Seattle passes minimum wage rate for Uber and Lyft drivers

bsliv

Well-Known Member
Not just initially, they'd stay low as long as the supply of labor remains high.
You must consider demand for labor. The supply could skyrocket but if demand goes even higher, wages will increase.

The countries presently producing those goods pay their workers a fraction of US wages.
And what wage should uneducated, unskilled, new immigrants be paid? I say only fractionally better than they were paid in the native countries. If they are willing to work for $1 an hour, fine with me.

Don't count on it. Prices for both have climbed dramatically over the years despite the fact that real wages have been falling since 1970.
If you're going to adjust for inflation with wages, you must adjust for inflation with prices. Housing has slightly increased. Cars, gas, electronics, food, etc., have decreased, adjusted for inflation.

There's multiple conflicting studies about higher minimum wages' effect on unemployment.
Figures don't lie but liars can figure. Its a basic economic law that the more expensive an item is the less of that item will be bought. Of course, there are exceptions, like monopolies and government interventions.

the entrepreneur inevitably gets pissed off
One shouldn't get pissed off doing math. If I determine an additional cashier will generate $200 in revenue in 40 hours of work, I'd be a fool to hire the cashier at more than $5.00 per hour. Doing that calculation shouldn't make anyone happy or pissed off. Its reality. The person who should be pissed off is the person willing to work for $5.00 per hour but instead gets $0.

the entrepreneur isn't the one who determines the workers "worth", it's the market that does
Exactly. What do you suppose the market for butterfly counters is? Since we don't have any, its obviously below any minimum wage.

A McD store in a market with very low unemployment will find it next to impossible to get even a subpar workers willing to work for anywhere near minimum wage.

By contrast, a McD store in a depressed area with high unemployment will probably have no trouble attracting good workers to work for minimum wage.
Correct in both statements. So why don't we let market forces determine the prevailing wage? If we impose a minimum wage in your depressed zone, McD's may abandon the market since they can't make a profit. Businesses abandoning a market is bad for the business and bad for the area. The area gets further depressed.

A high minimum wage hurts depressed areas the hardest, just like it hurts the low skilled workers in good markets the most. Those who the law was intended to help get hurt the worst.

A high minimum wage in an area that has full employment is mostly irrelevant. No one will accept a job at minimum wage if they can find one at a much higher wage.

many illegal immigrants work for cash under the table
Yep. Partly because they accept a wage that is below minimum and therefore illegal. Legal minimum wage earners pay no federal income tax. Help reduce the illegal under the table jobs by eliminating the minimum wage.

In economically depressed areas the percentage of low paid workers is much higher.
Obviously, that fits the definition of economically depressed. And a minimum wage will increase unemployment in these areas, just the opposite of what should be striven for. Full employment (due to no minimum) will dry up the supply of labor. A shortage of labor will drive up wages. This is the free market at work. Those in the bayou should not expect the same wage at those in downtown San Francisco.

bigwigs are given golden parachutes
The local markets determine the prevailing wage for labor, not what some executive in some remote location earns. Those who earn a high wage should be celebrated and emulated, not villainized and condemned. Jealousy is not a market force. Would a maximum wage be workable?

many heads of households are toiling at low wage jobs
Why? Why would someone start a family if they can only earn low wages? Poor decisions by a very few people should not determine economic policy for a large nation.

If I'm willing to work for $x and someone is willing to pay me $x, how is it right for a third party to say no?

A high minimum wage increases unemployment for the least skilled. Its similar to removing the bottom rung of a ladder. The most skilled can leap above the bottom rung and can advance as they acquire more skill. The least skilled are stuck on the ground with no chance for advancement. Put the bottom rung back on the ladder. Eliminate the minimum wage.

Don't trust any politician, they want votes in the short term. On economic issues (minimum wage), listed to those educated and/or experienced in economic issues.

ps. I have a BA in Economics (40 years ago) and have worked as an economist for >25 years as an independent contractor. That's more education and experience in economics that most who make laws involving economics. In my opinion, the free market has, is, and can work again. Freedom over force almost every time is the right answer.

If $15 an hour is the right answer, shouldn't $150 an hour be a better answer?
 

Nats121

Well-Known Member
You must consider demand for labor. The supply could skyrocket but if demand goes even higher, wages will increase.
Demand hasn't kept up with supply, thus the decline of real wages since 1970.

