According to a study by the Federal Reserve office of San Francisco.

 

It should say 200k jobs in title

 

Federal Reserve Says State Minimum Wage Hikes Have Cost Up to 200,000 Jobs | TheBlaze.com

 

Like I've said before I always hear when the debate on climate change takes place that Republicans hate science. Does the fact some democrats ignore this math mean they hate science as well?

Edited December 22, 201510 yr by LIPTON BASH

my former employer said that if minimum wage went up that several people at that place would lose their job...

I think it's great that the government keeps on giving the people what they want. While furthering the divide in society among the have a min wage job folks and the had a min wage job that had to be cut folks. If you are a person in which a change in state minimum wage increase helps you, you're essentially gambling that your employer will be able to keep your position.

And after the layoffs you still must buy health insurance coverage or you are breaking the law. Nice.

You can lead a horse to water.............

As a small business owner I've been saying all along that if minimum wage increases to $15 per hour as some would like, there would be a lot of small businesses go under or have to cut back on the number of people they employ. We pay anyone that works with us above minimum wage, whether they are part time or full time, but in general, we could not afford to pay everyone $15 per hour. Not would it matter if we could, because if minimum wage nearly doubles, so would the cost of living.

Just ask Seattle how well this is working out.

And yet many on the left try to tell us that the increase in the minimum wage does not affect the number of jobs. It is simply common sense that if you increase the minimum wage a DRASTIC amount like from under $10 to $15 (a 50% increase) many jobs will be lost, either because employers have to cut people to make ends meet or have to shut down. To argue this makes no sense. Basically, raising the minimum wage helps some poor people and hurts others. That is just a fact.

And yet many on the left try to tell us that the increase in the minimum wage does not affect the number of jobs. It is simply common sense that if you increase the minimum wage a DRASTIC amount like from under $10 to $15 (a 50% increase) many jobs will be lost, either because employers have to cut people to make ends meet or have to shut down. To argue this makes no sense. Basically, raising the minimum wage helps some poor people and hurts others. That is just a fact.

 

Unfortunately most either do not realize that or they do not want to admit it due to political affiliations. Honestly, its purely common sense, IMO. If people making french fries for a living start making $15 (to make french fries) an hour at fast food restaurants then guess what, the price of french fries goes up. As does everything else in that industry. The same can be said for everything else in life.

 

 

If you compensate one group of the working class, you end up compensating the middle and upper class also, which in turn drives the cost of living up. Why that is so hard for some to understand, I will never understand.

Unfortunately most either do not realize that or they do not want to admit it due to political affiliations. Honestly, its purely common sense, IMO. If people making french fries for a living start making $15 (to make french fries) an hour at fast food restaurants then guess what, the price of french fries goes up. As does everything else in that industry. The same can be said for everything else in life.

 

 

If you compensate one group of the working class, you end up compensating the middle and upper class also, which in turn drives the cost of living up. Why that is so hard for some to understand, I will never understand.

 

Most probably do understand it but that kind of common sense doesn't fit their agenda so they ignore it.

crickets ...... crickets ........ crickets .... lol .

I can't comment on the opening post. Not enough time has elapsed, I think, for a fair assessment.

 

I will tell you what my employer is doing. It began at the beginning of 2015. We hiked all non-tipped wages drastically. I'm in the hospitality industry...notoriously among the lowest induatry wage providers. New hire wage scales were set at 9-11-15. Depends on the job and/or experience of the candidate. At 6 months, .50 more. At 12 months, another .50, etc. We still have some positions we're reengineering the wage scale to match the 9-11-15 model. We'll have those in line by the end of the year. Employees who were hired before 2015 were scaled into the new model, based upon their longevity and performance.

 

Since the company I work for absorbs 84% of the benefit load, this represents a significant financial investment. But it was determined that we can be a revolving door of hiring and training, only to lose the trained employee for as little as .25 more am hour. We felt it was better to hire good people, train them well, and retain them.

 

We have a pool of employees that we categorize as "variable". While they don't work full time hours and don't qualify for some benefits, they are the first source of transfers to full time positions. If they don't qualify for benefits, my employer has a program to get them into the Indiana system, and pays a portion of their premium.

 

Again, I don't think enough time has passed yet to fairly assess the effects of the wage hikes. I believe there WILL be some pain. But in the long term, I believe those states will see positive results.

I can't comment on the opening post. Not enough time has elapsed, I think, for a fair assessment.

 

I will tell you what my employer is doing. It began at the beginning of 2015. We hiked all non-tipped wages drastically. I'm in the hospitality industry...notoriously among the lowest induatry wage providers. New hire wage scales were set at 9-11-15. Depends on the job and/or experience of the candidate. At 6 months, .50 more. At 12 months, another .50, etc. We still have some positions we're reengineering the wage scale to match the 9-11-15 model. We'll have those in line by the end of the year. Employees who were hired before 2015 were scaled into the new model, based upon their longevity and performance.

 

Since the company I work for absorbs 84% of the benefit load, this represents a significant financial investment. But it was determined that we can be a revolving door of hiring and training, only to lose the trained employee for as little as .25 more am hour. We felt it was better to hire good people, train them well, and retain them.

 

We have a pool of employees that we categorize as "variable". While they don't work full time hours and don't qualify for some benefits, they are the first source of transfers to full time positions. If they don't qualify for benefits, my employer has a program to get them into the Indiana system, and pays a portion of their premium.

 

Again, I don't think enough time has passed yet to fairly assess the effects of the wage hikes. I believe there WILL be some pain. But in the long term, I believe those states will see positive results.

 

What your employer did was elective and what they thought was best for their business . That isn't what we are discussing. There is a difference between what you describe and a mandatory across the board hike for all companies.