It also won't have as many mom and pop immigrant owned restaurants.

I dunno. If they have enough kids, they can all work at the shop and be considered owners. I don't think they'll need to pay them salary if they get some of the revenue.

Not sure if that's legal, but I would explore that possibility. An alternative would be to rent tables or sections of tables to independent, self-employed operators who would then wait on the tables. Again, no wages to be paid.

The additional benefit to having self-employed wait staff? you don't have to pay many of the employment taxes.

Well, since the servers will be making a living wage and my bill will increase, I expect they won't mind if I skip the tip.

The robots will take over.

Robots greet, cook and deliver dishes at this restaurant in China:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Robots-greet-cook-and-deliver-dishes-at-this-restaurant-in-China/articleshow/40268100.cms

Aggie's suggestions that innovative solutions will solve this problem are wrong-headed.

People, know this: CAPITALISM ITSELF IS THE INCANDESCENT CHURN OF INNOVATION.

There's nothing more innovative than a mutual agreement of employment between two free people. The employer gets the word done. The employee gets the compensation. Either and both will move along when the agreement is no longer satisfactory.

It doesn't get any sweeter than that.

Aggie needs to understand that the busybody government has already determined what the acceptable relationships are, and who can be an "owner," and all the rest. And they're fully prepared to step in and fuck with people as much as necessary... They're fully prepared to insist (using YOUR money) that third parties ("owners") be nice to fourth parties ("employees").

Doing so costs "government" (the first party, always) nothing at all. They nonetheless imagine themselves to be more decent than you are for exerting this force.

word = work.

Fuck.

well, it will be boomtimes in any city outside of seattle that can absorb the differences.

Ultimately, I'm sure it will happen slow enough that many will be able to ignore it, and whistle past the graveyard as if it isn't happening... or:
"yes, this is working precisely as planned, workers are now making a living wage, and only those evil owners are causing people to lose their jobs!"

There will probably be lotsa sole proprietor ops... :shrug:

"we could build a factory, and make misery..." Oh, wait, those guys were from Minneapolis, not Seattle.

Hey, the article even has hard numbers in it. "36 percent of funds are devoted to labor...[expected to rise] to 47 percent.

Assuming that those numbers are correct, then we're only talking about paying the cooks and dishwashers more. That cannot cover actually paying waiters and waitresses a real wage. I assume the idiocy of passing labor costs along to customers by requiring tips will continue.

Anyhow, to the numbers: If a meal now costs $20 and the increased labor costs are passed on directly, the new cost of the meal will be $22.20. This is not exactly the end of the world.

tl;dr: much ado about nothing at all. Alternately, an excuse to raise prices through the roof for no good reason.

> much ado about nothing at all

"Random" indeed.

Actually, random...

In a $20.00 meal with 36% going to labor ($7.20), 30% going to food ($6.00), 30% going to other expenses ($6.00), and 4% going to the owner (80¢) an increase in wages to 47% of the total cost means that the price is now $24.15.

That's $11.35 going to labor (47%), $6.00 going to food (24.8%), $6.00 going to other expenses (24.8%), and 80¢ going to the owner (3.3%).

That's a price increase of $4.15 (+20.75%).

Of course, this assumes that all other costs stay the same - not a safe assumption since the labor costs for the food and service vendors will also rise, driving a price increase for them as well.

That's what I was trying to figure out - is this just affecting restaurants or is this everyone? I would say, especially where I live, that this would drive up inflation exponentially. Rare is the un-degreed person who makes more than $15 an hour for any job around here. Bank tellers don't even make that much.

a random guy,

In WA state bartenders, waiters and waitresses are all paid the state minimum wage ($9.47 an hour, highest in the country).

_________________________________

On a separate note, here's something interesting. A friend works part-time for a company that provides ushers and security at CenturyLink Field during Seahawk and Sounder games. They've been told the law doesn't apply to them as they are legally employed in Tacoma (where the company has its office). He said he believed them as the company that operates the CLink (First and Goal) have let go most of their game-day part-timers and they now get them filled through his company. This just happened (during the 2014 season).

You could very well see businesses inside Seattle contracting with employment agencies located outside the city for the low-paid, low skill work. Think about how a business owner will usually think long and hard (and gather the documents to cover their butts) before they fire an employee. However, it'll be the easiest thing in the world to call an employment agency and tell them to not send that person back again.

This law is going to end up making life a lot harder for a lot of low paid people in Seattle. Funny how that always seems to work when the socialists decide to help the poorest.

Short but essential augmentation:

> This law is going to end up making
> life a lot harder for a lot of low
> paid people in Seattle. Funny how
> that always seems to work when the
> socialists decide to help the
> poorest.

… when the socialists decide to help the poorest using other people's money, always.

Always.

This truth is more reliable than that other famous certainty from the natural world, tomorrow's sunrise.

And they're fully prepared to step in and fuck with people as much as necessary.

In the city of Seattle's case, they were prepared to step in because people supported the initiative (even though it didn't go that far ). The socialist city council member, who was voted in to the position by the citizens, had enough signatures to put it on the ballot if the council didn't vote for it. And it looked like it would've passed if it had, like it did in Tacoma.

That's representative democratic gov't, I suppose. If the law doesn't work, then hopefully the people vote differently next time.

Nebraska and Arkansas voted for min wage increases statewide last year, I think.

> people supported the initiative

Nope, I no longer trust voting majorities to represent either the will or the genius of the man on the street. If this collection of political vipers is as good as we can do —not in the grander furtherance of civilization, but just in the hiring of labor for mundane social chores— then Western Civ is deeply fucked.

And that's even if you believe the game is clean, which I certainly do not.

"It doesn't get any sweeter than that."

Sure it does - for the willfully deluded, who imagine that they can get rich on their hourly wages if only that mean ol' bully boss was forced to pay them more.

The willfully deluded refuse to admit that customers actually pay wages, or consider what happens when the same people who print the money say how many hours one must work for it.

Refuse.

There was a long facebook piece on this with dozens of waitstaff saying that $15/hr and no tips would be a pay cut of half to two-thirds.