everyone is a winner everyone is all smiles in seattle $15 min wage

[dherd]

despite all the usual warings of doom and gloom from conservatives everyone is coming up
a winner with seattle's $15hr min. wage. diners, owners and employees are all coming up
big winners.

SEATTLE (AP) — Menu prices are up 21 percent and you don't have to tip at Ivar's Salmon House on Seattle's Lake Union after the restaurant decided to institute the city's $15-an-hour minimum wage two years ahead of schedule.

It is staff, not diners, who feel the real difference, with wages as much as 60 percent higher than before. One waitress is saving for accounting classes and finding it easier to take weekend vacations, while another server is using the added pay to cover increased rent.

Seattle's law, adopted last year after a strong push from labor and grass-roots activists, bumped the city's minimum wage to $11 an hour beginning April 1, above Washington state's highest-in-the-nation $9.47. Scheduled increases that depend on business size and benefits will bring the minimum to $15 within four years for large businesses and seven years for smaller ones.

"To the extent that we can look at macro patterns, we're not seeing a problem," Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said.

As Washington, D.C., and other cities consider following Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles in phasing in a $15-an-hour minimum wage, Ivar's approach, adopted in April, offers lessons in how some businesses might adapt. Ivar's Seafood Restaurants President Bob Donegan decided to raise prices, tell customers that they don't need to tip and parcel the added revenue among the hourly staff.

For some of the restaurant's lesser-paid workers — including bussers and dishwashers — that's meant as much as 60 percent more. Revenue has soared, supportive customers are leaving additional tips even though they don't need to, and servers and bartenders are on pace to increase their annual pay by thousands, with wages for a few of the best compensated approaching $80,000 a year.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Clearly they haven't paid attention to their tax bill that will be coming due later this year.....the real reason govt officials are celebrating. Combined with the inflationary effects (like higher rent payments) will no doubt continue to rise as costs flow through each component of the city's economy. The cost of living will no doubt go higher and these same workers will be complaining in a couple of years that 15/hr isn't enough to support their "weekend trips and rent".

 

[ggmike1992]

"servers and bartenders are on pace to increase their annual pay by thousands, with wages for a few of the best compensated approaching $80,000 a year."

Servers and bartenders shouldn't make 80K a year, even the very best of them.

 

[banker6796]

Yep, too early for the inflationary pressures to catch up with the revenue side.

 

[herdfan06]

"servers and bartenders are on pace to increase their annual pay by thousands, with wages for a few of the best compensated approaching $80,000 a year."

Servers and bartenders shouldn't make 80K a year, even the very best of them.

If the market allows for it, why not?

 

[HerdFan76]

I wouldn't be claiming a victory with only one quarter worth of data.

 

[ggmike1992]

If the market allows for it, why not?

I don't disagree with that. I just find it hard to fathom that kind of job making that kind of money. And with menu prices going up 21%, as referenced in the article, I can't see consumers taking the brunt of that for very long.

 

[extragreen]

If you don't tip at these restaurants (since it's included in the price), then you are somewhat offsetting the 21% increased price by eliminating 15% gratuity.

I'll claim victory before any data comes out. Why? This has been done before nationwide between 1950-1956 when the minimum wage was increased by 150%. There was no significant inflation or higher unemployment as a result.

 

[herdfan429]

Did the unions in Seattle fight for an exemption from minimum wage after fighting so hard for it, like they have in LA?

 

[ThunderCat98]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/0...um-wage-to-70g-rents-house-to-make-ends-meet/

This seems somewhat relevant/timely.

 

[banker6796]

Wait, that guy raised everyone to $70,000 and the productive workers got mad that they made the same as the slackers? Who would have guessed that?

 

[extragreen]

So, the higher paid employees were content with their wage package...until someone else got a raise. Go figure.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/0...um-wage-to-70g-rents-house-to-make-ends-meet/

This seems somewhat relevant/timely.

Reads like a lawsuit from his brother is the real issue.

 

[wisemaniac]

Reads like a lawsuit from his brother is the real issue.

From what I've read, his brother has legit concerns.