And what wage should uneducated, unskilled, new immigrants be paid? I say only fractionally better than they were paid in the native countries. If they are willing to work for $1 an hour, fine with me.
Our immigration system must always put the welfare of Americans first. Importing large numbers of poor immigrants hurts the working class in this country. That should not be allowed to occur. The notion of American workers being paid $1 an hour is absurd unless you think a Third World standard of living is acceptable in this country.

If you're going to adjust for inflation with wages, you must adjust for inflation with prices. Housing has slightly increased. Cars, gas, electronics, food, etc., have decreased, adjusted for inflation
Housing, especially rentals have gone up faster than the rate of inflation and even faster than wages.

igures don't lie but liars can figure. Its a basic economic law that the more expensive an item is the less of that item will be bought. Of course, there are exceptions, like monopolies and government interventions
Higher minimum wage causes some job loss but it's offset by increased buying power for workers. The conflicting studies are at odds over the offset.

One shouldn't get pissed off doing math. If I determine an additional cashier will generate $200 in revenue in 40 hours of work, I'd be a fool to hire the cashier at more than $5.00 per hour
Last time I checked cashiers didn't generate any revenue. Neither do janitors. Both may be needed, but not for generating revenue. A fool is a business owner who tries to hire a cashier at $5 per hour in a market where the going rate is $10 per hour.

Exactly. What do you suppose the market for butterfly counters is? Since we don't have any, its obviously below any minimum wage.
Your butterfly analogy is pointless because if there's no market there's no job, and no job means no wage of any amount.

You say "exactly" and yet you continue to promote the foolish notion that business owners can "decide" how much a job is worth. You and other conservatives/libertarians speak out of both sides of your mouths on this issue.

Correct in both statements. So why don't we let market forces determine the prevailing wage?
Our immigration policy along with financial incentives for companies to locate overseas has tilted the market against American workers, thus workers need the protection of a wage floor, especially in depressed areas.

If we impose a minimum wage in your depressed zone, McD's may abandon the market since they can't make a profit. Businesses abandoning a market is bad for the business and bad for the area. The area gets further depressed.
The minimum wage should be set at a level that benefits workers while minimizing business closings. Given the fact that the federal minimum wage has lost more than 30% of its buying power since 1968, there's certainly room for an increase.

A high minimum wage hurts depressed areas the hardest
It helps those areas the most because it's needed the most in those areas.

just like it hurts the low skilled workers in good markets the most.
Very few highly skilled workers in good markets are going to be interested in minimum wage type of jobs.

Help reduce the illegal under the table jobs by eliminating the minimum wage.
Why stop at eliminating minimum wage? Just think how much MORE we could eliminate under the table jobs if we eliminate FICA, Comp, Unemployment Insurance, overtime pay, etc.

The local markets determine the prevailing wage for labor, not what some executive in some remote location earns.
I already addressed this in a previous post.

The local markets determine the prevailing wage for labor, not what some executive in some remote location earns. Those who earn a high wage should be celebrated and emulated, not villainized and condemned.
My previous point about exec's "concern" that minimum wage hikes increases unemployment stands. You're trying to stifle debate with class envy argument.

Jealousy is not a market force.
Neither is the old boys network that's active in many corporate boardrooms.

Would a maximum wage be workable?
I'm not in favor of a mandatory one but a voluntary one would be fine with me. The savings that would result could be put to good use.

If I'm willing to work for $x and someone is willing to pay me $x, how is it right for a third party to say no?
It's illegal for an employer to pay less than minimum wage and I agree with that. If you want to hand the money back to your boss that's up to you.

If $15 an hour is the right answer, shouldn't $150 an hour be a better answer?
That's another lame rhetorical question used by opponents of minimum wage. It's like asking if 2 aspirins are good shouldn't 100 be better?

As an economist you're familiar with diminishing returns. There's a point somewhere with minimum wage where it starts to do increasingly more harm than good. Determining the approximation of that point would require research.

25 years as an independent contractor.

A simple litmus test that eliminates all of the vagueness of the current tests should be used to determine whether or not someone is an IC...

Party A performs a task or service for Party B under the rules and rates authored by Party A, Party B is a customer of Party A.

