Last year McDonald's had profit of $5,460,000,000. It has roughly 1,000,000,000 employees, if you count the franchise employees. That comes out to a profit of $5,460 per employee. Assuming an average of 20 hours per week, year round, for each employee and distribution of all the profits to the employees in the form of wages total compensation for each employee would go up by $5.25 per hour (the employee would probably only see $3.94 of that because of employer payroll taxes, unemployment, L & I, etc.) So a $10 an hour employee would go to roughly $14/hr.

Now lets assume that someone works 40 hours a week at $14/hr. That is $2,427 a month in a city where the average rent is $1,400 for shoebox. 60% of their gross would still go to housing, which is not sustainable.

No one would then invest in McDonalds and similar franchises because there is no way to get their money back, let alone a return. To solve that problem the cost of restaurant prices could be raised. If that happens across the board, then you have inflation, which cuts into the buying power of the raise given to employees. Wages went up by 40% but so do the prices that employees pay to live. Its a zero sum game in terms of standard of living.

So the assertion that raising wages by government fiat is a solution just doesn't work mathematically. The real solution is for these jobs to be temporary while the workers in these industries gain education and skills that allow them to work in industries with more revenue and profits so that they can get paid more.

Boeing by contrast has profits of $33,000 per employee. Is it any wonder their employees make $30 an hour or more, not $10? Microsoft is $173,000 per employee. Is it any wonder that a large share of their workforce makes salaries of over $100,000?

Costco employee get 40% more than Safeway employees. Guess what revenue and profits per employee at Costco are double that of Safeway. They have roughly the same revenue but Safeway has nearly twice the employees to generate those sales, so those employees are half as proactive in terms of sales per worker.

@1 - 1 billion employees? 1/7th of the world's population works for McDs?

1,000,000. Thanks. Got it right with the math but not in the text of the post.

@1 " a zero sum game in terms of standard of living." (It's, btw)

Except employees live in a greater world than just their minimum wage compatriots. Inflation has already occurred but wages have not caught up. There is no zero sum game. At best, in zero sum terms, you change the future initial distribution from the top to the bottom, but the top has more than enough to not even notice.

@4. You would think that is the case; however, if you run the numbers on the profits of the top 1,000 corporations (that the "top" are the largest owners of) and distribute all the free cash flow to employees, you wind up with a similarly dismal increase in wages relative to costs to be in the real world.

Inflation: Did you live through the late 1970's? Wages went up regularly, but so did prices, which then meant wages went up. Vicious circle. The only way to escape that is to have productivity rise (revenue/employee), which has been happening. Employees should be capturing a bigger percentage of that increase in productivity. Why employees have not been capturing their historic percentage of increases in productivity is a bit of mystery to economists. One way to address that would be to mandate employee profit sharing across the economy (rather than mandating a minimum wage), but as the numbers show, that doesn't do much for the standard of living of workers in food service and hospitality. 100% profit sharing doesn't help much in that case and 100% profit sharing is not realistic unless they also are putting up the capital.

@1: Until you provide evidence that raising the minimum wage causes a 1:1 rate of inflation, all you have is hot air and hypotheticals, since your entire point hinges on this "fact" you completely invented.

@5: Please provide links to these "numbers" you keep referencing and "running."

the IFA argues franchises could be forced to close or suffer "a loss of customers and consumer goodwill."

If it is a loss of consumer goodwill they are worried about, they would be wise to drop their lawsuit. I am way more likely to support a business (including a nationwide franchise) if I think they are ethical. Chipotle: Good. McDonalds: Bad.

Cost of Labor is just one of many costs associated operating a business, as are supplies, real estate rental/ownership, utilities, etc. All of these costs add pressure to all other costs. If a franchise (or any other business) goes out of business because costs are too high, it could just as easily be blamed on *any* of the costs.... not just labor, although for the right wing, Labor is the bogeyman.

If a location is mostly suitable for fast food, and the costs (all costs) are too high to make it feasible, then other parts of the equation come into play. Perhaps the landlord must lower the rent, or risk an empty, un-leased lot. Perhaps the next tax assessment determines that the location is no longer as valuable at a high assessment, and taxes go down. Perhaps the prices are raised in more affluent neighborhoods. And of course, perhaps a higher min wage in the entire neighborhood means there are more potential customers, to swing the needle in the other direction.