 

[raleighherdfan]

If you don't tip at these restaurants (since it's included in the price), then you are somewhat offsetting the 21% increased price by eliminating 15% gratuity.

I'll claim victory before any data comes out. Why? This has been done before nationwide between 1950-1956 when the minimum wage was increased by 150%. There was no significant inflation or higher unemployment as a result.

Go figure Greed suggesting "don't tip" in order to prevent price increases from flowing through. The fact is these same workers will be shocked by what their tax liability will be. Because now ALL their earnings will be reported. This is significant. A large majority of cash "tip income" goes unreported by these workers. Serves them right for their complaining.

Furthermore to suggest success from the late 50's again is absolute ignorance. Let us not forget less than a decade later a failed democrat president had to declare "a war on poverty" program in 1964 because apparently paying everyone more in minimum wage apparently led to a poverty rate above 19%.

 

[herdfan06]

Reads like a lawsuit from his brother is the real issue.

Also, clients left because they were afraid their rates were going to go up.

 

[herdfan06]

Wait, that guy raised everyone to $70,000 and the productive workers got mad that they made the same as the slackers? Who would have guessed that?

Does this mean the productive workers are no longer being paid what they are worth just because a less productive worker is making the same amount?

 

[GK4Herd]

Couple of points...Banker is dead on. If you don't reward your best most productive employees with higher pay, they will take their value elsewhere. And when you allow those who basically clock in and go through the motions to be rewarded at the same rate as those who are conscientious and offer real value, you have effectively removed all motivation for anyone to apply themselves. Why would you? If you skate all day, go through the motions, and offer little value, it is a matter of time before you topple the effectiveness of your entire work force. Those who exceeded will do one of two things....they will go elsewhere where their effort is met with commensurate reward or they will lower their productivity because, why work hard when your pay doesn't exceed the loafers?

History has a precedence. Just look at the post Soviet Union economy. After years of a government assigned, wage controlled workforce, the transition to a competitive free market economy came with tremendous growing pains. Quite simply it was impossible to shift the gears of a workforce that garnered zero incentive by being competitive. You cannot legislate economic equality within a society that is inherently different...different abilities, different intelligence, and different levels of motivation. All you can do is protect the helpless and try to knock down the walls that block opportunity from those who are so inclined to do better. But when you legislate equality you are going against the grain of the very nature of humanity.

And if you think this is going to stick it to the multi billion dollar companies that are being mythically forced into fairness you're naive. Big companies, the one that this type of legislation is really about, are going to diminish their workforce, shift the extra work to the remaining employees, replace them through technology, etc. They're still going to be the evil corporations, and the people that the laws are set up to protect are going to head to the unemployment lines at a cost to everyone else.

But the real loser here are small businesses. I have a total of 11 employees, both part time and full, that work in my small business. We staff (partner with my brother) our business around 21 hours per day in two locations. For every dollar that I would be forced to raise pay due to minimum wage, it would diminish our bottom line by over $12,000 dollars. An increase o $15 an hour would have over a $90,000 dollar increase. At what point do the people that have hundreds of thousands of dollars in a business and assuming all the risks say to themselves, the margin is just too thin for the business to be viable. So what happens? You shut down the business and more people (some who have been with me for 10 years) hit the unemployment line. And there are anscillary consequences as well. Take my business. Do you like the Promise Scholarship? The Limted Video Lotteries are the sole funder of a benefit that is helping thousands of kids get a college education. My little business has paid the state over 5 million dollars in the last 10 years, money that is used solely for Promise, tourism, and elderly programs. If you destroy an entire industry, in addition to the loss of jobs and Promise, you would shift any kept programs back to the general fund of the state increasing the burden on an ever shrinking workforce.


This attempt at sticking it to the greedy corporations (and they are) to protect the working class is so misguided that it isn't funny. It will do just the opposite and only hurt the little guys. God, I hate the antics of some of these large corporations. I've been bit personally by the uncaring nature of a corporate downsizing. But if you want to get ahead in this world and you're waiting for the government to do it for you, you're going to be in for a long wait.

 

[GK4Herd]

Does this mean the productive workers are no longer being paid what they are worth just because a less productive worker is making the same amount?

No...it means more productive workers will become less productive because why bother.