Party A performs a task or service for Party B under the rules and rates authored by Party B, Party B is the employer of Party A.
 

bsliv

Well-Known Member
Demand hasn't kept up with supply, thus the decline of real wages since 1970.
Because we have a minimum wage.

American workers being paid $1 an hour
$1 an hour used to be a high wage. Inflation has killed the value of our money. Keep printing more and it will erode even more.

Higher minimum wage causes some job loss but it's offset by increased buying power for workers. The conflicting studies are at odds over the offset.
The only time there are conflicting studies is when the minimum wage is low enough (compared to the prevailing wage) to be mostly irrelevant. No economist will argue against the principle of supply and demand in a free market.

Last time I checked cashiers didn't generate any revenue. Neither do janitors. Both may be needed, but not for generating revenue. A fool is a business owner who tries to hire a cashier at $5 per hour in a market where the going rate is $10 per hour.
Hiring to prevent a loss is equivalent to hiring to generate revenue. Imagine what would happen to a busy Walmart with only one cashier. A business owner that hires a cashier for $5 an hour in a market with a prevailing wage of $10 an hour is smart, not a fool. The fool is the person willing to accept half the prevailing wage.

You say "exactly" and yet you continue to promote the foolish notion that business owners can "decide" how much a job is worth.
I said "exactly" in response to you saying the market determines the wage. And yet you want to legislate a minimum wage. Talk about both sides of the mouth. A business owner determines what wage is acceptable to themselves for a specific job. If the owner decides an additional cashier will only generate (or save) $5 and hour, they won't pay more than $5 an hour. If a person is willing to work that job at that rate, too bad for the worker and the owner. That person will be unemployed and the business won't grow.

protection of a wage floor, especially in depressed areas.
You might as well say we need the create unemployment, especially in depressed areas.

federal minimum wage has lost more than 30% of its buying power since 1968, there's certainly room for an increase.
Or it could be that the minimum wage was too high in 1968. Look what happened to the economy in the '70's. Stagflation - no growth and inflation, exactly what one would expect with a too high of a minimum wage.

You're trying to stifle debate with class envy argument.
You're the one that brought up the high pay of some executives. There pay is irrelevant to what gets paid to their employees. Bill Gates made billions but Microsoft paid its employees well. Jealousy is not a market force, its only a justification for pay earners to complain.

It's illegal for an employer to pay less than minimum wage and I agree with that.
So you're anti free market. You believe the state knows what's best for an individual. I have an opposite point of view. I know what's best for me and I don't need a nanny.

There's a point somewhere with minimum wage where it starts to do increasingly more harm than good.
That point is at $0.01. Anything above that creates harm. The higher it is, the more harm created.

My first job paid me $0.50 an hour and was glad to have it. My current day job requires a 2 year internship. The intern does a lot of work while learning the business. I know of at least 1 intern that worked for free. There are probably other interns that pay to work/learn. If two people come to a financial agreement, there should not be a third party that says the agreement isn't fair.
 

SHalester

Well-Known Member
My first job paid me $0.50 an hour
wow, you must be really really really old. :thumbup: But, I have you beat: my first 'job' delivering papers I think I got a few dollars PER address a month.

When I actually had an official W2 job my hourly was $3.35 (in calif). So I guess I'm younger than you. By a margin. :roflmao:
 

bsliv

Well-Known Member
you must be really really really old
Yes, I'm old. But my point is that was the market rate. The market rate was below the legal minimum wage. It was a very small town with extremely limited jobs. I was in high school with no skill or experience in anything. Sweeping and mopping the floor was my primary duty. But it taught me discipline and responsibility. It also taught me a bit about a hardware store. I was able to buy a car after a year or so. If my employer had been required to pay a higher wage, I wouldn't have had the car or education. And my employer would have had to sweep and mop the floor himself. Being 14 years old at that time, I lived at home and didn't have a family.
 

SHalester

Well-Known Member
But it taught me discipline and responsibility
in my state, Calif, minimum wage, back in the day, was really so the fast food corps didn't take advantage of HS aged kids who wanted job experience and to make more money than mommy and daddy gave as an allowance.

And this forum looks down on fast food workers; shame. It's a great way to get work experience and fills out the resume. For HS kids, at least......
 

Nats121

Well-Known Member
Because we have a minimum wage.
There's been a federal minimum wage since the 1930s, and real wages peaked around 1968, so you'll have to find another reason.

