• We will be upgrading the forum, gallery and blogs with the latest versions of the software we use. This will cause some disruption. We will however try our best to minimize it. The maintenance will start the first week of May 2022 and will continue until all upgrades are completed (both software and hardware). Thank you for your understanding.

Fallout From $15 Minimum Wage - Workers Request Fewer Hours To Qualify For Welfare (nyc & Seattle)

naturalmanenyc

Well-Known Member
Seattle sees fallout from $15 minimum wage, as other cities follow suit

By Dan Springer

Published July 22, 2015

VIDEO at link
NOW PLAYING
Seattle grapples with fallout from $15 minimum wage policy


Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law is supposed to lift workers out of poverty and move them off public assistance. But there may be a hitch in the plan.

Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise – in a bid to keep overall income down so they don’t lose public subsidies for things like food, child care and rent.

Full Life Care, a home nursing nonprofit, told KIRO-TV in Seattle that several workers want to work less.

“If they cut down their hours to stay on those subsidies because the $15 per hour minimum wage didn’t actually help get them out of poverty, all you’ve done is put a burden on the business and given false hope to a lot of people,” said Jason Rantz, host of the Jason Rantz show on 97.3 KIRO-FM.

The twist is just one apparent side effect of the controversial -- yet trendsetting -- minimum wage law in Seattle, which is being copied in several other cities despite concerns over prices rising and businesses struggling to keep up.

The notion that employees are intentionally working less to preserve their welfare has been a hot topic on talk radio. While the claims are difficult to track, state stats indeed suggest few are moving off welfare programs under the new wage.

Despite a booming economy throughout western Washington, the state’s welfare caseload has dropped very little since the higher wage phase began in Seattle in April. In March 130,851 people were enrolled in the Basic Food program. In April, the caseload dropped to 130,376.

At the same time, prices appear to be going up on just about everything.

Some restaurants have tacked on a 15 percent surcharge to cover the higher wages. And some managers are no longer encouraging customers to tip, leading to a redistribution of income. Workers in the back of the kitchen, such as dishwashers and cooks, are getting paid more, but servers who rely on tips are seeing a pay cut.

Some long-time Seattle restaurants have closed altogether, though none of the owners publicly blamed the minimum wage law.

“It’s what happens when the government imposes a restriction on the labor market that normally wouldn’t be there, and marginal businesses get hit the hardest, and usually those are small, neighborhood businesses,” said Paul Guppy, of the Washington Policy Center.

Seattle was followed by San Francisco and Los Angeles in passing a $15 minimum wage law. The wage is being phased in over several years to give businesses time to adjust. The current minimum wage in Seattle is $11. In San Francisco, it’s $12.25.

And it is spreading. Beyond the city of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors this week also approved a $15 minimum wage.

New York state could be next, with the state Wage Board on Wednesday backing a $15 wage for fast-food workers, something Gov. Andrew Cuomo has supported.

Already, though, there are unintended consequences in other cities.

Comix Experience, a small book store in downtown San Francisco, has begun selling graphic novel club subscriptions in order to meet payroll. The owner, Brian Hibbs, admits members are not getting all that much for their $25 per month dues, but their “donation” is keeping him in business.

“I was looking at potentially having to close the store down and then how would I make my living?” Hibbs asked.

To date, he’s sold 228 subscriptions. He says he needs 334 to reach his goal of the $80,000 income required to cover higher labor costs. He doesn’t blame San Francisco voters for approving the $15 minimum wage, but he doesn’t think they had all the information needed to make a good decision.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-15-minimum-wage-as-other-cities-follow-suit/

http://m.snopes.com/seattle-15-minimum-welfare/

FACT CHECK: Are minimum wage Seattle workers asking for fewer hours in order to retain welfare benefits?


image: http://m.snopes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/seattle-15-welfare.jpg








Claim: Minimum wage workers in Seattle are asking for their hours to be cut so they can retain welfare benefits.


image: http://www.snopes.com/images/m/mixture.png

MIXTURE:


WHAT’S TRUE: Five full-time Seattle caregivers may have asked to adjust their hours in order to remain in subsidized housing.

WHAT’S UNPROVEN: More than five to seven workers have deliberately reduced their working hours to retain subsidized housing, workers are spending fewer hours on the job to retain benefits other than subsidized housing, the Seattle minimum wage law has caused an reduction in overall hours worked by low-wage workers.