 

[i am herdman]

Hey Greed

Are your hourly employees still in commission?

 

[extragreen]

So, if raising the minimum wage is so destructive, how did the U S raise the minimum wage between 1950 and 1956 by 150% and the economy not crumble, and why did most establishments not fail?

 

[extragreen]

Hey Greed

Are your hourly employees still in commission?

So, if raising the minimum wage is so destructive, how did the U S raise the minimum wage between 1950 and 1956 by 150% and the economy not crumble, and why did most establishments not fail?

 

[i am herdman]

So what minimum wage do you offer?

 

[extragreen]

So what minimum wage do you offer?

Stay on topic.......

So, if raising the minimum wage is so destructive, how did the U S raise the minimum wage between 1950 and 1956 by 150% and the economy not crumble, and why did most establishments not fail?

 

[herdfan06]

No...it means more productive workers will become less productive because why bother.

That is always a risk, however I should have included what I was getting at, rather than leaving a gap. In the past Baker has said that he does not worry himself with what others make, he constantly tries to improve himself and move up, which there is nothing wrong with. Now if he found out tellers are making the same amount he is, I question if it would not bother him.

 

[wisemaniac]

"servers and bartenders are on pace to increase their annual pay by thousands, with wages for a few of the best compensated approaching $80,000 a year."

Servers and bartenders shouldn't make 80K a year, even the very best of them.

If you're a bar owner & paying your staff $80k, you're clearly moving a substantial amount of cocaine & paying your employees to keep their mouths shut.

As for the Gravity president, I question either his intentions or his foresight. I'm all for a privately held company with no shareholders paying whatever they want. But by making something public that should have been an individual conversation with each employee, anybody who has ever worked in a position where you have to evaluate & distribute raises know this is a terrible idea.

 

[extragreen]

I'd be tempted to stick with Gravity. He just increased new clients by 75% by announcing the new minimum wage at his business. Maybe the big dogs at the company weren't as important as they think they are. Why didn't THEY increase new clients by 75%?

**clarification** Increased new sign ups per month by 75%.

 

[GK4Herd]

I'd be tempted to stick with Gravity. He just increased new clients by 75% by announcing the new minimum wage at his business. Maybe the big dogs at the company weren't as important as they think they are. Why didn't THEY increase new clients by 75%?

**clarification** Increased new sign ups per month by 75%.

Because the "big dogs" paid theses people to increase sign ups. The question I ask is if increasing sign ups is what drives the company, why don't these guys make their own company? And I'm not being sarcastic either. If these employees believe as you do, that their value to the company exceeds that of those who own it, than why don't they just start their own company?

And here's a philisophical question, should a person who believes that their skillset is what is driving the profit for the owners and therefore should share in the profit, shouldn't they also ask to share in any of the losses should they occur? The problem is, people want rewarded without risk.

 

[i am herdman]

Like I told a guy that worked in our warehouse when he was going on about the sales guys making money.

I said, they are always looking for good sales reps and I will put a good word in for you. You need to generate about $2 million in revenue after a few years and each month you start at zero. Oh, you need to write a business plan and submit it to the sales manager. There is no base pay. I have a risk every month. I sell zero I get zero. I am an at will employee and they can can me right now. I don't get to stop work at 5 every day. I get calls from customers, the boss, and corporate. I have never not worked on a vacation in years. Up to you chief, I will help you get the job.

He looked at me and never said another word. We all have a job to do and I don't feel guilty about making more than the office help or low skilled labor. I make the company an ass pile of money and awarded justifiably. My boss can find plenty of guys to pack boxes or file papers. He can't find plenty of guys that generate millions in revenue. I busted my nuts for 20 years and now am reaping the rewards. I have packed boxes and dug shit for a living. I don't do that now. Nothing wrong with it at all, but you only deserve so much for doing it.

This notion that everybody deserves a high wage is nonsense and frankly not American.

 

[extragreen]

Because the "big dogs" paid theses people to increase sign ups. The question I ask is if increasing sign ups is what drives the company, why don't these guys make their own company? And I'm not being sarcastic either. If these employees believe as you do, that their value to the company exceeds that of those who own it, than why don't they just start their own company?