The only time there are conflicting studies is when the minimum wage is low enough (compared to the prevailing wage) to be mostly irrelevant. No economist will argue against the principle of supply and demand in a free market.
Many economists argue that increasing the minimum wage increases demand for goods and services which increases employment.

Hiring to prevent a loss is equivalent to hiring to generate revenue. Imagine what would happen to a busy Walmart with only one cashier. A business owner that hires a cashier for $5 an hour in a market with a prevailing wage of $10 an hour is smart, not a fool. The fool is the person willing to accept half the prevailing wage.
By your own argument that business owner is being a fool. Trying to find a cashier for $5 per hour in a market where the going rate is $10 means the business owner will have an extremely difficult time finding one, which means the business will be short of the required number of cashiers to serve the customers, which means more losses by your argument. That's an example of a penny-wise and pound-foolish business owner.

I said "exactly" in response to you saying the market determines the wage. And yet you want to legislate a minimum wage.
That's right, I'm in favor of a minimum wage. As I've already stated workers need the protection of a wage floor. And yes, the free market is the primary determinant of wages in a given market. The problem with relying exclusively on the market to determine wages is that in economically depressed areas where people are desperate for work companies have the power to exploit the workers. That's why a wage floor is needed.

You might as well say we need the create unemployment, especially in depressed areas.
That's your view of the minimum wage.

Or it could be that the minimum wage was too high in 1968. Look what happened to the economy in the '70's. Stagflation - no growth and inflation, exactly what one would expect with a too high of a minimum wage.
I doubt that even Milton Freedman blamed stagflation on the minimum wage.

You're the one that brought up the high pay of some executives. There pay is irrelevant to what gets paid to their employees.
No isn't irrelevant according to their argument against increasing the minimum wage. They claim that the increased cost of paying higher minimum wage would result in layoffs. Raising the minimum wage would cost them more money, but so does the spiraling exec salaries. Unsurprisingly they don't want to talk about how much that particular expense is costing the company.

So you're anti free market.

That's false.

You believe the state knows what's best for an individual.

That's also false and a lame attempt at a strawman argument.

My view on govt regulation is simple... For every new regulation that gets proposed the burden rests with the govt to make a compelling case that it's needed. Existing regulations should also be periodically checked to see if they're still needed.

I support the free market in most cases but I'm not an extremist. Some regulations are needed such as anti-pollution and anti-discrimination laws. The govt made a compelling case for the creation of both. In my view the govt hasn't made a compelling case for anti-trust laws.

That point is at $0.01. Anything above that creates harm. The higher it is, the more harm created.
That's your opinion.

My first job paid me $0.50 an hour and was glad to have it.
So what? A model T Ford was $290 in 1925 and a nice large home could be had for less than $3000 in many places.

My current day job requires a 2 year internship. The intern does a lot of work while learning the business. I know of at least 1 intern that worked for free. There are probably other interns that pay to work/learn. If two people come to a financial agreement, there should not be a third party that says the agreement isn't fair.
There's various requirements that must be met in order to exempt an intern from being paid minimum wage in order to prevent a scamming company from getting free or nearly free labor.

Again, I support a "third party" mandating that minimum wages be paid.
 

bsliv

Well-Known Member
There's been a federal minimum wage since the 1930s, and real wages peaked around 1968
You keep changing the argument. I said housing prices would decrease after removing the minimum wage. You said housing prices have gone up. I said there is still a minimum wage. And now you replay with there has been a minimum wage since the '30's.

Many economists argue that increasing the minimum wage increases demand for goods and services which increases employment.
What goods and services are minimum wage earners buying so much of that demand will increase? Food? Rent? Increased demand of food or rent will cause their price to increase. Minimum wager earners spend a higher percentage of their income on basics (rent, food, etc.) than high wage earners. Again, the minimum wage will hurt minimum wage earners the most.

By your own argument that business owner is being a fool. Trying to find a cashier for $5 per hour in a market where the going rate is $10 means the business owner will have an extremely difficult time finding one, which means the business will be short of the required number of cashiers to serve the customers, which means more losses by your argument. That's an example of a penny-wise and pound-foolish business owner.
If hiring a cashier will save or make $5 an hour for the business and the cashier asks for $10 an hour, the cashier will not be hired.

If hiring a cashier will save or make $11 an hour for the business and the cashier asks for $10 an hour, the cashier will be hired.