Supply-side economics has been demonstrable failure. Lets try a livable minimum wage for a while, and see how the economy reacts to more low-wage families having more purchasing power.

@7. google "How many employees does McDonalds have." Google, "What was McDonald's Profit". The latter gets you Market Watches financials (which are based on SEC reporting) for the corporation for the last 5 years. Drop to Net Income line. Repeat for the other corporations referenced. The Costco and Safeway analysis is two years old. Ran those numbers for my father-in-law two or three years ago.

The wage increase in this initial round is 16%.

Since the profit margin on these establishments is small (at best 10%),it means a "net loss" for the franchise holder...who is not McDonalds Corporation. They are typically small investors who buy the franchise rights and take the risk of bankruptcy if the business doesn't work out.

That is terrible math.

What, as a percentage of total costs, is labor today? If labor is 100% of costs, and *all* the employees are making minimum wage, then sure, a 16% increase in labor would turn a 10% profit margin into a 6% loss.

But labor is *not* 100% of the costs. All employees do *not* make minimum wage. So although wages might rise by 16%, the rise in the "cost of doing business" is *significantly* less. This is basic high school algebra.

And as I said earlier, increased labor costs can be at least partially adjusted and absorbed in other costs.

@ 8 and @9. Good points. That said, the $15/hr movement is a national one. There are a VERY FEW places, without a government mandate, where McD's already exceeds this. North Dakota, near the Baaken Oil Field for one (menu prices are also higher than here) has a wage of over $16/hr. So it would need to be market by market. The broader point still remains, that small changes in the wages in the U.S. and Europe (where the bulk of McD's revenues and profits come from) can nearly wipe out profits. The problem is not the profits, its the fact that the goods being sold are ones that are voluntary for consumers and that can be easily substituted for meals at home. I.e. I'll eat 40% of my meals out if I can hit Subways, Mc D's, small deli's and other independent casual dining if my breakfast sandwich is $2, but it if its $4, I'll eat out 2/3 less, not at all, etc. It's not like a smartphone where it is so indispensable for work, social life, etc. and makes life so much more efficient that you'll pay $200 or more every two years for the latest update.

@13: Haha, the numbers I would like cited are the imaginary ones you are using to suggest that minimum wage increases equal a 1:1 inflation rate. I am just going to assume that your pathetic dodge of the real question is proof you have no evidence for anything you are saying. Please prove me wrong.

@14, typically in the restaurant business its about 30% of the cost. Land, construction, leasing, taxes and other overhead are relatively fixed. So is your cost of food (typically about 25% of revenue.

Your point about doing other things to absorb the cost is on point. Notice that at a fast food restaurant that they hand you a cup and you fill your own drink. If the rate of labor goes up, a rational response is to decrease the amount you need. In Europe, where labor costs are higher, McD's is rolling out ATM style kiosks. Place your order, put you debit card in, take your receipt and then line up to get your order when your number is called.

@17. It doesn't equal 1:1 initially; however, it tends to over the long term. Currently mental health workers get about $17 per hour with a masters degree (Medicaid is the single largest payor for non-profit outpatient mental health clinics that provide the bulk of care, since most people with chronic mental illness are disabled and qualify for Medicaid). You think they are going to get a master to make $2 more an hour than a non-high school graduate at McD's? Nope. They will not go into the field unless the wage differential of about $8 per hour is restored. That ripple effect runs across the economy. So it tends to be inflationary. It is not so now, with the current minimum wage in Washington, which is indexed to inflation. That is so for two reasons. 1) The numbers of workers getting the minimum wage is a very small fraction of the state workforce (6% if I remember the last Employment Sec. Dept. report on the subject) and 2) It is not closing the differential with so many other sectors so rapidly (i.e. The differential is $7 or $8 per hour and as the minimum wage goes up by inflation so does the mental health worker wage, preserving that differential, so the sectors aren't competing for the same labor).

2) The minimum wage is not a living wage. Its the wage set for workers entering the market to gain experience. Presumably they gain experience, become more skilled and move up the economic ladder and earn more. Its worked quite successfully for many, many generations...just ask your parents.

