Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Living Wage Ordinance?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 22, 2013 at 9:47 pm #608340
kgdlgParticipantIn the wake of Mayor McGinn’s Whole Foods Press Release (I won’t call it a decision since that rests with SDOT and Council, I believe) I have been reading up on other cities and ‘living wage’ ordinances. Like the one just passed in DC:
Or the one in SeaTac right down the road…
http://realchangenews.org/index.php/site/archives/7914
It seems like this kind of policy change is more fair, in that it doesn’t punish just one company, it sets a standard for all. Although from what I have read about DC, it was written very narrowly to target Walmart, and SeaTac’s was to target airport employers.
What do folks think about this? I am genuinely curious…
July 22, 2013 at 10:31 pm #794260
WFMemberit is not right for government to interfere with a private contract. as an employer it is in my best interest to pay my employees a fair wage to keep my employees happy and motivated. turnover and training costs are horrendously expensive!
July 22, 2013 at 11:17 pm #794261
KBearParticipantOh, of course, WF! That’s why ALL employers already pay fair, livable wages! (Except the ones like Walmart, which are apparently unaware of their own best interests!)
July 23, 2013 at 12:31 am #794262
WFMemberif someone does not like where they work they can find another position or work for themselves. heck the neighbor kids have their own gig doing yard work!
July 23, 2013 at 2:09 am #794263
kgdlgParticipantWhile I respect your viewpoint WF I would love to hear an economic perspective in favor of this type of policy.
July 23, 2013 at 2:37 am #794264
elikapekaParticipantWF, with all due respect, your response is overly simplistic. You can pay living wages or you can pay higher taxes to supplement the social services needed by the working poor. You can’t have it both ways. I fail to see why the taxpayer should foot the bill for a few at the top to rake in the money because they’re too greedy to pay a living wage to the people that play a big part in producing those profits.
The gap between workers and top management is at an all-time high. At one time owners and managers lived in the communities that their employees did, and thus had more of an incentive to pay decent wages. Now more often than not it’s a multinational corporation with no ties or interest in keeping employees happy. So the rules have changed, and we need to find new ways to address economics.
There is an anecdote which I have heard and read many times, but never seen the actual source for. It’s about an interview with a very successful German businessman. When asked about the extremely high tax rates he was forced to pay in Germany, he answered that he didn’t mind. When the reporter asked how he could possibly put up with such high tax rates, the reply was “I don’t want to be a rich man in a poor country.”
We need to find new ways of thinking about economics. Is a living wage law the way to go? I’m not sure, but I think it has merit and should be considered.
July 23, 2013 at 3:10 am #794265
kgdlgParticipantElikapeka, the externalization of healthcare costs are the most cogent argument I have heard to date for this type of ordinance. Especially when we are talking about Walmart. I do think that the Whole Foods thing is interesting, since they said they would pay well above min wage and offer healthcare too. That seems more of a union vs non union issue.
How does the ACA play into this though? If someone on min wage can now buy a policy and get a federal credit to cover the whole thing does it dilute the living wage argument?
Obviously in Seattle you need way more than minimum wage just to afford rent in this town so there are a lot of factors an metrics to consider. Still curious…
July 23, 2013 at 3:34 am #794266
WFMemberi have always paid my employees good wages, when he left in 2010 to pursue other path he was getting paid $24.50/hr with PTO, retirement plan with employer match and quarterly bonus checks.
and what the heck is a living wage? a single no frills person can live on $9.50/hr thus this is a living wage
July 23, 2013 at 3:53 am #794267
EdSaneParticipant@WF, you already pay above a living wage (as shown by your posts), why do you care if other businesses are forced to meet the standard you set (heck less than the standard you meet currently)? I smell BS.
July 23, 2013 at 4:14 am #794268
elikapekaParticipantkgdlg,
I don’t know how the ACA is going to play into this yet. I don’t think anybody really knows!