Examples: [Collected via Twitter, June 2015]





Origins: On 22 July 2015, Fox News published an article titled “Seattle Sees Fallout from $15 Minimum Wage, as Other Cities Follow Suit.” Credited to correspondent Dan Springer (who also recently reported that Oregon was providing 15-year-olds with sex change surgeries), the article lamented what it claimed were “unintended consequences” resulting from a Seattle law raising the minimum wage there to $15 per hour.

The Fox News article and video reported that “evidence is surfacing” to suggest Seattle workers have begun to work less in order to claim a higher hourly wage while still qualifying for government assistance:

Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise — in a bid to keep overall income down so they don’t lose public subsidies for things like food, child care and rent.

Full Life Care, a home nursing nonprofit, told KIRO-TV in Seattle that several workers want to work less.

“If they cut down their hours to stay on those subsidies because the $15 per hour minimum wage didn’t actually help get them out of poverty, all you’ve done is put a burden on the business and given false hope to a lot of people,” said Jason Rantz, host of the Jason Rantz show on 97.3 KIRO-FM.





However, if Springer found “evidence” of such a trend, he did not include it in his 22 July 2015 article (claims from which have since been aggregated to multiple web sites). While Springer pointed to a Seattle home nursing nonprofit (Full Life Care), he only vaguely referenced a statement an unidentified individual there made to a third party, then quoted an opinion provided by a local radio host who speculated upon what might happen if workers opted to cut their hours based on a higher minimum wage in order to retain government assistance. Lacking from this narrative was any actual evidence that such claims were rooted in any measurable labor trend in Seattle.

It appears Springer’s entire premise was lifted from an 8 June 2015 report by television station KIRO which provided additional context that painted the claim in a slightly different light:

Nora Gibson is the executive director of Full Life Care, a nonprofit that serves elderly people in various homes and nursing facilities. She is also on the board of the Seattle Housing Authority.

Gibson told KIRO she saw a sudden reaction from workers when Seattle’s phased minimum-wage ordinance took effect in April, bringing minimum wage to $11 an hour. She said anecdotally, some people feared they would lose their subsidized units but still not be able to afford market-rate rents.

For example, she said last week, five employees at one of her organization’s 24-hour care facilities for Alzheimer’s patients asked to reduce their hours in order to remain eligible for subsidies.

In that same article, Full Life Care’s executive directly explicitly stated that the issue was not one of worker laziness or an intent by employees to “game the system” for additional “welfare benefits,” but rather one of necessity due to Seattle’s exceptionally high market rate for private housing:

“This has nothing to do with people’s willingness to work, or how hard people work. It has to do with being caught in a very complex situation where they have to balance everything they can pull together to pull together a stable, successful life,” Gibson said.

Gibson said she fully supports a minimum wage increase but was not surprised when her employees asked for fewer hours.

“The jump from subsidized housing to market rate in Seattle is huge,” she said.

While two other Seattle residents spoke to KIRO about the specter of being shut out of subsidized housing by earning a slightly higher wage, a Seattle city council member told the outlet that the accounts did not reflect any measurable trend of which he was aware:

Seattle Councilmember Nick Licata said he hadn’t heard of purposeful reduction of hours before.

“We need more information, for one thing. This is anecdotal,” Licata said.

Still, he said people need more options, especially after breaking the threshold that pushes them out of public housing.

“We do not want this to be an improvement on one side of the scale, and then decrease in living conditions on another,” Licata said. “We should not be using this as an excuse not to address the overall problem.”

What has been reported is that several full-time workers at a single Seattle non-profit may have expressed a desire to adjust their hours to retain subsidized housing, but more “evidence” of workers requesting fewer hours on the job after the minimum wage increase hasn’t turned up yet. Moreover, the source originally quoted about the issue stated that workers earning the higher hourly rate would likely be unable to afford private housing in Seattle due to market conditions, but they were not seeking other “welfare” benefits nor unwilling to work.

