Comments

1
Well said, Goldy.
2
To any remotely decent or intelligent person, "empowering labor bosses" (that is to say, working people) is a good thing anyway.
3
I had a bit of "Don't give them any bright ideas" for a while. But then I realized the editorial board writers aren't likely to condescend to sully themselves to read a blawg.
4
Significant that this editorial singles out restaurants as major opponents. Restaurant owners always complain about the shitty profit margins to be had in their industry, but one thing they never mention is that patrons essentially subsidize them via tips. Give restaurant employees a decent, living wage and the practice of having to tag on a 15 - 20% gratuity for service would disappear overnight, just as it has in every civilized country where employees earn enough income to forego tips. Of course, the restaurant owners would still have to pay FICA taxes, L&I and Unemployment benefits on earnings, but even if that meant raising prices 5 or even 10% to cover the overage, diners would still come out ahead on the deal.
5
Austerity never works.

Giving millions of underpaid Americans a pay raise they would put back into creating more US jobs ($15/hr min wage) always works.

Rich people just save or export money you give them.
6

You're debating with the Seattle Times?

You might as well shout at a decaying tree trunk.

7
If we don't start thinking about the people of this country instead of just the rich, we could ruin the greatest experiment in self governance in history. And how in the world could paying people more be anything but a job creator? If you won't tax them, at least make them pay a living wage.
8
But I thought a living wage in Seattle was more like $16/hr. Are the people fighting for a living wage, $15/hr, or even $12/hr going to compromise ? I think they'd make more headway pushing for a Blue Eagle program and a boycott of businesses that aren't members of that.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/…

http://www.heritage.org/research/testimo…

American Samoa

The recent experience of American Samoa dramatically illustrates how wage increases reduce employment. The tiny Pacific island chain has been an American territory for over a century. However, American Samoans have a largely separate economy and considerably lower incomes than residents of the continental United States: the average Samoan worker made $12,000 in 2009.[17] The tuna canning industry makes up a significant portion of their private sector.

Until recently American Samoa had a different minimum wage schedule than the continental United States. A committee within the Department of Labor set Samoan wage minimums according to local economic conditions. In January 2007 the minimum wage in the canning industry stood at $3.26 an hour. Unfortunately for American Samoa, Congress applied the 2007 federal minimum wage increase to the territory. The legislation aligned the Samoan minimum wage with the U.S. rate of $7.25 an hour in 50 cent annual increments.[18]

Almost every hourly worker in the tuna canning industry makes less than $7.25 an hour.[19] At that level the minimum wage would cover 80 percent of the islands’ hourly workers.[20] This would be the economic equivalent of raising the minimum wage to $20.00 an hour in the continental U.S.[21]

By May 2009 the third scheduled minimum wage increase in Samoa took effect, rising to $4.76 an hour and covering 69 percent of canning workers. This did not increase purchasing power, stimulate demand, and raise living standards, as many minimum wage proponents theorize. Instead StarKist—one of the two canneries then located in Samoa—laid off workers, cut hours and benefits, and froze hiring.[22] The other cannery—Chicken of the Sea—shut down entirely in September 2009.[23]

The Government Accountability Office reports that between 2006 and 2009 overall employment in American Samoa fell 14 percent and inflation-adjusted wages fell 11 percent. Employment in the tuna canning industry fell 55 percent.[24] The GAO attributed much of these economic losses to the minimum wage hike.

The Democratic Governor of American Samoa, Togiola Tulafona, harshly criticized this GAO report for understating the damage done by the minimum wage hike. Testifying before Congress Gov. Tulafona objected that “this GAO report does not adequately, succinctly or clearly convey the magnitude of the worsening economic disaster in American Samoa that has resulted primarily from the imposition of the 2007 US minimum wage mandate.”[25] Gov. Tulafona pointed out that American Samoa’s unemployment rate jumped from 5 percent before the last minimum wage hike to over 35 percent in 2009.[26] He begged Congress to stop increasing the islands’ minimum wage:

“We are watching our economy burn down. We know what to do to stop it. We need to bring the aggressive wage costs decreed by the Federal Government under control. But we are ordered not to interfere …Our job market is being torched. Our businesses are being depressed. Our hope for growth has been driven away…Our question is this: How much does our government expect us to suffer, until we have to stand up for our survival?”[27]

Samoan employers responded to higher labor costs the way economic theory predicts: by hiring fewer workers. Congress hurt the very workers it intended to help. Fortunately, Congress heeded the Governor’s plea and suspended the future scheduled minimum wage increases.
9
I'm not sure how there is no shame in adhering to something that didn't have any facts to support it. It's not like the facts used to point the other way and now they don't. The logic behind the minimum wage was the same in 1933 or 1950 or now. The villains lined up to oppose it then are the same rich bastards who opposed it now.
10
Preach! There *is* a whole bunch of fearmongering to get us to settle for less than 15. Don't let them get away with it!
11
"The fact is, when it comes to public opinion, opponents have already lost the minimum wage debate. No shame there; the facts just simply weren't on their side."
Actually, when it comes to a 15/hour minimum wage, public opinion is very much against it:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/thedai…

Thanks again for lying to your readers, Goldy!
12
@4
I've worked in restaurants for fifteen years, and I doubt you have for fifteen minutes.
Tips are what guests pay based on quality of service. Hence, staff has more incentive to give good service. I don't know what magical fairy land you're living in where staff will go above and beyond out of the kindness of their heart, but here on Earth people work for money.
In those "civilized countries" that don't have a tipping system, service is AWFUL. With the exception of maybe the British Islands and of course Japan, service outside the US is a nightmare. