No it doesn't. It is going to take years to get there.California's minimum wage goes up to $15 on January 1, 2017.
No it doesn't. It is going to take years to get there.California's minimum wage goes up to $15 on January 1, 2017.
2022. It's all incremental bump ups until then.
Because even if it passed it wouldn't happen for a few years
It'd make more sense if there was free health/mental/dental care
By 2022 the cost of living will be so high, the $15 wages will not help anyone.
Because it sounds utterly impossible to flatly apply to all companies and all age workers
One thing I always wondered about, people say that by increasing to a $15 minimum wage we'd see productivity increases. Where in the world do people get that idea from? If a person is lazy and working the minimum wage, they are still going to be lazy working the new minimum wage. They could not get paid any less than what they are, they still have no incentive to work harder (other than of course to excape a minimum wage lifestyle, but it seems many people dont actually think that way).
A significant problem I have with higher minimum wage is that they would put certain unskilled jobs or jobs that don't require a college education at the same level of pay as skilled jobs or jobs with a college education. So then they would have to adjust skilled/college educated jobs at a higher pay to compensate for the $15 minimum wage. This would be a huge economical problem.
We get it. People should not be able to afford housing and food if they are 'lazy". Fuck em, right?
One thing I always wondered about, people say that by increasing to a $15 minimum wage we'd see productivity increases. Where in the world do people get that idea from? If a person is lazy and working the minimum wage, they are still going to be lazy working the new minimum wage. They could not get paid any less than what they are, they still have no incentive to work harder (other than of course to excape a minimum wage lifestyle, but it seems many people dont actually think that way).
The idea is to shift the return on capital from the owners to the labour applying work to the capital.
A higher minimum wage would shift the burden of welfare from the state to the employers.
A higher minimum wage would increase consumption which would further increase demand for labour.
The price of goods would rise but not anywhere near 1:1 because the cost of goods sold is not made up entirely of US minimum wage labour.
California's minimum wage goes up to $15 on January 1, 2017.
California's cost of living is the same as the rest of the country?
It isn't? People are just discussing the question posed.Why is the health of a corporation valued over the health of an individual and their ability to receive a living wage?
We get it. People should not be able to afford housing and food if they are 'lazy". Fuck em, right?
In a few years, it will be illegal to pay almost one-in-five American workers less than $15 an hour. That's thanks to two minimum wage laws just passed by New York and California, which will phase in the new threshold between now and 2022. This has lots of economists and pundits even ostensibly liberal ones all aflutter that these states are leaping dangerously into the unknown.
So are they? Recent work by economists at UC Berkeley suggests not.
Why is the health of a corporation valued over the health of an individual and their ability to receive a living wage?
No, that's not really what he's saying.
He's simply saying that adhering to a new minimum, though higher, isn't going to have major effects on worker productivity. I don't think it's a particularly bad point.
But to answer his question, to the best of my limited knowledge on the subject, is that people will have more buying power and thus infuse more money into the economy... So it's not necessarily that the workers will be more productive, but that these workers will stimulate the economy more through increased spending.
California's cost of living is the same as the rest of the country?
Companies higher not because wages are low. Companies higher when they need labor. They need labor when people are buying their shit.
It isn't? People are just discussing the question posed.
This was what I was thinking reading the OP.Why is the health of a corporation valued over the health of an individual and their ability to receive a living wage?
This is the best answer I've read on this subject and it makes sense to me.
California's cost of living is the same as the rest of the country?
Automation is going to crush minimum wage jobs so none of this matters.
It has done what we expected it to90 day turnover rates are down, our survey scores are upwe have more staff in restaurants, McDonalds U.S. president Mike Andres told analysts at a UBS conference on Wednesday. So far were pleased with itit was a significant investment obviously but its working well.
Hire.
I always feel like $15 minimum wage proponents have zero understanding of businesses and the economy and a complete inability to play through scenarios in their head. They act like raising the minimum wage (doubling it in most areas) will have zero effect on employment numbers. But that's obviously not true. If you double the cost of anything, there will be less demand for it (if gas prices rise, you try to drive less). Less demand for workers at $15/hr means more unemployment for low wage workers.