Last updated: 28 July 2015

Originally published: 28 July 2015


Read more at http://m.snopes.com/seattle-15-minimum-welfare/#7GcosFGcJZtO74Cb.99
 
Last edited:

SoopremeBeing

Well-Known Member
But $15 per hour, even if you're full time, won't cover rent in Seattle. It BARELY covers rent in Baltimore. Do people really think we pocket our entire paycheck? Did they forget about the taxes? Gas prices? The cost of public transportation? There's so much required stuff to pay for....I don't think the increase should affect welfare recipients. The increase is great, but it's still not enough.
 

doriannc

Well-Known Member
I call bs on that. Companies are trying to save face right now. They were forced to increased wages to $15 but the mandate never said anything about keeping people at fulltime. Walmart just increased it's workers wages to &9-$10 starting pay and got a lot of praise, now they are closing stores and lowering workers hours. Hmmm
 

kanozas

se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
I think the Rethugs are utilizing this just in case they win the elections so they implement a huge cut to welfare benefits and eventually get rid of them completely. They want a reason to cut them such as "they make 15.00 per hour, self-sufficiency" and they know it's not. The govt. is too big, according to them.
 

Ogoma

Well-Known Member
But $15 per hour, even if you're full time, won't cover rent in Seattle. It BARELY covers rent in Baltimore. Do people really think we pocket our entire paycheck? Did they forget about the taxes? Gas prices? The cost of public transportation? There's so much required stuff to pay for....I don't think the increase should affect welfare recipients. The increase is great, but it's still not enough.

Buried in the middle of the article is the fact that they're not making 15 right now, they're making $11. $15 will be phased in at the end of a few years. Their wage has barely gone up a $1.
 

aribell

formerly nicola.kirwan
There was a NYT article on this earlier this week and this issue came up in the comments. I think that, unfortunately, people think "business" necessarily means huge, publicly traded corporations with executives making millions, when the reality is that most businesses are small and have modest revenues.

Imo, I think the deeper issue is that if you have children as a single person, $15 is not going to be enough, and even $20 could be tight, though manageable, depending upon where you live. Having dependents in a non-ideal situation underlies a lot of this. And that's not a minimum wage problem per se.
 

fasika

Well-Known Member
Buried in the middle of the article is the fact that they're not making 15 right now, they're making $11. $15 will be phased in at the end of a few years. Their wage has barely gone up a $1.

That's exactly what I was coming in to post.

The wage is being phased in over several years to give businesses time to adjust. The current minimum wage in Seattle is $11.

They've buried it nice and deep after a whole article of raising the ire of every stupid Republican.
 

CaraWalker

Well-Known Member
I have been mentioning other expenses all along when it came to minimum wage workers and how it makes more sense to limit the need to pay for necessities than raise wages but nobody was hearing it.

if I saw this coming how come congress didnt? I feel like this country is the damn twilight zone. like what are yall in here complaining about? the consequences highlighted are entirely legit. you cannot change wages without also adjusting the welfare programs that are based around the federal poverty level.
 

kanozas

se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
Can't place the poverty blame on single mothers, there are plenty of married families with jobs who are having a hard time providing the necessities and luxuries like healthcare insurance so they have to rely upon govt. programs. We need to mention the elderly as well.
 

naturalmanenyc

Well-Known Member
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...off-thanks-to-new-yorks-15-minimum-wage-hike/

Millennials Will Be Worse Off Thanks To New York's $15 Minimum Wage Hike

Over the past few years, millennials in upstate New York have had something of a break from hard economic times nationally. Contrary to the national average, two of the larger metropolitan towns in upstate New York, Buffalo and my hometown of Rochester, have hadjob growth of 9% and 6% for millennials, respectively, between 2007 and 2013 (Syracuse and Elmira have had noticeable gains as well). Governor Andrew Cuomo’s administration is taking unilateral, undemocratic steps to ensure that growth will fall flat.


A panel appointed by Gov. Cuomo recommended the minimum wage be raised to $15 for employees of fast-food chain restaurants throughout the state. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

The largest sector by far where this economic growth has occurred is in the food service and preparation industries, creating 4,500 new jobs in Buffalo. The fast food industry specifically is one large area where this growth has occurred: “Over the past 4 years, the number of fast food jobs in NYC increased by nearly 30%, almost 10 times as fast as the 3% overall increase in private sector employment over that period.” As to upstate New York, “the growth in the number of fast food jobs alone is nearly as great as the net gain of 38,000 jobs in total public and private employment, according to data from the New York State Labor Department.”

New York State Law empowers Cuomo’s New York Wage Board to set the minimum wage for the state, even for only specific industries, without the permission of the state legislature. Armed with this power, the Board determined that the wage for fast food restaurant employees in New York must be raised to an unscientific $15 an hour. Governor Cuomo has already asked the state legislature to raises the wage beyond the $9.00 it was already raised to; his efforts to increase the minimum wage to $11.50 in New York City and $10.50 elsewhere were unsuccessful. The $15 an hour increase will be fully phased in by 2018 for New York City and by 2021 for everywhere else in the state.