I am "my parents", and have the AARP card (and kids) to prove it.

The problem with this assertion, is that it is half correct. In Seattle, the minimum wage is not livable. That does *not* mean that a whole bunch of people don't have to try to live on it, whether you think it is the appropriate job for them or not. If you have 100 Min wage jobs & 100 livable wage job in a community with a worker population of 250, Then there will be competition for all those jobs. If 200 of them might need to support families, but for each worker that succeeds in moving into a Livable Wage, they are displacing one as well. You still have 100 people making minimum, non-livable wage, and 50 unemployed.

And yes, I realize that is hypothetical.

At $15 now, a business owner won't hire unskilled labor and what may I ask is your solution to that problem?

So your argument is that an employer would rather have *no* employee rather than an unskilled employee? That is their prerogative.. As with any business decision, a worker will be hired only if the employer believes a net positive to their bottom line will be achieved. This also exposes the "big lie" of supply side economics: Giving rich people more money (and calling them job creators) creates nothing. Employers are not running charities, and will *still* not hire people if it doesn't result to a net positive... And if hiring an employee *will* result in a net positive, the employer will do *that* whether or not he was given a no-strings-attached tax break.

George, next time just write "I'm a fucking idiot", and use the time you save to read an economic textbook.

So we have mistral in one post claiming labor is 38% of total costs (and one sleight-of-hand later amended to food + labor = 65%-75%), and georgeingeorgetown claiming 30%.

That doesn't say *anything* about how many are min wage workers... from experience I know that managers typically are paid more, as often are kitchen workers. 16% of 38% (to take mistrals non-hyperbole number) is a 6% rise in total costs if *all* workers on staff are min wage workers (which we know they probably aren't).

Yes property rents are generally filed under "fixed costs"... Unless you renegotiate with your landlord, and the landlord thinks he won't find another tenant at what is now a too high of rent. If rent was not too high, then perhaps the restaurant *will* go out of business, and be replaced with one with a better business model, thereby replacing the wages that were lost.

Why doesn't McD's gang up on landlords who charge excessive rent?

@20: Any proof of any of those assertions?

And to cut you off, no, I do not want proof that current mental health workers get $17 an hour. Real proof of the actual assertions you are making. Prove your thesis.

@24 - Yes, my AARP ass had a minimum wage job during the 70's and early eighties, part of the time as a college student responsible for most of his own bills. Of course in those days minimum wage was *significantly higher* in inflation adjusted dollars than it is now (http://www.dol.gov/minwage/minwage-gdp-h…) so I can't pontificate on what it would be like today, I suppose, but I do know that *then* it was not as much of a poverty level as it is today.

And if there was one thing that I could say about you, it would be: "Your economic concepts and view of reality is truly fascinating", although not really suprising, because it sounds so much like the old GOP/Libertarian mantra: "I've got mine -- so fuck you".

@26 - If a line cook makes currently $15/hour and under the new min wage utopia a dishwasher makes $15/hour.

Do you think the line cook (who has considerably more skill) will ask or demand more than $15/hour?

Gee, I don't know, that is a tough one. Does the law say he has to be paid more? I don't think so. Does it say he should get a 16% raise too? Maybe I'm missing something. Is he free to leave that job, and find one that pays better? I suppose he could, couldn't he? Are there other restaurants hiring cooks at a higher wage now that the minimum wage has increased? Maybe he finds a job outside the city limits so that with his $15/hr job he can still *feel* superior to the dishwasher. Maybe he sits down with his employer and they talk about it, and he considers his options.... maybe he throws down his sauce pan, and picks up a dirty plate to wash, because that was the job he had dreamed of anyway, and he was always burning his hands on the sauce-pan -- it's a win-win.

