Worst “Slate pitch” ever? Why there’s nothing “ugly” about a $15 minimum wage

In typical contrarian fashion, Slate argues anti-poverty measure is "a step too far." Here's why that's absurd

Topics: Minimum wage, minimun wage, Poverty, anti-poverty, Media Criticism, Slate, Editor's Picks, Seattle, The Left, Inequality, , ,

Worst "Slate pitch" ever? Why there's nothing "ugly" about a $15 minimum wage (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)

Last week, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announced a plan to gradually increase the minimum wage within the city limits to $15 an hour, higher than any large city in the nation. And it wouldn’t be an issue of economic empowerment in America if someone at Slate wasn’t willing to argue against it in contrarian fashion. In this case, Jordan Weissmann warns that the proposal is “misbegotten,” “a step too far,” “dubious,” “ugly,” and a “cause for concern,” and will inevitably lead to low-wage workers getting replaced with robots and businesses shipping out to nearby suburbs. 

First of all, the idea that this is an unprecedented expansion of the minimum wage isn’t all that true if you factor in cost of living. Seattle is one of the more expensive cities in America. The Economic Policy Institute’s 2013 Budget Calculator shows that a family of two parents and two children would need $70,025 a year to live modestly in Seattle. Two parents working full-time at the new proposed minimum wage would earn a little over $60,000. More than 120 municipalities have living-wage ordinances for some or all workers, all at wages that reflect the cost of living in their communities. And a handful, like Manchester and Hartford, Conn., Santa Barbara and Sonoma, Calif., and Burlington, Vt., are over $15 an hour. None of these cities have yet fallen into the sea, to my knowledge. Gradually moving to a citywide $15 minimum wage aligns Seattle’s worker compensation with its true expenses, and after that, the wage floor will get indexed to inflation, so low-wage workers will no longer see their purchasing power eroded. 

Weissmann cautions that under the plan, Seattle will have a far higher minimum wage than surrounding cities, where businesses can easily move, even though the industry most affected by a minimum wage hike is food services. Because restaurants that want to serve customers in the place where the most people in the region live and work will just push off to Bellevue or Bainbridge Island, daring the public to come find them. Fortunately, gas is free and everyone has time on their lunch hour to take a ferry, get a burger and ride back, so this will cause no disruption or depressed sales. 



More seriously, Seattle actually sought out studies on what would happen after a large minimum wage increase. In March, Mayor Murray released a report from three professors at UC Berkeley who looked at the impact of local wage laws on employment, and specifically whether businesses move outside local borders for lower labor costs. Simply put, the researchers found no such dynamic. The report indicates that increases in business operating costs get offset by reduced employee turnover, meaning less recruitment and training. Outside of food services, most businesses don’t have to pass on any costs to their customers. And in the end, the study shows, each 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to a small price increase for restaurant consumers of 0.7%. So Seattle’s roughly 60% increase would lead to your $10 lunch costing an extra 42 cents (and not all at once, as you’ll see). Considering how many new potential customers will have extra purchasing power to actually buy that lunch, the policy holds as many potential economic benefits for the city as it does obstacles. 

While the researchers pointed out that they didn’t study what would happen with a $15 minimum wage, they did look at an even more drastic wage hike than Seattle’s. Santa Fe, N.M.’s increase from $5.15 to $8.50 an hour in 2004, a 65% increase that’s higher in percentage terms than Seattle’s, led to no statistically significant negative impact on employment, both inside Santa Fe and relative to surrounding cities. 

And there’s another example even closer to home. As Weissmann points out but then tries to shrug off, the Seattle airport city of SeaTac raised its minimum wage to $15 an hour last November. That has been implemented, without drastic increases in prices or lost jobs. But because of some court battles, it also offers a study in miniature on how local minimum wage increases affect the wages of that locality’s neighbors. 

A court decision, currently under appeal, blocked the $15 wage for workers at SeaTac airport, while keeping it in place for those workers in SeaTac off airport grounds. What has been the outcome of this? Well, as prospective employees flocked to apply for $15-an-hour jobs, Alaska Airlines raised wages for its contract employees inside the airport to $12 an hour. Clearly, in order to attract and retain the best workers in the area, Alaska Airlines had to sweeten the pot, even saying the new wages “more accurately reflect the local market.” Some of the raises were as high as 28%, showing how a rising wage tide can lift all boats, rather than the right-wing idea that jobs can only be created when wages are depressed. 

Weissmann leaves all this out – the potential economic stimulus, lower turnover, the upward wage pressure on neighboring communities – in favor of scare tactics about how this is the biggest minimum wage in the world (the world, I tell you!) and that dangers lurk from lifting the wage floor too high, too fast. Fortunately, Seattle isn’t doing that. Painstakingly negotiated with civic and business leaders, Mayor Murray’s proposal phases in the increase to $15 an hour over 5 to 7 years, with a longer time horizon for smaller businesses and those who provide health benefits. This step-by-step increase is common among large cities and it reduces the impact, while allowing consideration for changes if an economic cost actually results. By 2021, the implementation date for the last of the wage increases, $15 an hour might not even look so big. 

As for the idea that fast food restaurants will react to higher labor costs with automated ordering screens, ask supermarket chains how that turned out. Albertson’s eliminated their self-service checkout lanes within a few years and others have followed, mainly because U.S. customers didn’t much like it. Anyway, employees still had to be available in case of any problems, so the benefits in reduced labor costs, measured against the capital expense, was, to use Weissmann’s word, dubious.