How the increase will affect the economy

There are two problems with this. First, some of the recent employment growth will be directly affected by the increase. The wage order will affect restaurants other than McDonalds and Burger King, like Moes, Chipotle, Sonic and Potbelly that have expanded into upstate New York in the last decade. Second, this will decrease the number of entry level food service jobs for Millennials, an increasingly necessary prerequisite to working in more upscale restaurants (the other area of the food industry growth upstate).

In other cities that have tried applying the $15 minimum wage to restaurant industries, the results have not been great, to say the least. In Seattle, “Restaurants are closing at higher than normal rates. And Seattle is already a fairly high wage place.” Chipotle has increased its prices in cities where the minimum wage keeps rising. Consider this from a cost perspective: “An increase in the fast food minimum wage to $15 an hour, as the Wage Board is considering, represents an increase of 66 percent,” and a 66% increase in labor costs means less jobs and higher prices to compensate for minimum labor costs that cannot be offset.

Expect distortions in the restaurant industry

Sit-down restaurants will be forced to increase wages to compete with fast food industries—who would take a lower-paying (including tips) high-stress waiting job when there are higher-paying, lower-stress jobs for people experienced in food preparation and service? Increased labor costs means that these restaurants will be forced to increase prices, keep staff at the bare minimum, slow growth, and perhaps close. Thus, the increase in the wage in the fast food industry will have a ripple effect in the entire food service industry. The 2014 average median wage for all industries in the New York City metro area may be $21.73, but it is just $17.36 in Rochester, $16.71 in Buffalo, $16.05 in Binghamton and $15.30 in Glen Falls. A $15.00 an hour minimum wage in a low-skill industry will disrupt the labor markets in those cities significantly.

Young people will suffer the most

Moreover, as Diana Furchgott-Roth and Jared Meyer (no relation) of the Manhattan Institute discuss in their recent book, Disinherited: How Washington is Betraying America’s Youth, minimum wage hikes disproportionately harm young millennials, particularly teenagers, seeking entry-level jobs and part time work. Minimum wage opportunities are the primary way for young people to have work experience before moving on to other opportunities. This is one reason why over half of the 3% of workers who earn the minimum wage are under 25, and two-thirds of minimum wage earners work part-time. Without those first jobs and the professional development opportunities that come with them, one cannot move on to become a waiter, or eventually a doctor or a lawyer.

Meyer informed me:

What is particularly problematic with Cuomo’s un-democratic action is that he is singling out one industry that is politically-popular to attack for the increase. Though Cuomo may argue that he is only forcing billion-dollar companies to pay their workers more, he is ignoring that the vast majority of fast food establishments are owned by franchisees. Corporate McDonald’s, for example, does not control the pay or staffing decisions made by franchise owners, and most of these entrepreneurs own only one or a few locations. What Cuomo and the Wage Board are really doing is waging a war against small business owners, not corporate behemoths.

As someone who grew up in Rochester, NY, went to college in Binghamton, NY, and attended law school in Brooklyn, NY, I do not want to see the growth that has helped my home state be hampered for political gains. Governor Cuomo should not use his executive powers to countermand the wisdom of the legislature, nor should he be tampering with the fragile recovery of an area that sorely needs it just to score political points.
 

HairNinja

Well-Known Member
Even a dollar increase could set them over the poverty line. My aunt had gotten a divorce and her husband stopped supporting her child. She desperately needed medical insurance for her child, she couldn't afford it cause of her circumstances. Guess what? the lady at Human resources told her she made $1 over the required income limit for medicare.

The mess is about to hit the fan. Families need to tighten up cause its about to get rough out here.

I never thought of it like that $15 min wage would interfere with qualifying for governmental assistance. Medicaid, SNAP, and most importantly public housing. You can't win in this messed up world. They will remain stuck in poverty.

The job market sucks. What will they do when they get cut off benefits, and kicked out of public housing?

Everybody isn't going to make enough to keep their head above water. Even if they went to school how will they feed their families? put a roof over their head? Get back and forth to work? pay for Obama care? Not to mention daycare, and payback a student loan? Plus they cutting the amount of time you can receive benefits.