Mistral, what I don't understand is why you're willing to subsidize businesses by supplying them with labor that necessitates their neighbors and community make up the shortfall in their living expenses? I personally am not interested in having to provide food stamps, housing support & subsidized medical/dental & childcare services etc. to gainfully employed people thereby passing the subsidy to the low wage :employers. If minimum wage is a training, temporary wage by intent as you stipulate, I'm sure you could get behind two things to show you're sincere: 1) make the minimum wage a literal, legal training wage where you can't keep an employee on it for more than 90 days and 2) aggressively assess penalties on businesses whose staff requires community services to provide for their basics. Put your money and your laws where you purport your beliefs to be and your neighbors might be willing to see your point of view. In the meantime, I will vote with my feet by supporting businesses that *actually* support my community by not being an literal drain on it.

Why are you willing to amplify the backdoor tax support system for even a single short-sighted predatory businesses over the bulk of their staff? Your specific priorities here speak volumes. I don't believe business owners deserve special dispensation from the effective tax subsidy at the community's expense. Why are they special--specifically why are they more worthy of assistance than the staff they exploit? Both made choices that have real life ramifications, what makes the a franchise owner OK or *worthy* to help but not the employees?

"Thus what is your solution to a surplus of unskilled labor that isn't economically feasible at $15/hour?"

THIS! I have yet to see any politician, economist etc...really tackle this head on. There is absolutely nothing to stop hiring managers from raising the requirements for minimum wage jobs. No law need to be passed, no directive from higher ups. Just reject those applicants that have just a HS diploma or GED. Simple. Just a flick of the wrist to dump the application from a HS graduate into the shredder.

@29 - So at the end of the day, even during the turbulent 70's with interest rates and inflation topping out at 18% you were able to make it.

Sorry, just had to laugh at this... 18% interest rates were awfully hard on people.... who had the money to qualify for credit. For the working poor who spent all their money on food and rent? Not so much.

People who are anti-min-wage seem to think that paying poor people more money kills the economy... But the opposite is true. Poor people are not hording their extra few dollars; they are spending them to stay alive. Direct money to the Top of our economic pyramid and you have effectively removed it from the economy, and into banking and investment accounts, and eventually to heirs (who won't pay tax because/if the inheritance tax is removed) and who will pay a fraction of the rest of Americans, because in our upside down country, Earned Income is considered "more taxable" than the Investment Income that the Rich fund their lifestyle with. Direct stimulus to the middle class, and it is somewhat "more stimulating"... More nights out to the movies and dinner, maybe a new TV or Car, maybe some left over for Retirement. But direct it to the poor, and it will go through the was 5-10 times before it gets back up into the upper 1%, because nearly 100% of it will be spent in grocery stores and the occasional ice-cream-cone for the kids.

If the minimum wage goes up, one of the DIRECT BENEFICIARIES will be companies like McDonald's... There will be more money being spent at the low end of society, and places like McDonald's is one of the cheapest places a low-income family can afford to eat. They are a bit like Wal-Mart that way. And the increase in customers will allow McDonalds to hire more of your unskilled laborers.

Minimum Wage = Training Wage hasn't been a valid paradigm for literally decades. According to the latest report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of 2013 nearly half of all workers earning the Federal Minimum Wage (or less) were aged 25 or older, and more than 28% were 35 or older. 72% were high school graduates, and 8% had at least a Bachelor's Degree. The simple reality is that, in our modern Capitalist Society, Minimum Wage is the norm for millions of adult workers, a significant portion of whom have both education and experience, but are unable to find jobs to match their skills.

It is amazing @34, how bad off we have it in Seattle with a higher min wage than almost the entire company. We must have higher unemployment & more welfare queens than just about anywhere else. Meanwhile in all those red states, it is right-wing utopian heaven.... Poverty: GONE, Minimum wage: LOWEST IN THE COUNTRY, Welfare: NONEXISTENT. How could we be so blind. We should all follow the path of Mississippi, where the rich are free to be rich, and it benefits everyone (everyone that counts, anyway).

@38, no, what the statistics sited say is actually the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Look, if you want to subsidize businesses for paying low wages, treat minimum wage as a training wage (and "oh well, it's their own fault" for those who cannot get a relatively scarce better paying job), then move away from Seattle. There! Your problem is solved.

So what your saying @39 is: The old minimum wage (highest in the country) didn't kill the local economy, but by god, the new one will.