Also lost in Weissmann’s account is the fact that more than 102,000 Seattle workers would not only benefit from higher wages, but from the dignity of getting paid enough to survive and prosper in the city. There’s a moral component to this, especially in a time of rampant inequality. The complaints that businesses will just have to raise prices or hire robots or skip town implicitly assume that they have an inalienable right to oversized profits. Workers have not shared in the country’s productivity gains for the past 35 years. Corporations have taken the lion’s share of those gains for themselves. Now here comes one effort to finally rebalance this, to allow workers at the low end to share in the fruits of the country’s prosperity, something that would reduce poverty among its targets by over 25%, and we get concern trolls like Jordan Weissmann warning how this won’t go down well at the country club, and we shouldn’t make trouble with our betters and instead be pleased with whatever scraps they allow us. 

I know I’m risking being called part of the idiot left, which is how Weissmann described critics of his article on Twitter. But if supporting a careful, deliberately implemented policy that benefits low-wage workers, aligns earnings with living expenses, increases worker happiness and retention, produces little or no economic disruption (if not economic stimulus), helps workers region-wide, reduces inequality, and for a rare and fleeting moment rewards work over wealth makes me an idiot, than let me be stupid.

David Dayen

David Dayen is a contributing writer for Salon. Follow him on Twitter at @ddayen.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 7
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails
    AP/Jae C. Hong

    Your summer in extreme weather

    California drought

    Since May, California has faced a historic drought, resulting in the loss of 63 trillion gallons of water. 95.4 percent of the state is now experiencing "severe" drought conditions, which is only a marginal improvement from 97.5 percent last week.

    A recent study published in the journal Science found that the Earth has actually risen about 0.16 inches in the past 18 months because of the extreme loss of groundwater. The drought is particularly devastating for California's enormous agriculture industry and will cost the state $2.2 billion this year, cutting over 17,000 jobs in the process.

       

    Meteorologists blame the drought on a large zone (almost 4 miles high and 2,000 miles long) of high pressure in the atmosphere off the West Coast which blocks Pacific winter storms from reaching land. High pressure zones come and go, but this one has been stationary since December 2012.

    Darin Epperly

    Your summer in extreme weather

    Great Plains tornadoes

    From June 16-18 this year, the Midwest was slammed by a series of four tornadoes, all ranking as category EF4--meaning the winds reached up to 200 miles per hour. An unlucky town called Pilger in Nebraska was hit especially hard, suffering through twin tornadoes, an extreme event that may only occur every few decades. The two that swept through the town killed two people, injured 16 and demolished as many as 50 homes.   

    "It was terribly wide," local resident Marianne Pesotta said to CNN affiliate KETV-TV. "I drove east [to escape]. I could see how bad it was. I had to get out of there."   

    But atmospheric scientist Jeff Weber cautions against connecting these events with climate change. "This is not a climate signal," he said in an interview with NBC News. "This is a meteorological signal."

    AP/Detroit News, David Coates

    Your summer in extreme weather

    Michigan flooding

    On Aug. 11, Detroit's wettest day in 89 years -- with rainfall at 4.57 inches -- resulted in the flooding of at least five major freeways, leading to three deaths, more than 1,000 cars being abandoned on the road and thousands of ruined basements. Gov. Rick Snyder declared it a disaster. It took officials two full days to clear the roads. Weeks later, FEMA is finally set to begin assessing damage.   

    Heavy rainfall events are becoming more and more common, and some scientists have attributed the trend to climate change, since the atmosphere can hold more moisture at higher temperatures. Mashable's Andrew Freedman wrote on the increasing incidence of this type of weather: "This means that storms, from localized thunderstorms to massive hurricanes, have more energy to work with, and are able to wring out greater amounts of rain or snow in heavy bursts. In general, more precipitation is now coming in shorter, heavier bursts compared to a few decades ago, and this is putting strain on urban infrastructure such as sewer systems that are unable to handle such sudden influxes of water."

    AP/The Fresno Bee, Eric Paul Zamora

    Your summer in extreme weather

    Yosemite wildfires

    An extreme wildfire burning near Yosemite National Park forced authorities to evacuate 13,000 nearby residents, while the Madera County sheriff declared a local emergency. The summer has been marked by several wildfires due to California's extreme drought, which causes vegetation to become perfect kindling.   

    Surprisingly, however, firefighters have done an admirable job containing the blazes. According to the L.A. Times, firefighters with the state's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection have fought over 4,000 fires so far in 2014 -- an increase of over 500 fires from the same time in 2013.

    Reuters/Eugene Tanner

    Your summer in extreme weather

    Hawaii hurricanes

    Hurricane Iselle was set to be the first hurricane to make landfall in Hawaii in 22 years. It was downgraded to a tropical storm and didn't end up being nearly as disastrous as it could have been, but it still managed to essentially shut down the entire state for a day, as businesses and residents hunkered down in preparation, with many boarding up their windows to guard against strong gusts. The storm resulted in downed trees, 21,000 people out of power and a number of damaged homes.

    Debbie Arita, a local from the Big Island described her experience: "We could hear the wind howling through the doors. The light poles in the parking lot were bobbing up and down with all the wind and rain."

    Reuters/NASA

    Your summer in extreme weather

    Florida red tide

    A major red tide bloom can reach more than 100 miles along the coast and around 30 miles offshore. Although you can't really see it in the above photo, the effects are devastating for wildlife. This summer, Florida was hit by an enormous, lingering red tide, also known as a harmful algae bloom (HAB), which occurs when algae grow out of control. HABs are toxic to fish, crabs, octopuses and other sea creatures, and this one resulted in the death of thousands of fish. When the HAB gets close enough to shore, it can also have an effect on air quality, making it harder for people to breathe.   

    The HAB is currently closest to land near Pinellas County in the Gulf of Mexico, where it is 5-10 miles offshore.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

Loading Comments...