Unexpected Consequences: Min Wage Hike Fallout

[Retro Rob]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...unexpected-fallout-from-15-per-hour-min-wage/

Some workers across the city are left telling bosses to give them fewer hours at the higher wage because a full week’s earnings now puts them past the threshold for some welfare payments such as food stamps and assistance with rent.

But now some workers in Seattle are finding that the higher wage is forcing them off the welfare programs they would rather stay enrolled in and, instead of celebrating their higher income, they are imposing fewer work hours on themselves in order to stay on assistance.

The above is extremely telling, because if this is true, then it wasn't ever about a "livable wage" -- it was about them using the Government in order to buy more "stuff".

People should welcome the chance to be self-sufficient and get off Government Assistance -- I know I would.

 

[fskimospy]

Breitbart, so you already know that's a failure.

I would love to see non-anecdotal evidence that this is happening to any meaningful extent.

 

[TheSlamma]

But dude, 99% of the people on welfare would never abuse the system

 

[Retro Rob]

Breitbart, so you already know that's a failure.

I would love to see non-anecdotal evidence that this is happening to any meaningful extent.

But...this is what I said:

because if this is true, then it wasn't ever about a "livable wage

..and I understand your request.

 

[SMOGZINN]

If so then it is because they choose a very poor number for the new minimum wage. It would have to fall so that a working person on the old minimum wage was eligible for those programs but with the new minimum wage are not, and do not make enough extra to make up for the difference.

People working minimum wage jobs are not bilking the government to buy more stuff. They are working to pay rent and eat.

 

[PokerGuy]

If people act rationally (and that's a big "if"), they would maximize their total benefits from all sources. If raising the rate increases the income to the point where they would lose other (more valuable) benefits, then they can (and logically should!) reduce their hours such as to maximize benefits.

Of all the possible fallout of hiking min wages like that, I don't see this particular one as a big problem, even if it does happen more frequently.

 

[fskimospy]

But...this is what I said:

..and I understand your request.

Right, but since it's from Breitbart there is no particular reason to believe it's true, because that's a political propaganda site. I imagine you don't take DNC press releases as factual either.

It seems like worrying about a problem that we have no data to suggest is a problem.

 

[fskimospy]

If people act rationally (and that's a big "if"), they would maximize their total benefits from all sources. If raising the rate increases the income to the point where they would lose other (more valuable) benefits, then they can (and logically should!) reduce their hours such as to maximize benefits.

Of all the possible fallout of hiking min wages like that, I don't see this particular one as a big problem, even if it does happen more frequently.

If that is a problem, that speaks more to the failure of design for those public assistance programs. If structured correctly there should NEVER be a time where earning $1 reduces your benefits by more than $1 (or even particularly close to $1), that way everyone always has an incentive to earn more money.

On a side note, this is one problem with the ACA. Subsidies end abruptly at 400% of poverty, which is a stupid way to structure things. There should always be a gradual decline.

 

[Retro Rob]

Right, but since it's from Breitbart there is no particular reason to believe it's true, because that's a political propaganda site. I imagine you don't take DNC press releases as factual either.

It seems like worrying about a problem that we have no data to suggest is a problem.

Hey, I just wanted to stimulate some discussion about this -- I actually care less about the source at this time (especially seeing how you immediately discredited it).

Truth is though, it's highly probable if not realistic that people haven't considered being above the threshold of Gov't assistance and are backtracking now.

 

[Retro Rob]

People working minimum wage jobs are not bilking the government to buy more stuff. They are working to pay rent and eat.

So have they NOT been eating and paying rent all this time?

 

[CZroe]

Right, but since it's from Breitbart there is no particular reason to believe it's true, because that's a political propaganda site. I imagine you don't take DNC press releases as factual either.



It seems like worrying about a problem that we have no data to suggest is a problem.

Got anything to back that up? People always claimed that he lied just because they didn't like him and they completely ignored it once he was proven right so that they can always remember him as a "liar."

He very famously challenged people like you to point it a single lie he had ever told. Even one. It's very clear that everyone claiming that was on a bandwagon because they didn't like what he had to say, which is unforgivably ignorant.

I haven't heard much since his death but I've heard nothing that indicates that the website has since started lying. Have fun in the baseless accuser category. Anthony Weiner can keep you company.

If so then it is because they choose a very poor number for the new minimum wage. It would have to fall so that a working person on the old minimum wage was eligible for those programs but with the new minimum wage are not, and do not make enough extra to make up for the difference.

People working minimum wage jobs are not bilking the government to buy more stuff. They are working to pay rent and eat.

...or to earn extra money on top of the spouse's income or to stay busy during retirement or to earn money while school is out and the parents are paying the bills.

Your base assumption about the minimum wage, who it's for, and how high it must be is simply wrong.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So have they NOT been eating and paying rent all this time?

In 2013, 49.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, including 33.3 million adults and 15.8 million children.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...unexpected-fallout-from-15-per-hour-min-wage/






The above is extremely telling, because if this is true, then it wasn't ever about a "livable wage" -- it was about them using the Government in order to buy more "stuff".

People should welcome the chance to be self-sufficient and get off Government Assistance -- I know I would.

Bawwww, mommy government is saying "It's time for you to get off the teet". The babies start screaming "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH I don't wanna work. I don't wanna work!!!!"

Beautiful. I hope employers force them to work more hours or fire them. This is pathetic. God forbid you do work like everyone else in this country does.

