Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (9720)	2/6/2017 3:22:04 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 358173

>> At the time the survey was taken, early 2015, the unemployment rate was around 4%. It is now close to 3%. Surely, you understand that the dynamics of the economy have to be accounted for, you can't just say, "This happened, therefore that." Your comment is meaningless.

To: combjelly who wrote (9720)	2/11/2017 5:47:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 358173

Seattle is in a healthy situation economically to begin with. As a place with a high costs, prices, wages, and productivity any given wage is less high relative to the local market then it would be in other areas. Even when the mandated wage is high for the area, for a specific job, it causes less problems in any area where the economy is healthy (as opposed to say Hoover's attempt to pressure businesses to pay more as the economy was tumbling in to the great depression), but even with all that, and with a low unemployment rate, it doesn't mean that people aren't involuntarily unemployed or underemployed because of the wage increase. With such a high wage, the people with the worst skills and attitudes are pushed out of the market completely. They aren't part of the unemployment in the city because they aren't in the labor force in the city, either quitting working for work or in some cases having left the city. And yes most of the jobs, even the low skill/low productivity jobs, that were available before are still held by someone but in a number of cases they would now be held by someone with better qualifications. Some of those people with better qualifications or attitudes may have entered the work force because of the higher wages. So even outside of any possible decline in work force participation you get people who are unemployed because of the increase, even when you don't get unemployment because of the increase. As for the racist claim. I mostly don't buy it either. Some of the early minimum wages appear to have racist motivations, but I don't think its a factor anymore.