Even if businesses can keep most or all of their employees, a $15/hr employee is different from an $8/hr employee. You expect more out of a $15/hr employee, because you're paying him more. They need to justify their high cost to the business. There's a reason low-skill employees make low wages, because each individual employee contributes a small amount to the business. It's only through the accumulation of skills over time that an employee becomes more valuable and justifies a higher wage.
Forcing employers to treat all new hires as $15/hr employees means that only the employees with the most potential value will be hired, which hurts teenagers, because they haven't had a chance to accumulate any skills, and minorities, because their cultural and economic backgrounds lead to a lower accumulation of pre-employment skills, such as time management and communication.
If you think it through, it's impossible to both argue that minorities are systematically underprivileged due to their backgrounds AND that a $15 minimum wage will help them, because a $15 minimum wage makes it harder for people from different social backgrounds to find entry-level jobs at which they can learn the skills necessary to be better workers. But most people don't think it through, and most people don't really want a $15 minimum wage to help the lowest-skill workers. They want it to help themselves.
People keep saying this, but society adapts. We've done it plenty of times before.
This is talking specifically about NY (which is $12.50 outside of NYC) and CA, not nationwide.Why a $15 minimum wage won't unleash jobs Armageddon
Jeff Spross - April 6, 2016
TL;DR - Don't Panic!
A living wage should be what it takes for one person. Not three.$15/hr is lower than the cost of living for a two-parent family with one child anywhere in the country.
Your math is wrong. $13.38 is the average, some make more, some make less. $15 would be the minimum. Presumably, they have employees who earn more then $15 an hour. This means that a minimum wage of $15 an hour would lead to an average that is above $15 an hour. We can't say how much they would lose without knowing the distribution of employee wages.
It would likely be more than just raising the wages of people who make below $15 up to $15, because employees further up the ladder who now make the same as the day one trainee people will also want a raise.
Why a $15 minimum wage won't unleash jobs Armageddon
Jeff Spross - April 6, 2016
TL;DR - Don't Panic!
California's cost of living is the same as the rest of the country?
Is this a Draconian law you are proposing?
This is a scary road to go down. In what world does this make any sense?
Business owners are taking a huge risk and if they have zero responsibility to pay entry level workers a "living" wage.
Min wage isn't meant to be a living wage. It's a starter job to gain skills. Skills equals more money.
It doesn't come close to bridging that gap. $9.25 instead of $7.25 in a place that costs twice as much as your average city doesn't help.That's why the federal minimum wage is misleading: its higher in places where cost of living is way higher.
Walmart makes about $7,500 per employee. Average hourly wages are currently $13.38. An increase to $15 (i.e. +$1.62 an hour), assuming 34 hours worked a week and 48 weeks worked a year, is a reduction in $2643.84, leaving them still making about $5,000 per employee in profit. This is also a worst-case scenario. Walmart's $7,500 per employee is after tax and the minimum wage increase occurs before tax, so Walmart's tax liability would not be as high, and additionally minimum wage increases tend to be associated with higher productivity, which increases output per worker at the same cost and so increase profit per worker. You'd also raise consumption in the economy, which means Walmart makes more sales, which you'd expect to mean an increase in profit.
This is really, really not a problem for Walmart.
Robots.
I don't believe you can accuse us of having zero understanding of businesses, economy, inability to play through scenarios in our head when you completely fail to account for the proven fact that when families of lower income receive additional income, they inject the money back into the economy.
Retention rate decreases with increased wages.
They will get hired when newly injected money spurs growth.
No.
Robots.
Maybe the Walton family should share some of that 149 billion dollar windfall? I mean they, a handful of people, are worth more than the economies of many nations on earth. That they can't absorb the rise in a 15 dollar minimum wage is bullshit of the highest order. You've played yourself.
Automation is going to crush minimum wage jobs so none of this matters.