If hiring a cashier will save or make $11 an hour for the business and the cashier asks for $10 an hour but the minimum wage is $11, the cashier will not be hired, The cashier will be unemployed. The business will not grow.

That's right, I'm in favor of a minimum wage. As I've already stated workers need the protection of a wage floor. And yes, the free market is the primary determinant of wages in a given market. The problem with relying exclusively on the market to determine wages is that in economically depressed areas where people are desperate for work companies have the power to exploit the workers. That's why a wage floor is needed.
If the minimum wage is above the market wage for a particular job, that job will not be filled. That harms both the employer and employee. That is not the way to end a depression. If an area is depressed, ask why? Businesses aren't hiring because people aren't buying. People aren't buying because they don't have jobs. If there was a way to get businesses to hire, the depression would end.

I doubt that even Milton Freedman blamed stagflation on the minimum wage.
You shouldn't doubt it. Friedman predicted the economic conditions of the 1970's. In retrospect, it shouldn't have been difficult to predict. Artificially increasing wages will increase inflation and increase unemployment. Friedman predicted the effects may take 2 - 5 years to be felt.

No isn't irrelevant according to their argument against increasing the minimum wage. They claim that the increased cost of paying higher minimum wage would result in layoffs. Raising the minimum wage would cost them more money, but so does the spiraling exec salaries. Unsurprisingly they don't want to talk about how much that particular expense is costing the company.
What I make is irrelevant to what you make, even if we work at the same business. Its the market that should determine wages, all wages, from the janitor to the ceo. That's called a free market (for labor). But you seem to want the government to dictate both the janitor's wage and the ceo's wage. I would not call that free market thinking. Lenin would be proud of you.

There's various requirements that must be met in order to exempt an intern from being paid minimum wage in order to prevent a scamming company from getting free or nearly free labor.
Was I an intern when I earned $0.50 an hour? I didn't think I was. My employer didn't call me one. But the education I learned at that entry level job allowed me to progress to higher paying jobs. Any job can be viewed as a learning experience which could help the employee advance to a higher paying job. Being unemployed has very few learning experiences.

Let the market decide what a job is worth. Don't force me to pay a specific amount for a good or service. Economic freedom will produce the most profit for all involved. An economy with forced wages and prices is doomed to fail. An economy with only a few forced wages and prices will fail to achieve its maximum performance.
 

Nats121

Well-Known Member
You keep changing the argument. I said housing prices would decrease after removing the minimum wage. You said housing prices have gone up. I said there is still a minimum wage. And now you replay with there has been a minimum wage since the '30's.
I haven't changed anything. Real wages have declined since 1970. The buying power of the minimum wage is lower than it's been in years. The minimum wage itself has not been raised since 2009. It spite of all that, housing prices have risen exponentially since 1968.

What goods and services are minimum wage earners buying so much of that demand will increase? Food? Rent? Increased demand of food or rent will cause their price to increase. Minimum wager earners spend a higher percentage of their income on basics (rent, food, etc.) than high wage earners. Again, the minimum wage will hurt minimum wage earners the most.
They also buy clothing and other goods. A higher minimum wage means they'll be able to buy more things, which in turn creates the need for more jobs.
Post automatically merged:

If hiring a cashier will save or make $5 an hour for the business and the cashier asks for $10 an hour, the cashier will not be hired.

If hiring a cashier will save or make $11 an hour for the business and the cashier asks for $10 an hour, the cashier will be hired.

If hiring a cashier will save or make $11 an hour for the business and the cashier asks for $10 an hour but the minimum wage is $11, the cashier will not be hired, The cashier will be unemployed. The business will not grow
You previously said the cashier brings in revenue to the business and that not having enough cashiers will hurt the business. The bottom line is a business owner that stubbornly refuses to pay $10 per hour (the market rate) for a cashier that he/she believes is only worth $5 is cutting her own throat when service goes down the drain and customers shop elsewhere.

If the minimum wage is above the market wage for a particular job, that job will not be filled.
If that was true there'd be no McD or other businesses in depressed areas with very high unemployment, but there are businesses in those places. Business owners who may oppose the minimum wage will suck it up and pay it if they can still turn a profit because it beats closing their doors.

