3 ms·
I got the number from the NYT article, which said $9.47 to $11.00 in April 2015, then $11.00 to $13.00 in January 2016. That is a one year period, and a 37% inc
by hyperpape 8y ago
I got the number from the NYT article, which said $9.47 to $11.00 in April 2015, then $11.00 to $13.00 in January 2016. That is a one year period, and a 37% increase.
Here is another source that mentions $9.32. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/seattle-minimum-wage-increases-go-effect-april-2015 https://www.natlawreview.com/article/seattle-minimum-wage-in...
I'm not sure why there are two different numbers, but it was extremely rapid. I'd be happy to leave it using the more conservative figures from your table that they increased it by 36% in two years, as that's still neither modest nor gradual.
- Pfhreak 8y agoFor businesses with 500 or more employees and who do not pay towards their employees' medical benefits, the change was 9.47 (2014) -> 11 (2015) -> 13 (2016). For businesses with fewer than 500 employees and earn tips the change was 9.47 (2014) -> 10 (2015) -> 10.50 (2016) and is currently $12/hr. It's important not to mischaracterize the increases as a monolithic uniform increase, because for many, many businesses the increases have been gradual and modest.
- hyperpape 8y agoIf one increase went into effect in April 2015, and another went into effect in January 2016, that means you have employees whose minimum wage was $9.47 one day, and $13 less than 365 days later. Arguably, writing it as three separate years makes it appear more gradual than it was.
- pxue 8y agopolitics and math. they don't mix :)
- cannonedhamster 8y agoSo, where does the transition from 2014 to 2016 add up to less than 365 days? I'm confused by your numbers. In 2015 the minimum was was $11 and 2016 it was $13. Not sure where you're getting your gripe from.