It's sad all around this article touches on some real concerns. And it is making a mockery at the same time.
 

aribell

formerly nicola.kirwan
One of the more interesting comments I've read about the NY law is that a $15/hr. wage for fast food would probably incentivize a lot of people--especially unemployed or underemployed college grads--to take those jobs when otherwise it would not be worth their time. So, the aim is to help low-skill workers who don't qualify for other careers, but the pay is high enough that recent college grads living with their parents or others who might be temporarily out of work in other fields, or those who lost restaurant jobs would decide to start applying, thus squeezing out the people the law is meant to help.
 

CaraWalker

Well-Known Member
Even a dollar increase could set them over the poverty line. My aunt had gotten a divorce and her husband stopped supporting her child. She desperately needed medical insurance for her child, she couldn't afford it cause of her circumstances. Guess what? the lady at Human resources told her she made $1 over the required income limit for medicare.

The mess is about to hit the fan. Families need to tighten up cause its about to get rough out here.

I never thought of it like that $15 min wage would interfere with qualifying for governmental assistance. Medicaid, SNAP, and most importantly public housing. You can't win in this messed up world. They will remain stuck in poverty.

The job market sucks. What will they do when they get cut off benefits, and kicked out of public housing?

Everybody isn't going to make enough to keep their head above water. Even if they went to school how will they feed their families? put a roof over their head? Get back and forth to work? pay for Obama care? Not to mention daycare, and payback a student loan? Plus they cutting the amount of time you can receive benefits.

It's sad all around this article touches on some real concerns. And it is making a mockery at the same time.

im just having a hard time understanding why the government is acting like there are no problematic consequences to this. plus you would think most people would be aware of how the lower class functions in this capitalist society...

minimum wage + government assistance is designed to prevent you from increasing your earning power. ignoring the obvious improbabilities of being able to educate or train yourself for anything better around an unpredictable full/part time min. wage schedule, the second you start earning any more money, you lose the rest of the funding that's pitching in for the expenses your job can't cover. having your home or food security or child care threatened by trying to do better really does incentivize people to just stay where they are, even if they know they can do better. most people who are in a low income environment just don't have the resources to quit their crappy job and live on benefits while working toward something else. people think you can live on no rent and 300$ a month for food. you really can't. you need phone/internet service and transportation and to be presentable for interviews and a ton of other stuff. people really can't afford to give one up.

what you get in the end is a permanent underclass doing the labor and menial work of society that is systemically prevented from being able to access or take advantage of any resources that would help them improve their station. because once they try they are going to lose part of the only thing that keeps them afloat, and it is only an uncommon person that works hard enough and is clever enough to overcome those circumstances.

which is why i dont understand why we aren't looking at those things (services). if you are a certain level of poor but have your primary needs taken care of, your minimum wage salary will function just like most people's regular salary. the theory is the bigger salary will eliminate the need to subsidize those expenses, but when you consider the costs of childcare (which frankly most low income people have a child or two) and the need to move into non-subsidized housing, i dont think it balances out.
 

Femmefatal1981

Well-Known Member
Let me just say I have seen degree required jobs in Charkeston that don't pay $15. The pay here sucks donkey balls. Starting teacher pay comes out to $22 an hr. If you are single and have student loans how do you pay your $700 a month rent? No degree jobs that require experience pay like $10. I can't imagine trying to survive on that.
 

Galadriel

Well-Known Member
Even a dollar increase could set them over the poverty line. My aunt had gotten a divorce and her husband stopped supporting her child. She desperately needed medical insurance for her child, she couldn't afford it cause of her circumstances. Guess what? the lady at Human resources told her she made $1 over the required income limit for medicare.

The mess is about to hit the fan. Families need to tighten up cause its about to get rough out here.

I never thought of it like that $15 min wage would interfere with qualifying for governmental assistance. Medicaid, SNAP, and most importantly public housing. You can't win in this messed up world. They will remain stuck in poverty.

The job market sucks. What will they do when they get cut off benefits, and kicked out of public housing?

Everybody isn't going to make enough to keep their head above water. Even if they went to school how will they feed their families? put a roof over their head? Get back and forth to work? pay for Obama care? Not to mention daycare, and payback a student loan? Plus they cutting the amount of time you can receive benefits.

It's sad all around this article touches on some real concerns. And it is making a mockery at the same time.