You shouldn't doubt it. Friedman predicted the economic conditions of the 1970's. In retrospect, it shouldn't have been difficult to predict. Artificially increasing wages will increase inflation and increase unemployment. Friedman predicted the effects may take 2 - 5 years to be felt.
Post a quote from Friedman blaming stagflation on the minimum wage.
What I make is irrelevant to what you make, even if we work at the same business. Its the market that should determine wages, all wages, from the janitor to the ceo. That's called a free market (for labor). But you seem to want the government to dictate both the janitor's wage and the ceo's wage. I would not call that free market thinking. Lenin would be proud of you.
It's certainly not irrelevant to the people running the corporation, and they're the ones complaining about the high cost of minimum wage increases. If you know anything about the way corporations work you know that market forces are far from being the only factor in deciding how much execs get paid.

I've made my views on the free market clear so there's no need for me to respond to your foolish Lenin BS.
 
Last edited:

bsliv

Well-Known Member
I haven't changed anything. Real wages have declined since 1970. The buying power of the minimum wage is lower than it's been in years. The minimum wage itself has not been raised since 2009. It spite of all that, housing prices have risen exponentially since 1968.
I say housing prices would be lower without a minimum wage. You say housing prices continue to rise. How did housing prices perform without a minimum wage? Please don't say housing prices continue to rise.

They also buy clothing and other goods.
If they can keep their jobs. As labor gets more expensive, less labor is bought.

You previously said the cashier brings in revenue to the business and that not having enough cashiers will hurt the business. The bottom line is a business owner that stubbornly refuses to pay $10 per hour (the market rate) for a cashier that he/she believes is only worth $5 is cutting her own throat when service goes down the drain and customers shop elsewhere.
It seems I have given you more credit than deserved. An employee won't be hired unless they contribute more than their wage to the business. If the business owner loses $9 per hour due to a lack of cashiers, they won't hire a cashier at $10 an hour. Its simple math.

If that was true there'd be no McD or other businesses in depressed areas with very high unemployment, but there are businesses in those places. Business owners who may oppose the minimum wage will suck it up and pay it if they can still turn a profit because it beats closing their doors.
Businesses closing in depressed areas is common. In some depressed areas of Las Vegas, fast food and grocery stores are scarce. Lower the minimum wage in those areas and businesses would flock to the areas. As you alluded to, profit is the key. Businesses will try to maximize profits. Just as employees will try to maximize profits. Profit is not evil. Profit is what drives markets. Profit is good for both employers and employees. Some here want to demonize profit. Some here think the earth is flat. Education should cure both misconceptions.

Post a quote from Friedman blaming stagflation on the minimum wage.
The word "stagflation" was created by journalists. Friedman didn't use the word as far as I know. But his concepts predicted stagflation. He was a free market economist. He repeatedly wrote and spoke about the unintended consequence of a minimum wage. Unions push legislators to invoke minimum wages. Legislators bow down to the unions in order to get votes.

The economic crisis of the early '70 was brought about by the drastic rise in price of a commodity in high demand. Labor is a commodity in high demand. Many can't see the effects of a slowly rising minimum wage. Its a death from a 1000 cuts.

the way corporations work you know that market forces are far from being the only factor in deciding how much execs get paid
Perhaps but it is the primary factor. If I can get a cheaper exec that performs the same, I will. If I have to bid to get the exec I want, I will. If I can pay the exec less and still get the same performance, I will. But yes, there are other forces. If Bill Gates was a child molester, he'd probably wouldn't have been ceo of MS for long.

Lenin wanted to fix the wages of everyone. You only want to fix the wages of the poorest and richest. How long before more people are called poor and more are called rich? That slippery slope leads to everyone's wages to be fixed.
 

SHalester

Well-Known Member
How did housing prices perform without a minimum wage?
odd. how does minimum wage job pay for a house? When was there a time with no minimum wage and somebody decided that effected housing prices? Was there a study? Article? Book?

Nah, not buying it. School district ratings effect housing prices. Crime rates effect housing prices. What entry level jobs might pay, not so much or none at all.

How about minimum wage effects rental rates? That sounds plausible.
 

RetiredArmyGuy

New Member
Seattle adopts minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers

View attachment 511414


Seattle became the second big city in the nation to establish a minimum wage standard for Uber and Lyft drivers on Tuesday.

The Seattle City Council unanimously voted to adopt new regulations designed to ensure Uber and Lyft drivers earn the city’s $16.39 per hour minimum wage.

