1971: $1.60 -> $9.24
    1972: $1.60 -> $8.95
    1973: $1.60 -> $8.43
    1974: $2.00 -> $9.49
    1975: $2.10 -> $9.13
    1976: $2.30 -> $9.46
    1977: $2.30 -> $8.88
    1978: $2.65 -> $9.51
    1979: $2.90 -> $9.34
    1980: $3.10 -> $8.80
    1981: $3.35 -> $8.62
    1982: $3.35 -> $8.12
    1983: $3.35 -> $7.87
    1984: $3.35 -> $7.54
    1985: $3.35 -> $7.28
    1986: $3.35 -> $7.15
    1987: $3.35 -> $6.90
    1988: $3.35 -> $6.62
    1989: $3.35 -> $6.32
    1990: $3.80 -> $6.80
    1991: $4.25 -> $7.30
    1992: $4.25 -> $7.09
    1993: $4.25 -> $6.88
    1994: $4.25 -> $6.71
    1995: $4.25 -> $6.52
    1996: $4.75 -> $7.08
    1997: $5.15 -> $7.51
    1998: $5.15 -> $7.39
    1999: $5.15 -> $7.23
    2000: $5.15 -> $7.00
    2001: $5.15 -> $6.80
    2002: $5.15 -> $6.70
    2003: $5.15 -> $6.55
    2004: $5.15 -> $6.38
    2005: $5.15 -> $6.17
    2006: $5.15 -> $5.98 $6.60
    2008: $6.55 -> $7.12
    2009: $7.25 -> $7.90
    2010: $7.25 -> $7.78
    2011: $7.25 -> $7.54
    2012: $7.25 -> $7.39
    2013: $7.25 -> $7.28
    2014: $7.25 -> $7.25

    Now you see, the 10.75 is the highest value, in 1968. Claiming that should be the standard is as intellectually dishonest as claiming the lowest value ($5.98/hr) should be the standard. The median would be $7.78, and the average would be $7.94. A fair minimum wage increase would be in that rage. Last time we raised minimum wage in 2009, there was no issue... because it was with in that median-average rage. It was fair.

    Minimum wage jobs are not meant to careers. They are entry level jobs for teens and young adults. Majority of minimum wage workers are just starting out. As you gain experience you become worth more to an employer and you should make more. If you aren't, look for a new job. Early in my adult life, I switched jobs every 1-2 years. Each job paid better than the previous.

    There will always be somebody at the bottom. The young person who just starts out doesn't have anything. Some have debts, like college loans, so they have a negative self-worth. As we gain skills and earn more, our worth goes up. People love to tout the "Wealth inequality" but the better picture is "Income Mobility". What happens to those in the bottom 20%... From 1996 to 2005, over 50% of the people in the bottom 20% moved up to a higher bracket. In just 10 years, most moved up. Now why has the bracket increased in size if everybody is moving up? The bottom is always filled with new people entering the work force. The 9 year old in 1996 is now in the work force in 2005.

    Also, when peop

    --
    if (it != oneThing) it = another;
  13. Re:$30,000 per year by theIsovist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm currently in Seattle, living as a graduate student. I'm employed in a school associated research lab as a graduate researcher, making the maximum the lab can pay me, per school guidelines, at $15/ hour. This glorious number is set to be the new minimum wage. So let's talk about what it's like to be on minimum wage. Or at least what it will be like.

    Should I find a better job? The job I have is a fantastic for when I leave school, providing an exceptional network and excellent experience. I'm doing research to reduce energy use in the construction sector, which benefits society as a whole. Leaving this job would be short sighted. Admittedly, when the minimum wage increases, not all low paying jobs will be like this, but many good jobs still are.

    Should I live elsewhere? Rent in the area is high and going higher, so I live with 3 other people. My location is in the city, but in the cheaper areas, not trendy at all and less safe overall, but it works. I live in this city because this is where the jobs are. I could move to the suburbs, but that would require both car payments and gas payments, neither of which are cheap, especially given >$4 gas. Public transportation is an alternative, but it costs both money (2.50 or so a ride) and time (an hour each way, so that's 30 dollars of lost productivity per day). That may not seem like much, but on $15 an hour, it's tough. So I currently bike when I can.

    Eating out here is quite expensive, with most non-fast food places providing meals that start at 12-13 dollars and quickly rising from there (and that's the going rate for a burger, the most pedestrian of foods), so I eat in. Can't waste an hours worth of work to have a meal out, after all. It's not terrible, because I can cook quite well, and I've shifted to a primarily vegetarian life style, as meat is expensive.

    So at the end of the day, my paycheck goes to food and shelter, both of which are kept as cheap as possible. What little extra I have is saved and used for emergency funds, which can be wiped out pretty quickly in some unforeseen event. God help me if I'm hit by a car, or come down with the flu. Being out of commission for a week is not an option. All in all, I feel I'm doing a good job pushing my future forward. But my present is a fragile system that could be wiped out given a large enough hit.

    So what am I saying? Your simplistic idea of "you're an idiot and you should move" completely ignores what life is like on a tight paycheck. There are bright people on a low paycheck, and it's quite the trap. Life on a slim budget has no room for error, and when your entire system revolves around survival, it takes extra work to plan for a future.

    What should be more frightening to you is that you are surrounded by people who live like this. The people who take your cash at the starbucks, the people who clean your trash out from your desk. You rely on these people, and yet you look down on them and mock them. You're lucky you are where you are at, because what you do not have to do is pull yourself up from nothing. And if you are the person who came from the mean streets and a poor family, congratulations, you've done something amazing. But if you are, you're an amazing jerk to all those who are trying to do the same thing you did.