This Is Great: Workers Who Fought For $15 Minimum Wage And Won Are Now Trying To Cut Hours So They Can Stay On Welfare
Workers who demanded a $15 per hour minimum wage are quickly discovering they might not like what they’re getting.
After Seattle bowed to pressure and raised the minimum wage,
some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours because the increased wage puts them above the “poverty” threshold to receive food stamps and other government assistance.
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/this-is-...m=facebook
Quote:Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise – in a bid to keep overall income down so they don’t lose public subsidies for things like food, child care and rent.
And yet the article has no evidence to prove this...
Let's see:
Weasel words? Check.
Anecdotal evidence? Check.
Author thinks correlation implies causation? Check.
That's three for three on the crappy article strikes.
Quote:That's three for three on the crappy article strikes.
You would expect anything less from Drifter?
In Drifter's defense, I did see
this article from KIRO TV in Seattle this morning.
Now put in proper perspective, I wouldn't call the people that are requesting fewer hours to remain on subsidies "leeches". I do believe that this highlights an even bigger issue/problem, especially in places like Seattle. Instead of being given a "hand up" these people are continuing to receive "hand outs". This illustrates the consequences of government getting involved in business when they shouldn't.
I haven't seen much regarding businesses closing as a result of the higher minimum wage in Seattle, but I have seen cases where businesses are raising prices. That's going to affect not only the workers and business owners, but also the consumers.
at fifteen dollars an hour no one is going to have to ASK for less hours.... TRUST ME!!!!
Quote:at fifteen dollars an hour no one is going to have to ASK for less hours.... TRUST ME!!!!
No thanks, I will stick to getting my "facts" from other trustworthy sources like op's inflammatory "findings".
It's not even $15/hr yet. It's $11.
Quote:It's not even $15/hr yet. It's $11.
What a bunch of preemptive future leeches!!!
Sorry but if there really is someone asking for less hours now that they get more per hour so they can stay on welfare, that's the definition of a leech.
Quote:Sorry but if there really is someone asking for less hours now that they get more per hour so they can stay on welfare, that's the definition of a leech.
Just playing devil's advocate here, and hypothetically at that since Drifter's article has proven to be trash, but how is an employee asking to be scheduled fewer hours so they can keep welfare any different than an employer cutting that employee's hours to keep them off of the company benefits program?
Seems kind of win-win to me from the employer/employee point of view.
Quote:Sorry but if there really is someone asking for less hours now that they get more per hour so they can stay on welfare, that's the definition of a leech.
And somehow the article about it could not find one of them
Quote:Just playing devil's advocate here, and hypothetically at that since Drifter's article has proven to be trash, but how is an employee asking to be scheduled fewer hours so they can keep welfare any different than an employer cutting that employee's hours to keep them off of the company benefits program?
Seems kind of win-win to me from the employer/employee point of view.
Employers do it "It's just them being smart!"
Employees do it "Lazy leeches."
So what happens to the people that where making $15 an hour in a different field. For example a manager at walgreens make about $15 an hour now they're making minimum wage?
Edit: talking about this new law in New York where only the fast food industry is receiving a new minimum wage of $15 an hour
Quote:Just playing devil's advocate here, and hypothetically at that since Drifter's article has proven to be trash, but how is an employee asking to be scheduled fewer hours so they can keep welfare any different than an employer cutting that employee's hours to keep them off of the company benefits program?
Seems kind of win-win to me from the employer/employee point of view.
There isn't much difference other then the responsibility role. The employer isn't responsible for the well being of the employee. You can argue it's in the employers best interest to consider the employees well being but ultimately the employer is contracting the employee to complete a task.
Now when the individual works to artificially keep their wages low to continue welfare benefits it's the same as the people that don't look for a job until the unemployment Checks stop. The whole safety net only works if people are honest about when they need it.
Quote:In Drifter's defense, I did see this article from KIRO TV in Seattle this morning.
Now put in proper perspective, I wouldn't call the people that are requesting fewer hours to remain on subsidies "leeches". I do believe that this highlights an even bigger issue/problem, especially in places like Seattle. Instead of being given a "hand up" these people are continuing to receive "hand outs". This illustrates the consequences of government getting involved in business when they shouldn't.
I haven't seen much regarding businesses closing as a result of the higher minimum wage in Seattle, but I have seen cases where businesses are raising prices. That's going to affect not only the workers and business owners, but also the consumers.
I sincerely doubt that many business raise their prices as a result of rising cost. That's not the way the marketplace works. Generally speaking, businesses raise their prices because they can. Not because they have to. Look at it this way: if a business can raise their prices for ANY reason, why wouldn't they do so? Wouldn't they want to maximize their profits? They don't need to justify it by citing rising costs.
If I go to a restaurant and find out that the Lasagna now costs $20 when it used to cost $12, my decision to buy is not based on anything but whether I want to pay $20 for that lasagna. It has nothing to do with whether the restaurant owner now has to pay more for his labor. That's his problem, not mine.
It's like when people say high NFL ticket prices are a result of high player salaries. That is not true. NFL ticket prices are based on what people are willing to pay for tickets. It's the same with lasagna in a restaurant. The price of the lasagna is based on what people are willing to pay for it.
Quote:I sincerely doubt that many business raise their prices as a result of rising cost. That's not the way the marketplace works. Generally speaking, businesses raise their prices because they can. Not because they have to. Look at it this way: if a business can raise their prices for ANY reason, why wouldn't they do so? Wouldn't they want to maximize their profits? They don't need to justify it by citing rising costs.
If I go to a restaurant and find out that the Lasagna now costs $20 when it used to cost $12, my decision to buy is not based on anything but whether I want to pay $20 for that lasagna. It has nothing to do with whether the restaurant owner now has to pay more for his labor. That's his problem, not mine.
It's like when people say high NFL ticket prices are a result of high player salaries. That is not true. NFL ticket prices are based on what people are willing to pay for tickets. It's the same with lasagna in a restaurant. The price of the lasagna is based on what people are willing to pay for it.
Umm no. Businesses do raise prices when their cost of business goes up
Quote:Umm no. Businesses do raise prices when their cost of business goes up
Okay. Whatever. Do you have anything to add in support of your assertion? Just saying "Umm no." does not refute what I said.
In a free market, if a business can raise their price, they will. Whether they can raise their price depends on what people are willing to pay for their product. When they cite rising costs as a justification for raising their prices, they are conning you. They are raising their price so they can make as much money as possible. That's the way a market-based economic system works.
The lasagna at the restaurant costs what it does because that is the most the restaurant can charge and still get you to buy it. The price isn't going to go up and down because of the cost of production. It's going to go up and down based on what you are willing to pay.