The new law requires transportation network companies to pay drivers at least $0.56 per minute when there is a passenger in the vehicle as well as a per-mile rate to cover expenses. The city says that standard will ensure drivers earn at least Seattle’s minimum wage, assuming they spend about 50% of their time waiting for rides or driving to pick up passengers. The minimum compensation standard takes effect on Jan. 1.

The legislation is modeled after a minimum wage standard New York City passed in 2018, though Council Chair Teresa Mosqueda dismissed the connection during the hearing. Seattle hired two researchers who advised New York City officials on their legislation to recommend a minimum wage standard when crafting the ordinance approved Tuesday. Uber and Lyft backed a separate study by Cornell researchers that produced significantly different findings. The competing studies highlight the complexities of establishing a minimum wage for gig workers.

Uber and Lyft have long said New York should serve as a cautionary tale for Seattle. Increased prices and reduced ride activity in New York followed the passage of the legislation. The apps now restrict the number of New York drivers who can work at a time, leading some drivers to sleep in their cars so that they don’t miss a chance to log-on, Vice reports.

“We would ask the city not to pass this legislation and go back to the drawing board and not copycat failed systems from other cities,” said Michael Wolfe, director of the Uber-backed group Drive Forward, during public comment ahead of Tuesday’s hearing.

But advocates for the minimum wage, like the Teamsters 117 and affiliated Drivers Union, say it is a necessary protection for drivers. “We are putting our values of wanting to lift up every worker and particularly every worker in this city into action,” Mosqueda said during the hearing.

The minimum wage is part of Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan’s “Fare Share” program introduced in September, which increased a tax on each Uber and Lyft ride this past November. It is the latest in a series of city ordinances targeting the gig economy.

“Seattle is once again leading the nation by passing fair pay for Uber and Lyft drivers,” Peter Kuel, a Uber and Lyft driver since 2013 and president of the Teamsters-associated Drivers Union. “Historic victories like this should serve as an inspiration for all gig workers around the country of what is possible through organizing together as a Union to demand fair treatment.”

In June, the Seattle City Council unanimously approved legislation that requires food delivery companies to pay drivers $2.50 per delivery on top of their regular rates to offset costs and risks that drivers are dealing with during the pandemic. A few months earlier, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Uber, and the City of Seattle agreed to walk away from a lengthy and complex legal battle over a law that would allow drivers to unionize.

Council member Lisa Herbold suggested the minimum wage could be extended to other types of gig workers during Tuesday’s hearing. “We are not going to allow contract workers in our city to be treated this way,” she said. “I hope in the future we can work on similar legislation for other drivers … such as delivery drivers of packages as well as delivery drivers of meals and food.”

Herbold said the legislation corrects for artificially low prices at which Uber and Lyft offer their services. “Flooding the market with drivers pushes down the cost to the customer but it does so at the expense of workers,” she said. “This is much like other gig businesses, as well, where the costs of providing the service are passed off to the workers in the form of reduced earnings and benefits.”

In a statement issued ahead of the vote, Lyft warned the minimum wage will cost jobs in Seattle. “The City’s plan is deeply flawed and will actually destroy jobs for thousands of people — as many as 4,000 drivers on Lyft alone — and drive ride-share companies out of Seattle,” the company said.

Asked about the vote, Uber referred back to a letter the company sent to the City Council earlier this month. “Uber may have to make changes in Seattle because of this new law, but the real harm here will not be to Uber … it is the drivers who cannot work and community members unable to complete essential travel that stand to lose because of the ordinance in front of you.”


I had a slow day today- $18.66/hour.
 

bsliv

Well-Known Member
odd. how does minimum wage job pay for a house? When was there a time with no minimum wage and somebody decided that effected housing prices? Was there a study? Article? Book?
I stated having no minimum wage would reduce the cost of a house. A person replied housing prices continue to increase. How is that translated to a minimum wage earner buying a house? The last time there was no minimum wage in this country was the early 20th century. My question concerning housing prices without a minimum wage was mostly facetious due to the reply I was given.
Post automatically merged:

Nah, not buying it. School district ratings effect housing prices. Crime rates effect housing prices. What entry level jobs might pay, not so much or none at all.
I know how to value real estate. I've been a licensed real estate appraiser for >25 years. I also have the education, skill, and experience to value personal property. I also have the education and skill to value labor rates. The principle of substitution (supply/demand) is the primary influence.

