No it doesn't. It simply forces them to select better people. And job seekers, knowing this, are forced to step their game up and BE better people when applying for those jobs.
If they could step up their game to be worth $15/hr they would have already done so and be making $15/hr.
If the hiring process involved the HR department scanning the barcode on your arm and getting an instant price quote on your actual value as a worker, this would be a good point.
In the real world, however, you don't really know for sure what an employee's work is worth until he's actually started working for you. You can MAKE AN ESTIMATE of his worth based on his experience, his personality, his background, and how he answers some basic interview questions. You can offer a low starting salary with an option for increase later if you think/hope he might be worth more to you than the average employee. Many (if not all) companies have a "probationary" period where it's understood that the employee is being evaluated to see how well he can do the job and might not have it at the end of the month after all. All of these are part of the "getting to know you" process of hiring, because employers cannot reliably estimate the value of total strangers.
So a black teenager fresh out of high school with no prior work experience has an easier time proving he's worth that $15/hour if the company can't legally pay him less than that. After a week of "trial employment" or some other process his employer sees his work and realizes "Hey, this kid's pretty smart! Takes direction well, speaks clearly and politely, is courteous to customers, is always on time and stays late when I need him to... let's keep him around!" His starting pay is now much higher than it EVER could have been without prior experience.
And even if the company only decides to hire him part time, that means his take-home is $15,000 a year rather than the $8,000 he would have gotten under the old minimum. That's still basically a poverty wage, but it's enough that if he has other means of support he could probably pay for college classes and raise his star even more. If he manages to get full-time employment, he's making $30,000 a year, which in most places is JUST enough to afford an apartment and a fairly humble existence while saving up for the future.
Now compare this teenager to his classmate who shows up late every day, badmouths the managers in front of customers, rolls his eyes when asked to do extra work, doesn't clean up after himself, uses a lot of profanity and is rude and unfriendly to his coworkers. This teenager isn't going to be hired. Not at $15/hour, not at $8/hour. ANY place he goes is going to fire him sooner or later unless he demonstrates that he can prove himself valuable to the company that hires him. They might use "minimum wage went up so you're fired" as a convenient excuse (and then write a thankyou letter to the local liberals for giving them that excuse) but if don't want him working for them, his not-being-expensive isn't going to count in his favor.
What is the "market clearing price" for labor in Seattle? Please cite your source when answering.
We don't know.
Then your argument is invalid.
The Seattle data says their paychecks got smaller.
No it does not.
Are employers making hiring choices based on "statistics"?
No
Then your argument is invalid.
You are assuming the hours worked were reduced such that the total pay remained the same
No, YOU'RE assuming total hours were reduced such that total pay -- meaning, the share of that the company's revenue that goes to its employees that would otherwise subtract from profit -- remains the same. That's the entire basis of your argument: companies purchase less labor because they cannot absorb the price increase. Why would the increase in the price cause them to purchase
less labor than they could previously afford?
Again, this is YOUR argument, not mine. My claim has been that managers who have any business sense at all will use the increased pat as a catalyst for workplace improvements, raising standards of quality and professionalism and, ultimately, raising productivity. Those companies are likely to fire their under-performing workers and replace them with new ones who are either better qualified, have more impressive references, or just plain interview better. And prospective employees get the sense that their employers are expecting a lot more of them will try that much harder to be impressive in an interview.
Have you ever seen someone wear a suit and tie to a minimum wage job interview? Raise the rate to $15, and you just might.
in reality those reduced hours means the employer is going to make less
You'll have to demonstrate that claim with some actual data. Otherwise, this appears to be invoking magic.
Then you're saying he can only get a MW job for part time work.
No, I'm saying he APPLIED to a Minimum wage job for (potentially) part time work. The employer doesn't know why and ultimately doesn't care. I've known high school teachers who worked minimum wage jobs in their spare time just for extra beer money.
Which would be a very wide variation. I'm thinking more along the lines of "Your initial interest rate is 3.75% and it will never go above 9.75%"
Which is, by definition, NOT a fixed rate. Any company that tried to call that a "fixed rate" would probably get sued.