 

[PokerGuy]

If that is a problem, that speaks more to the failure of design for those public assistance programs. If structured correctly there should NEVER be a time where earning $1 reduces your benefits by more than $1 (or even particularly close to $1), that way everyone always has an incentive to earn more money.

On a side note, this is one problem with the ACA. Subsidies end abruptly at 400% of poverty, which is a stupid way to structure things. There should always be a gradual decline.

Aww crap, now I'm going to have to take a shower again, I agree completely with eskimospy.

 

[SMOGZINN]

...or to earn extra money on top of the spouse's income or to stay busy during retirement or to earn money while school is out and the parents are paying the bills.

Your base assumption about the minimum wage, who it's for, and how high it must be is simply wrong.

We do not set the minimum wage so that retirees and bored kids can earn extra money, we set it at a level that someone who must work at that level can live. Because as a society we know that a large number of our population have no useful skill beyond being able to mostly follow simple instructions and that no company is going to pay them enough to live for that skill.

 

[Retro Rob]

In 2013, 49.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, including 33.3 million adults and 15.8 million children.

Is there a way to directly tie this to Min wage?

I've known people to have no food in the Fridge, etc, but pay $110/m phone bill, $150/m cable and internet bills, have pretty nice car payments, but complain about the pay on the job.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, just sayin'...

 

[Fanatical Meat]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...unexpected-fallout-from-15-per-hour-min-wage/

Quote:
Some workers across the city are left telling bosses to give them fewer hours at the higher wage because a full week’s earnings now puts them past the threshold for some welfare payments such as food stamps and assistance with rent.


Quote:
But now some workers in Seattle are finding that the higher wage is forcing them off the welfare programs they would rather stay enrolled in and, instead of celebrating their higher income, they are imposing fewer work hours on themselves in order to stay on assistance.


The above is extremely telling, because if this is true, then it wasn't ever about a "livable wage" -- it was about them using the Government in order to buy more "stuff".

People should welcome the chance to be self-sufficient and get off Government Assistance -- I know I would.

Two pretty quick bullet points and the word "some" was used three times. Personally I'm perfectly fine with some people working less because it impacts their benefits and most people getting more money.
Some is a dangerous word to use it is specific and vague at the same time like "Some people say some stuff about retro Rob that sounds like he is in bed with ISIS". See its written so some people may believe it.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Aww crap, now I'm going to have to take a shower again, I agree completely with eskimospy.

So what are you suggesting? A welfare program that works entirely based on how much you make month to month? As in, you work 15 hours, you get your welfare check. You work 17 hours @ $15/hr, your welfare check goes down $30? They would still rather be sitting around doing nothing because the check amount would be the same. At some point you have to have a cut-off. To put it bluntly... You're COMPLETELY retarded if you think they would work with your notion of losing $1 for making $1 more. They would rather keep doing what they are doing... working less and less.

Perhaps you don't understand how our government is run.... They barely have the competence to make legitimate welfare claims in the first place, let alone implementing a system that does a calculation to determine their check amount month to month.

 

[werepossum]

Aww crap, now I'm going to have to take a shower again, I agree completely with eskimospy.

Happens to the best of us occasionally.

 

[fskimospy]

Got anything to back that up? People always claimed that he lied just because they didn't like him and they completely ignored it once he was proven right so that they can always remember him as a "liar."

He very famously challenged people like you to point it a single lie he had ever told. Even one. It's very clear that everyone claiming that was on a bandwagon because they didn't like what he had to say, which is unforgivably ignorant.

I haven't heard much since his death but I've heard nothing that indicates that the website has since started lying. Have fun in the baseless accuser category. Anthony Weiner can keep you company.


...or to earn extra money on top of the spouse's income or to stay busy during retirement or to earn money while school is out and the parents are paying the bills.

Your base assumption about the minimum wage, who it's for, and how high it must be is simply wrong.

Sure, his websites published and defended several of James O'Keefe's videos, all of which later turned out to be extremely dishonest. That's a lie in anyone's book.

How did you not know this? Are you just content to be lied to so long as they are comforting lies?

Anyone who reads breitbart media to be informed is a fool.

 

[Strk]

And? I think those of us who support minimum wage increases are tired of paying for welfare because companies don't want to pay living wages.

 

[Ketchup]

All I want to know is who is supporting a family on minimum wage?

I haven't made minimum wage since I was 16 years old. And even then I had a lawn mowing job on the side that paid much more than that power hour.

 

[senseamp]

So Republicans are now against working people getting off welfare?

 

[Moonbeam]

If the altered reality of a conservative brain defective includes the notion that a minimum wage is a bad idea, a conservative news source has only to send a reporter out to tip over a porta-potty somewhere, smear the contents over the street, and point to it as proof that the minimum wage is evil. Brain defectives do not operate on real knowledge, but rationalizations that keep them from feelings they do not want to experience.

 

[WHAMPOM]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...unexpected-fallout-from-15-per-hour-min-wage/






The above is extremely telling, because if this is true, then it wasn't ever about a "livable wage" -- it was about them using the Government in order to buy more "stuff".

People should welcome the chance to be self-sufficient and get off Government Assistance -- I know I would.

Why do you hate capitalism, maximizing their income by working less hours is the capitalist wet dream. Can you do Math? Hell! It ia all about a pay cut. Higher wages minus benefits equal less, less hours plus benefits equal more.