@39 your scare stories simply will not happen. If you want to see what government policies in a liberal city do for the recovery, by all means stay here is Seattle. If you want to see how the recovery is going for areas where ideology prevents the government from getting the economy going again then by all means go to Alabama, or that Libertarian paradise Arizona.

@43. No,actually it doesn't. I know your narrow ideological position will now allow you to see it any differently, but there is no proof to that assertion. None. The higher minimum wage will not kill the economy.

But you believe what you want to believe. And good for you. However, higher wages will be a good thing for our economy. All of that nonsense about inflation is just that. It's an entirely ideological argument, and thoroughly unconvincing at that.

Well you don't have to wonder, just look around at other states. Our recovery was one of the fastest in the nation. You could look at other places that don't have a minimum wage around the country that struggled longer, and in some cases continue to struggle.

@47 -- In the main, .higher min wages kill job & economic growth. It retards investment and reduces business investment.

Verifiable data please. We seem to be able to present ample data here that the minimum wage increases have nothing but positive effect on the economy. And we do in fact have a historical record, as I posted in @27, from the US Dept of Labor no less. If the minimum wage is so awful, please offer offer data points to support your right of it's job killing effects. You have given us nothing but right-wing fear mongering backed by nothing. In the meantime, our citizen democracy has voted in favor of what the DOL seems to believe to be a economic stimulating effort to alleviate poverty.

Mistral, you keep repeating that contention about reduced economic growth. Please provide a legitimate reference to this claim. Every recent study and mega study I've read reveals the opposite to be true, that the increased spending and money to the economies affected resulted in net positive gains. I know, facts are often inconvenient when paired against the faith of unshakeable belief.

Your response to my earlier post asking if I'd prefer no one having a job is both hyperbolic and kinda nuts. Jobs come with demand, otherwise all those self named job creators would've put an end to unemployment with there magnanimous generosity. Except they don't. Jobs are a social contract, and the community is a de facto part of that contract. If we as a community decide that we don't want to subsidize some small business models due to the direct cost to the community then more power to us. That's literally democracy at work. If the small business owners don't like the community's rules, then they are free to move elsewhere, just like the employees who don't like the wage. I see the minimum issue on a much bigger scale though. Your responses all seem to be based on ideals, not reality. Since we *do* have huge numbers of unskilled labor that need food clothing and shelter we need to address this; telling them that they were stupid to have made the choices that landed them in poverty does fuck-all to solve anything. Do you offer a solution that isn't about blame that doesn't put all the cost on those who cannot afford it? Our society got where it was as a group, why are small business owners exempt from the solutions in your mind? If we did have a true social safety net in place like most of Europe, shouldn't our taxes actually go down since they have higher wages, total safety net and manage to do so and provide healthcare for a lower effective rate than we do now? Makes me wonder, those damn socialists manage to have affluence, education, low unemployment and nobody dies due to lack of medical/dental/food. They're so awful with their putting their money where their values are and succeeding repeatedly. I've been hearing how broken the socialism model is and how those countries are all so broke they'll implode any time now since the early 1980's, and the mantra wasn't new then... But once again, evidence is so inconvenient.

In your world, if you weren't able to find a job that fed you and a kid, y'all should suck it up and live in your car with quiet dignity? Help me see where you offer a solution rather than just the effective "bugger off, I had decent luck and anyone who didn't must've not worked as hard as me so can suck eggs". Help me see how my subsidizing someone who's willing to employ a human being but not compensate them enough to live is a fair social contract? Since I don't like that current contract, I, like the 15 Now proponents are pushing for one that serves the whole community and not just business owners. I have the silly notion that if you're willing to work and serve your community then you and your kids shouldn't have to starve or be homeless.

And lastly, any small business whose model requires that my taxes subsidize them via poverty wages for them to succeed needs to fuck right the fuck off and die already as unsustainable. If they can't afford to pay a living wage to my neighbor or me, then they don't have a viable business! The business needs to raise prices like any other faced with similar economic constraints or go where they can succeed. Just like any other business, demand keeps pace with their expenses or they go under. Bloody simple. If they can't pay a living wage they don't have a legitimate business model. I keep hearing about the poor small business owners, all of whom seem to still earn more than their staff. Since most small businesses fail, why prop them up artificially to enrich a few temporarily? Those who lose their jobs at least can get unemployment and job training, whereas while in the poverty job didn't qualify for either!