If the tax credit and the health exchanges really work, then it might dilute the living wage/social services argument a bit, but not enough to derail it, I don’t think. There are a lot of other programs that are utilized and needed by the working poor – food stamps (SNAP), housing assistance (Section 8), day care assistance, free lunch programs for kids, TANF, Lifeline Assistance for telephone service, LIHEAP for assistance with utilities. That’s just what comes to mind right now.
Hooper, your first paragraph shows you entirely missed the point of the replies here. As for what is a living wage, I imagine it would be compiled by averaging costs for the affected area and then applying some kind of formula. I don’t know how you’d adjust for family size – probably just have to take an average on that too, I guess. Maybe you take the current average wage and average out the tax dollars spent on subsidizing the low wage and make it up that way. You’d have to do some serious number crunching.
July 23, 2013 at 4:31 am #794269
snaParticipantA “living wage” requirement will only cause businesses to relocate to places with cheaper labor. Maybe not overnight, but eventually for sure. It’s a very shortsighted idea.
July 23, 2013 at 4:34 am #794270
WFMemberedsane i find government intrusion in private affairs not appropriate. if someone does not like their job they are free to find/conduct other work.
over the years i have retained the services of plumbers, carpenters and the like who work for themselves. in fact i try to find these type of folks what have learned to take care of themselves and not look to government to take care of them.
government penalizes these hard working small business owners with taxes on everything, business license tax, b&o tax, property tax, city taxes, county taxes et al. additionally due to the complexity of all the taxes and rules small business people are forced to higher accountants (not cheep) to take care of all the taxes.
July 23, 2013 at 4:38 am #794271
kgdlgParticipantElikapeka, yes, totally agree that there are a myriad of other social programs someone on min wage might also qualify for.
@Hoop/WF, in terms of your statement about living on min wage. Let’s round up to ten an hour and be generous here.
Someone making $10 an hour and working 40 hours a week will take home roughly a little over $300 a week after social security, medicare and taxes. Wow, that is $1200 a month! Let’s be generous and say that this person can “afford” to pay more than a third of their income on housing. Say $500 a month.
Now, go on craigslist and find a studio apartment in Seattle, on a bus line (because they can’t afford a car) near amenities like a grocery store, etc. Yeah, there are a ton of these apartments in the Junction (NOT AT ALL).
So maybe your argument is that this person should work two min wage jobs, at 70+ hours a week, stretch to pay the $1000 a month studio rent. Problem with this argument is that it is very hard to climb out of poverty this way, as there is no time left over for education, let alone raising a family, which many people on minimum wage actually have to do. So, kids end up suffering.
This isn’t necessarily a plug for a living wage ordinance, just me calling BS on your statement that “single no frills person can live on $9.50 an hour”
July 23, 2013 at 4:49 am #794272
elikapekaParticipant@sna, I don’t necessarily think so. That was the case when manufacturing and call centers and that sort of thing was being outsourced, but the jobs that would most likely be covered by a living wage law aren’t the kind of jobs that can be outsourced. It’s janitorial, fast food, lower end retail, the people that provide wheelchair service at the airport, for instance. Those jobs can’t be transferred.
July 23, 2013 at 4:52 am #794273
WFMemberor simply rent a room in a house, share an apartment.
having kids before you are settled with a decent full time job is not appropriate. my wife and i waited until we had the finances and stable work before having a kid. delaying children until you have set up a home, have your training/education done and stable work and some savings is the best strategy by far. my kid says i am cheap and boring, but being frugal allows a person to save for a rainy day.
anyone who has a cell phone has money to save!
July 23, 2013 at 5:32 am #794274
kgdlgParticipant@WF, good to see that the old Hoop is back, does it get lonely up on that pedestal of yours?
July 23, 2013 at 5:50 am #794275
miwsParticipantFolks, one thing we need to remember, is that in the world of WFhoop, everything id black and white—no gray areas.
Can’t afford the basic necessities on which to live, because you don’t earn a livable wage? Too bad. Get another job. Or two. Or ten. (Because, ya know, it’s real easy to get a job these days).
Don’t have even one of those easy to find jobs, and living on Unemployment, which comes straight out of WFhoop’s pocket? Well, then, the State should have you out there building bridges. Even if you are 70 years old.