And here's a philisophical question, should a person who believes that their skillset is what is driving the profit for the owners and therefore should share in the profit, shouldn't they also ask to share in any of the losses should they occur? The problem is, people want rewarded without risk.

No matter how you look at it, the people complaining about those getting raises didn't increase sign ups anywhere near the amount in which sign ups were increased simply by the owner announcing the higher minimum wage. Secondly, I don't know where you got that I agree with those who are complaining about the way the pay structure changed.

 

[herdfan06]

No matter how you look at it, the people complaining about those getting raises didn't increase sign ups anywhere near the amount in which sign ups were increased simply by the owner announcing the higher minimum wage. Secondly, I don't know where you got that I agree with those who are complaining about the way the pay structure changed.

Did he get the signups because he announced the higher minimum wage or did the new clients learn about him due to the free publicity he received after the announcement and sign up because he offered them a service that fit their business model?

 

[extragreen]

Did he get the signups because he announced the higher minimum wage or did the new clients learn about him due to the free publicity he received after the announcement and sign up because he offered them a service that fit their business model?

Probably both, but some were directly because of the minimum wage announcement, according to articles I've read.

 

[raleighherdfan]

So, if raising the minimum wage is so destructive, how did the U S raise the minimum wage between 1950 and 1956 by 150% and the economy not crumble, and why did most establishments not fail?

This has already been answered. You are just to dumb to get it. If the late 50s were so successful after minimum wage increases of 150%, why was there a need for the "war on poverty" by the early 60's because 19% of the nation was impoverished?

 

[herdfan06]

Probably both, but some were directly because of the minimum wage announcement, according to articles I've read.

So these companies have great hearts? You are a business owner, I am sure you are well aware of credit card fees.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

From what I've read, his brother has legit concerns.

He very well may. I just know legal representation is not cheap.

 

[banker6796]

Extra, you have a significant inability to put events into the context of the time they occurred. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Labor was in much shorter supply relative to demand in the 1950s. You had over a decade of pent up demand coming off WWII where no one had bought cars, appliances, houses, etc. the '50s basically saw 20 years of economic consumption in a ten year period.

On another point, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage in 1950 was about $7.50 an hour in 2014 dollars. The reason that money went further then is fairly simple, people didn't have cell phones, cable (or even TVs), only had one car per household, didn't eat out hardly ever, didn't have air conditioning, many still washed clothes by hand and hung them outside to dry, etc.

 

[extragreen]

So these companies have great hearts? You are a business owner, I am sure you are well aware of credit card fees.

Your point?

 

[herdfan06]

Your point?

I am trying to figure out where you are coming from with assertion the new customers signed up because they are ecstatic over the fact Gravity is paying their employees $70k.

 

[extragreen]

I am trying to figure out where you are coming from with assertion the new customers signed up because they are ecstatic over the fact Gravity is paying their employees $70k.

You mind telling me where I said the new sign ups were due to people being ecstatic over the raise in pay?

 

[extragreen]

Extra, you have a significant inability to put events into the context of the time they occurred. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Labor was in much shorter supply relative to demand in the 1950s. You had over a decade of pent up demand coming off WWII where no one had bought cars, appliances, houses, etc. the '50s basically saw 20 years of economic consumption in a ten year period.

On another point, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage in 1950 was about $7.50 an hour in 2014 dollars. The reason that money went further then is fairly simple, people didn't have cell phones, cable (or even TVs), only had one car per household, didn't eat out hardly ever, didn't have air conditioning, many still washed clothes by hand and hung them outside to dry, etc.

And you have a significant ability to fabricate reasons for an excuse to not do something that disagrees with your economic philosophy, even if it's been done successfully in the past. We have several years of pent up demand presently. We've been through a depression and a slow recovery for working people. And guess what, we're coming off a war recently too. The housing industry is building about 1/2 the homes needed to meet the rising population. Scarcity in housing causes prices to go up and people are living with their parents because they can't afford their own homes. If the number of people per household were to return to the 2000-2003 level, it would create 4 million new households. At present rate it will take 20 years to catch up. Give people decent paying jobs and this economy will take off. imho.