@47 Untruth. Your "economic" has a "dog in this fight" alright. Otherwise you wouldn't be here arguing anonymously on a chatboard. Ideology and ideology alone is behind the push to repeal the minimum wage. It really is that simple.

@mistral
Im disappointed to see you weigh in on this topic again. Last time the minimum wage was in the news we went round and round, and now you are going round and round with other people.

I think your thoughts are proof positive of why economics is a dangerous hobby. It can even be dangerous for economists. The models that economists use are not as good as you think they are, and "economic theory" is actually (IMHO) mostly political agendas with just enough math slapped on to seem science-y.

The cost based analysis is really not good enough to talk about effects to the value of the local economy. I imagine you would have to use a matrix at least 80x80 and work from there. And even then, its hard to work in the changing decision making that might happen (i have more money, maybe i will buy something).

Also, price increases dont actually work the way you think they do. The company I worked at during the recession raised prices, because we were selling fewer units. Fewer people had the money to buy, but the ones that did didn't mind the increase. The general public having less money made prices go up, not down.

@49. Well Europe is going broke faster than we are. The countries with the highest minimum wages are Spain and Greece. They also are the ones with unemployment rates above 25%. The other European nation with high unemployment is France, where labor market rules are so restrictive that companies, once they hire someone, can't lay people off until and unless they are insolvent, South Africa also has a high minimum wage and very high unemployment both currently and historically. Economically speaking, the unpleasant truth is that we are worth individually, no more than the value of the good or service we produce. Aggregate that individual worth together and you have our collective income.

Your point about that the unskilled need food and shelter is spot on. But shouldn't the response be a time-limited safety net so people can get improved education and skills so that they can increase their pay to the point that they cover their own nut without a subsidy from the rest of us (and the individual liberty and lack of intrusion from the rest of us that this provides) if they are able? Don't we all have an obligation to move toward producing services that cover our needs and wants without subsidy and provides a surplus that we can throw into the pot, in the form of taxes, for the collective good? Taxes are the price of a civilized society. If people who are able choose, decide not to and we shore that up with a subsidy, aren't we being enablers of poor choices and just perpetuating the harm that comes from that?

What we don't do well in this society is create easy on-ramps for continuous skills and education training. We don't create easy on-ramps for those who have made poor choices in the past and need drug treatment, mental health treatment, and a second chance.

If they aren't able, then we have a collective decision to make about what standard of living we are obligated to provide and to tax ourselves to fund that. I don't want to be a society like India, where you step over the dead and dying.

@49. If they can't pay a living wage, it is because you and I aren't willing to pay a high enough price for the goods and services of that business for them to pay it. If they are paying a sub-living wage, look in the mirror. If you aren't willing to choose it in your spending choices, why would you choose it through government policy? Why not just skip the middle-man and only eat at restaurants where a Wendy's hamburger, fries, and drink are $25 and they pay a living wage?

@53
That would be a reasonable thought experiment, except for income inequality. You are assuming that demand for hamburgers is a fixed number, and that people are somehow bidding to determine the price of the hamburger. In my view, you can induce demand by putting money into people's pockets and expanding the marketplace. The Wendy's doesnt have to sell burgers for some huge sum, they can just sell slightly more burgers for slightly more money. Or even just lots more burgers for the same money.

@51 - I think your thoughts are proof positive of why economics is a dangerous hobby. It can even be dangerous for economists. The models that economists use are not as good as you think they are, and "economic theory" is actually (IMHO) mostly political agendas with just enough math slapped on to seem science-y.

I think you hit the nail on the head. "Economist theory" (whether left wing or right) is some of the worst of what gets passed off as "science". I think it is obvious that it is largely agenda driven, with the desired conclusion predetermined. Fortunately, we do have a few hundred years of data available and we can see, after the fact, that steps taken to alleviate poverty (like higher minimum wages, among others) do not cause the economic collapses that so-called "job creators" warn about. And we also have the data to show trickle-down theories don't really work.