Disabled, unable to work? In WFhoop’s world, taxpayers should not be paying to provide you benefits, or medical care. You know. Too bad.
Mike
July 23, 2013 at 6:21 am #794276
dobroParticipant“A “living wage” requirement will only cause businesses to relocate to places with cheaper labor.”
Easy to say, impossible to prove. In fact, we only need to look in our own back yard to see the fallacy. Washington has the highest minimum wage in the country. Businesses are not running away from here, they are coming here.
http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/jan/25/washington-state-ranks-top-10-business-friendly-ta/
July 23, 2013 at 6:37 am #794277
kgdlgParticipantThanks Dobro, this is the kind of analysis I was hoping for – links to articles refuting the common ideas of what a policy like this will “do” to local businesses. I did read an interesting article, which I cannot find now of course, on the residents of the neighborhood where Walmart wanted to locate in DC. Apparently, it has 20% unemployment, largely people of color. So, many were saying, “I would take an $8/hour job over no job!” Which I thought was really interesting, that most residents wanted the low wage jobs since there were so few in their neighborhood.
But Seattle is a little different, even the South End of the CIty is still in close proximity to many many job centers, whether Boeing in Renton or Amazon downtown. And, has not seen the large swaths of disinvestment many urban east coast and central cities have witnessed.
So maybe McGinn can really tell Whole Foods they need to unionize to locate in WS? I personally think that the profits possible here are so huge, that most companies would deal with a policy like this.
I think I still prefer it to be a City wide policy rather than an ad-hoc project by project evaluation however.
July 23, 2013 at 7:12 am #794278
dobroParticipantMcGinn can’t tell them they have to unionize, but he’s not obligated to give them perks and easements with nothing in it for the city. I’m glad he’s making a statement for union workers.
July 23, 2013 at 7:20 am #794279
kgdlgParticipantDobro, do you have a sense of how WF wages and benefits stack against local unionized shops? Without knowing this, it all seems like posturing during an election season.
July 23, 2013 at 1:55 pm #794280
F16CrewChiefMemberBelow is a nice little article explaining not only how taxpayers foot the bill on social services because Corporate giants won’t pay a fair wage, but also how taxpayers are footing the bill for other Corporate perks.
Apple and Wal-Mart are some of the worst violators of taking advantage of taxpayers.
July 23, 2013 at 2:10 pm #794281
TanDLParticipantMost of the above postings are referring to big box stores and large corporations. But I wonder how local small neighborhood businesses would be affected by a living wage ordinance. I suppose it would depend on the definition of “living wage” for this community. Most local business owners that I know try very hard to provide a good wage and what benefits they can to their workers, but the more they provide to their workers, the higher they have raise their prices to consumers. One small local service business owner I know has said that in order to keep good workers, he’s had to raise salaries so that his people can afford the high rents locally. And… in order to raise salaries, he’s had to raise prices, which has resulted in some of his customers becoming angry. Seems like a living wage ordinance has the potential to be a Catch-22 for very small businesses and the customers who frequent them.
July 23, 2013 at 2:43 pm #794282
kgdlgParticipantTanDL I have only been able to find other examples of cities that target big corporations. For example, DC exempted small businesses. But, in concept, it is still interesting in that you have one set of rules for one type of business and other rules for smaller ones.
In my mind this all flows from having an inadequate social safety net. For god’s sake, now we are cutting food stamps! When healthcare, housing, education etc are so expensive especially for the working poor, can folks really ever get ahead?
July 23, 2013 at 3:13 pm #794283
TanDLParticipantMaybe the living wage definition should be based on profits. Last year Wal-Mart’s profits dropped to $15.7 billion. Even with that drop, it seems like they might be able to afford a raise or two for their lowest paid workers. Too many large public corporations work to primarily boost their stockholders at the expense of their workers and the system rewards them for operating that way. In this tight employment market, corporations have been able to keep workers at lower pay and longer hours while raising profits for their stockholders, but maybe that will change as we reach a fuller employment picture where workers can find better jobs easily.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.