When we were talking about raising the national MW to I believe $10 (which it has been before, in prosperous tines, with inflation), conservatives were against it because inflation from increased wages would eat up any differences, or it would spike unemployment, all for a modest increase.
So, I’d like conservatives to clearly lay out what will happen in Seatac, so we can compare the real world outcome to conservative economic theory. If the outcome is better, will any conservatives rethink their economics?
Seatac is basically the airport, right? It seems to me that that’s a locality that’s probably uniquely able to pass along the costs of higher wages successfully. Airlines and passengers can’t just shift their business to the next town over.
Apparently SeaTac is an incorporated suburb itself, so it’s the airport, but also all the car rental businesses, hotels and restaurants that proliferate around any major airport that are also affected.
I suppose we’ll see the test if frequent Seattle visitors start noting longer than usual wait times for their rental cars, dirtier hotel rooms and so on.
SeaTac is the airport and also the surrounding city. I don’t remember any caveats when conservatives claimed MW kills jobs, unless someone can cite one? The only claims I read is that higher MW always, by definition kills jobs. So I’m wondering if any SDMB conservatives will predict how bad things will get for Seatac considering the $10 MW was going to kill the economy.
FWIW, it’s from 2007, but there was a story in the NY Times about the differences across the Washington/Idaho state line where there’s a significant difference in minimum wages. The jobs appeared on the side with higher wages.
Libertarian here. Economic theory says that there will be fewer employers willing to hire at $15/hr or above, than at a lower number and above. Hence we’d expect that the change in unemployment among low-wage workers will be more negative in Seatac than in comparable cities that did not raise their minimum wage.
I assume we all understand that there are no controlled experiments in macroeconomics. Seatac and any city that we compare it to are buffeted by countless other economic factors as well as their minimum wage laws. Finding one city where rising minimum wage corresponds with above-average employment gains would not disprove an economic theory any more than one city with falling temperatures disproves global warming.
For what it’s worth, I agree with this, but I have two questions/comments:
First, you must also accept the corollary that one instance of failing MW resulting in above-average employment gains doesn’t prove an economic theory.
Second, given these two facts, at what point can we say that any economic theory is proven?
Perhaps I’m missing something in the article, but what I’m reading says that Idaho employers voluntarily raised their wages to remain competitive with Washington.
And I also see that customers “barely noticed” what amounts to a 10% increase in price (in the example of the coupon: it’s a $12 pizza, so the after-coupon price went from $9 to $10).
That’s what I would have predicted for the case in the article, and it’s what I predict for SeaTac. Minimum wage jobs don’t usually have a lot of flexibility in the small scale. A factory owner might find it worthwhile to ship jobs overseas or improve automation, but a smaller business probably doesn’t have the economies of scale to do that, or they’re a type of business that can’t do that. They respond by raising prices. Surrounding communities raise wages to stay competitive and they raise prices too.
I know that some conservatives predict massive job losses when minimum wage goes up. That’s the standard conservative line to any kind of changes in employment law. Either they’ve got their heads up their asses, or they think that “prices go up” is too nuanced an argument to sway voters, so they’re willing to bend the truth.
Do any conservatives/libertarians predict “massive” job losses? My guess is that there will be a few job losses and some price increases, although that depends on what the current average wages are.
My biggest problem with MW is that a rate that makes sense in one area (e.g. NYC) makes no sense in another (e.g. rural Mississippi). I think having towns legislating their own MW is the most sane way to go about it.
The only problem with this is that it leads to a race to the bottom as employers rush where they can squeeze their workers the most, and so in order to attract business localities will compete to under cut each other. Capital wins, labor takes it up the ass as usual.
Also true. However, maybe you do not whine shrilly about how ALL MW laws by definition raise unemployment and hurt the workers, but many online conservatives do.
At what point would we have higher MW that provides a living wage in this country before you would admit that MW laws are a good thing? To me it seems pretty clear when looking at the south vs the north that MW at definitely does not cause the harm conservatives claim it does (I live in WA with the nation’s highest MW and it’s awesome here)? It seems to me that all evidence proves that this conservative economic theory is not correct, but is used to justify higher profits for corporations and business owners. In other words they are working backwards based on their belief that corporate profits are more important than paying workers decent wages, which is not how science is done.
If MW laws corellated strongly with all the fiscal ills conservatives claimed they do, I would re-consider my beliefs, but there is no evidence for it. And in fact, when MW laws nationwide were the equivelent of 10$ in modern buying power in the 60’s, the country was doing much better than now. Conservatives always claim we cannot prove economics in a vacuum (which is true) but all we have are real world examples that again and again prove the progressive view of economics is correct (not sure why paying living wages is considered “progressive” instead of common sense, but I’m speaking in the psychotic American political vernacular)…
It’s incredibly common for internet conservatives to claim so in the comments section on every news article about raising the MW. Also from heritage foundation:
I’d be REAL interested in when Heritage Foundation would agree it’s a good time to raise the minimum wage drastically so it actually provides a living wage… I’d bet it’s always juuuuust around the corner.
Not to the same extent as a mathematical proof. Economics is a branch of the study of human behavior. Humans can always choose to behave differently. It’s possible that in some cases, folks will buy more of a thing at a higher price than at a lower price. It’s my understanding that this has actually happened, in a few scattered cases. But generally the smart prediction is that there will be less sales at higher prices.
How does this very vertical instance of raising MW above the national average prove anything one way or the other? I didn’t see a link in the OP, but from memory isn’t this regarding basically an air port and it’s immediate environs? Kind of a captive market there, as most folks are going to still need rental cars and will be hungry enough to pay a premium for food, drink, snacks, papers, magazines and everything else while they wait for their flight.
I’m not quite sure what the question is that you’re asking, but whether they’re a good thing depends on how we rank. A minimum wage law may lead to higher wages for some employees, while at the same time leading to job losses for others. So it would be good for the first group and bad for the second.
Before we can discuss the merits of the “progressive view” of economics, we’d need to know exactly what that is. Before we evaluate two competing views of economics, we need to have common measures for evaluation. Judging by how awesome a certain place is might strike some a less than rigorous.
I don’t have time to read the article right now, but here is a story from KPLU that I’ve posted before. Basically, businesses are quite happy to remain in Washington instead of relocating across the street to lower-wage Idaho.
I’m intentionally leaving the question vague to allow conservatives and libertarians to add their own ideas…but basically, conservatives are against raising MW, or even HAVING a MW for a variety of reasons/claims…so I am wondering if it is possible at all for reality to in any way disprove these conservative arguments against MW. Personally I would change my views against MW if higher MW correlated with high unemployment and huge inflation like many conservatives claim. But it doesn’t. It is my opinion that people who make unfalsifiable claims as truth, and wont change their minds no matter what, are not genuine and probably shouldn’t have their ideas taken seriously.
I’m not saying Seatac on its own will be a slam dunk, but I find it interesting before it’s even enacted, conservatives making excuses for why their gloom and doom predictions wont come to pass…almost as if they didn’t believe them in the first place, and only promote those views because they are pro business profits above all else.
Libertarian dislike MW laws on philosophical grounds. Even if they proved to be a boon to the economy, they would still violate the idea of freedom being paramount. Imagine, if you will, that it could be shown that government establishing a religion was good for the economy (or significantly reduced murder rates, or resulted in some other societal good). Would that persuade you to eliminate the establishment clause?