When @mistral says "I just explained how things work" he of course means that he explained how he wishes thing worked, because of course he has ZERO evidence to back anything up, and what he is selling is a political ideology and that doesn't need facts.

That doesn't stop his allies from making bald-faced-lie claims either, with their end-of-the-restaurant-system-in-Seattle dooms-statements either, which the Seattle Times rules to be totally false:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news…

@57 -- Actually you just *don't* have to believe the in "depth study of the Seattle Times", because the restaurants mentioned are listed in the articles. But if you claim a restaurant is closing because of the min wage increase, and the restaurants themselves say that you're full of shit, then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who to believe.

Unless, you know, it's a conspiracy. And they're all in on it.

@mistral says: " One thing is certain and both of these economist agree, there is a negative effect on the economy when the min wage rises above 45% of the prevailing avg mean wages levels"

Fine: According to http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_wa.ht… (Bureau of Labor and Statistics) a year ago the Average Mean wage in *Washington* was $25.04/hr. 45% of that is $11.27/hr. On April 1st, the min wage rises to $11.00. So unless you are going to claim Seattle's Avg mean wage now is lower than the whole state a year ago, then by your own assertion, this is below the threshold of damaging the economy.

@60
Mistral and I went round and round last time, and he provided a lot of sources and studies which did not support his points. It is easy to think that the "experts" support your point of view when you aren't actually doing the homework. And that is not even accounting for the fact that the "experts" could still be wrong.

Economics is as complicated, if not more, as the weather, and meteoroligists (who happen to use much more complicated and realistic mathematical models IMHO) are wrong all the time.

Arguing from authority about some actual occurence ($15 wage) based on some nebulous marco theory which is at least partially ideologically driven isn't a good argument.

@mistral -- By your own numbers you damn yourself. The Seattle area is most definitely more affluent, with a higher mean wage than the rest of the state. That is one of the reason why today's minimum wage is not a "livable wage" around here. What should be obvious, however, is that most employers will pay the lowest rate the law or market forces will allow. What is also obvious is that with *any* amount of unemployment above 3% or so, employers have no market forces or incentive compelling them to pay a higher than minimum wage. Any number of prospective employees can "better themselves" by increasing their skills & education, but there will still be the exact same number of minimum wage paid employees, because that is all the employers are willing to pay. In fact if enough people became "highly skilled" the same way, there would be more competition for those "skilled jobs" allowing employers to pay *those* guys less. You should go read "Grapes of Wrath" some time.

Point is, in Seattle, we have a long way to go before we reach 45% of the avg mean. And the misnamed "job creators" are fighting to keep the minimum wage closer to 25%. (at least those who are not outright working to eliminate it all together). The economy is demand driven, not supply driven. People spend money when they have it to spend, not just because stuff is for sale. When more people have money to spend, the "job creators" at McD's will be selling more of their greasy pink slime.

@64
Dude, quit it with the talking down to people.
1) "average mean wages" is repetative. Average and mean have the same definition in mathematics.
2) The average wage is not some static thing. When people make more money, the average goes up too. In order for the sky to fall like you are predicting, the rest of the wages have to stagnate, and no one negotiates for a higher wage due to the new wage floor. Im not worried about it.
3) You are presenting specific factual claims at the bottom of @62 and dont support them. You should support them instead of talking down to people.
4) "From what I'm seeing in the economy at present..." What?! Do you work at the Fed? The economy isn't your crystal ball. What expertise and insider knowledge gives you the ability to make plausible economic predictions? The argument from authority act is lame man. Make a better case.

Like I said before, economics is a bad hobby. It lets people think there is math behind their prejudices, when really, the math is often very very shaky.

@66
See, I feel that you have got just enough knowledge to think you know everything, and not enough knowledge to realize that you don't. If you are a first year econ major, as your comment seems to suggest, it would actually explain your complete convictions in your opinions. I would recommend taking the arrogance down a notch.
Thanks for assuming I'm not math literate, but it makes me wonder what else you just assume in your infinite wisdom, as it's actually my strongest subject. That's why I like engineering so much. But you're right, as always, I must just be totally ignorant about how the linear algebra models that economists use work, as well as their shortcomings.

Short version, Build a good case for your argument while not talking down to people, and people will listen to you.