3 ms·

Seattle is not a good sample of the country as a whole, but I think it's still worth reading the various studies that have been done on our minimum wage increas

Seattle is not a good sample of the country as a whole, but I think it's still worth reading the various studies that have been done on our minimum wage increase. https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/02/06/two-new-studies-published-about-the-seattle-minimum-wage-ordinance/ https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/02/06/two-new-studies-p... is a good place to start.

dangus 7y ago
If I'm skimming this properly, it seems that: 1. Minimum wage increase results in basically insignificant price increases, except for... 2. Businesses with high labor costs like daycares are affected and have to either increase prices or reduce staff. In my opinion, the businesses in #2 are instances where the customer isn't paying the true cost of the service. Rather, the service is being subsidized by providing inadequate wages for its employees based on the fact that the labor is in much higher supply than demand.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- wil421 7y ago
  #2 can be handled by government subsides. I doubt the feds would be able to do it but the states should absolutely do it. My prior employer used to provide stellar day care but they shut it down the day after their state tax break for the daycare ended.
  - dangus 7y ago
    Overall the employer daycare subsidy solution just seems absolutely terrible to me. It favors large corporate employers over small businesses and self-employed, favoring the upper middle class employee who's got an employer providing extensive benefits already (similar to how you're completely hosed in this country if your employer doesn't provide a good healthcare. If we want to use subsidies, it needs to be a lot less regressive than that. And we need to seriously get away from quality of life benefits being tied into one specific employer.
- dkokelley 7y ago
  > the customer isn't paying the true cost of the service How would you determine the "true cost" in this case?
  - dangus 7y ago
    Isn't that obvious? The cost of doing business plus profit while the company's employees are making a living wage. If you want a tangible metric, let's just say that someone working 40 hours a week making minimum wage shouldn't need to receive government safety net benefits, because that is basically a transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the company employing that person.

dangus 7y ago

If I'm skimming this properly, it seems that: 1. Minimum wage increase results in basically insignificant price increases, except for... 2. Businesses with high labor costs like daycares are affected and have to either increase prices or reduce staff. In my opinion, the businesses in #2 are instances where the customer isn't paying the true cost of the service. Rather, the service is being subsidized by providing inadequate wages for its employees based on the fact that the labor is in much higher supply than demand.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wil421 7y ago
#2 can be handled by government subsides. I doubt the feds would be able to do it but the states should absolutely do it. My prior employer used to provide stellar day care but they shut it down the day after their state tax break for the daycare ended.
- dangus 7y ago
  Overall the employer daycare subsidy solution just seems absolutely terrible to me. It favors large corporate employers over small businesses and self-employed, favoring the upper middle class employee who's got an employer providing extensive benefits already (similar to how you're completely hosed in this country if your employer doesn't provide a good healthcare. If we want to use subsidies, it needs to be a lot less regressive than that. And we need to seriously get away from quality of life benefits being tied into one specific employer.
dkokelley 7y ago
> the customer isn't paying the true cost of the service How would you determine the "true cost" in this case?
- dangus 7y ago
  Isn't that obvious? The cost of doing business plus profit while the company's employees are making a living wage. If you want a tangible metric, let's just say that someone working 40 hours a week making minimum wage shouldn't need to receive government safety net benefits, because that is basically a transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the company employing that person.