How about minimum wage effects rental rates? That sounds plausible.
Rental rates, like almost everything, is controlled by the supply of rentals vs the demand for the rentals. Another "feel good" law is to fix the price of rentals. It sounds good and is good for those lucky enough to find a rent controlled rental. But it is counter productive.
 
Last edited:

ColdRider

Well-Known Member
x240.jpeg
 

Johnny Mnemonic

Well-Known Member
I'm wandering wat can of idiot you can be by saying minimum wages should be eliminated.. You mean to let corporation with foregh investors to Explore Americans as slave under minimum wages .. Hung up execution should be for anyone like you .. Slavery era have been end ..
You can't expect everyone to be as educated as you.

BTW how's business in New York doing these days?
 

Amos69

Well-Known Member
wow, you must be really really really old. :thumbup: But, I have you beat: my first 'job' delivering papers I think I got a few dollars PER address a month.

When I actually had an official W2 job my hourly was $3.35 (in calif). So I guess I'm younger than you. By a margin. :roflmao:
Or he is just a liar.

Might actually be DT, as he has much time to waste this week
 

bsliv

Well-Known Member
Or he is just a liar.

Might actually be DT, as he has much time to waste this week
What is DT? What do you think I'm lying about? What reason would I have to lie? I'm collecting social security, if that means anything. Eisenhower was president when I was born. My first car was 12 years old and cost me $100. I have stage 4 lung cancer. I had 4 surgeries last year. I'm trying to educate some who are blind to the workings of business/government before I croak. I have no reason to lie.

Stop smoking cigarettes.
 
Last edited:

SHalester

Well-Known Member
My first car was 12 years old and cost me $100.
ha, got you beat again. My first car was older than me, a 6 cylinder running on maybe 4: cost me baby sitting time.

Sorry about your cancer. I have cancer, too. but no treatment yet and no 'stage'. Just a gleason score. Cancer, sucks.
Post automatically merged:

I stated having no minimum wage would reduce the cost of a house.
And that is exactly what I'm questioning. Do you own a house? Have lived in a time when there as no minimum wage? Asking for myself, directly. Going with that is your opinion and not a well known fact (like the ones I replied with).
Post automatically merged:

I stated having no minimum wage would reduce the cost of a house.
And that is exactly what I'm questioning. Do you own a house? Have lived in a time when there as no minimum wage? Asking for myself, directly. Going with that is your opinion and not a well known fact (like the ones I replied with).
I know how to value real estate. I've been a licensed real estate appraiser for >25 years.
sorry, no appraisal I've seen for any property listed 'minimum wage'. It simply has no relevance. Unemployed has a relevance. School district has relevance. The neighbors to the side and front of property has relevance. SQ feet, amount of rooms has relevance. Recent transactions have relevance.
Fast worker pay has no relevance. And again has there been a state/area with no minimum wage (ever) and somebody said that had relevance to home price(s)?
 
Last edited:

bsliv

Well-Known Member
Cancer, sucks.
One drug I'm on costs $3200 a week.

Do you own a house?
No, but as I said before, I know how to value property. Name a national bank and chances are very good they have asked me for my opinion on value. I have to determine if the current supply is normal, a shortage, or a surplus. I have to estimate demand. I have to determine typical marketing time. I have to compute physical, functional, and external depreciation. I often times have to compute the value of property based on the net income it produces. I create operating income statements. About 10 years ago, my name was read in court for nearly a hundred cases as an expert in valuing real estate. It involved HOA's and super-priority liens. I have a degree in economics. I know how to value property.

Have lived in a time when there as no minimum wage?
No, that would make me at least 100 years old.

Going with that is your opinion and not a well known fact (like the ones I replied with).
Those well known "facts" that you replied with are not always applicable. I get paid $400 to develop my opinion on a piece of non-complex property. If you get a mortgage or refinance your current mortgage, you'll need a signature from someone like me. For your information, school districts and crime rates are seldom directly used by appraisers. My reports are between 20 and 30 pages long. School districts and crime rates are not mentioned once. An appraiser's opinion is always used in an appraisal. So, my opinion beats your facts when it comes to valuing property (real or personal). Any other questions?

If the cost of any product declines, the price of that product will also decline, given sufficient competition.
 
Top