This is what irks me about the structure of govt. assistance, they really mess people up if they're over the limit, but it doesn't automatically mean people are rolling in the dough. So people who are trying to earn more money/increase their wages are penalized because they have to choose between keeping the subsidized assistance and making that extra money.

I think it should be structured so that people can get the assistance they need, but then not have the gov't cut them off at the knees just as they are gaining upward mobility.
 

Galadriel

Well-Known Member
Let me just say I have seen degree required jobs in Charkeston that don't pay $15. The pay here sucks donkey balls. Starting teacher pay comes out to $22 an hr. If you are single and have student loans how do you pay your $700 a month rent? No degree jobs that require experience pay like $10. I can't imagine trying to survive on that.

$700 rent would be a dream come true where I live :lachen:.

The cost of living just doesn't match up with wages, and as mentioned several times already, people have to put a roof over their heads and food on the table, pay bills/debt, medical insurance, and if you're a parent (whew!) it's even tougher.
 

Galadriel

Well-Known Member
Well said.

im just having a hard time understanding why the government is acting like there are no problematic consequences to this. plus you would think most people would be aware of how the lower class functions in this capitalist society...

minimum wage + government assistance is designed to prevent you from increasing your earning power. ignoring the obvious improbabilities of being able to educate or train yourself for anything better around an unpredictable full/part time min. wage schedule, the second you start earning any more money, you lose the rest of the funding that's pitching in for the expenses your job can't cover. having your home or food security or child care threatened by trying to do better really does incentivize people to just stay where they are, even if they know they can do better. most people who are in a low income environment just don't have the resources to quit their crappy job and live on benefits while working toward something else. people think you can live on no rent and 300$ a month for food. you really can't. you need phone/internet service and transportation and to be presentable for interviews and a ton of other stuff. people really can't afford to give one up.

what you get in the end is a permanent underclass doing the labor and menial work of society that is systemically prevented from being able to access or take advantage of any resources that would help them improve their station. because once they try they are going to lose part of the only thing that keeps them afloat, and it is only an uncommon person that works hard enough and is clever enough to overcome those circumstances.

which is why i dont understand why we aren't looking at those things (services). if you are a certain level of poor but have your primary needs taken care of, your minimum wage salary will function just like most people's regular salary. the theory is the bigger salary will eliminate the need to subsidize those expenses, but when you consider the costs of childcare (which frankly most low income people have a child or two) and the need to move into non-subsidized housing, i dont think it balances out.
 

Dposh167

Well-Known Member
a 66% increase in labor costs means less jobs and higher prices to compensate for minimum labor costs that cannot be offset.
and how much do the CEOs and CFOs and the who,him, larry, and fred who work under them make? How much in bonus money do they get a year. The pennies are only squeezed on one end of the spectrum
 

Femmefatal1981

Well-Known Member
$700 rent would be a dream come true where I live :lachen:.

The cost of living just doesn't match up with wages, and as mentioned several times already, people have to put a roof over their heads and food on the table, pay bills/debt, medical insurance, and if you're a parent (whew!) it's even tougher.
Lol, 700 in the city of charleston is hard to find and likely scary. My married coworker paid $1300 for a 1/1 in a nice area. Which I'm sure is still cheaper than CA, lol.

Wages definitely don't match cost of living. They do for the state but Charleston is significantly more expensive than the rest of SC. If I were a single parent Is have to teach and work a pt job during the year and full time all summer.
 

naturalmanenyc

Well-Known Member
This will only hurt small business owners, some of which already don't take a salary when their business isn't doing well.
Huge corporations won't take a hit.

and how much do the CEOs and CFOs and the who,him, larry, and fred who work under them make? How much in bonus money do they get a year. The pennies are only squeezed on one end of the spectrum
 

Galadriel

Well-Known Member
This will only hurt small business owners, some of which already don't take a salary when their business isn't doing well.
Huge corporations won't take a hit.

@naturalmanenyc this is also a concern of mine, how the middle class and small business owners take huge hits because so many politicians don't know what they're doing when they put policies in place.
 

UmSumayyah

Well-Known Member
@naturalmanenyc this is also a concern of mine, how the middle class and small business owners take huge hits because so many politicians don't know what they're doing when they put policies in place.
Oh they know. The big corporations are the ones paying the lobbyists to make sure that they don't take the hit. From beef to bundt cake , the big players write the laws to squeeze the little guys and enrich themselves.
 
Top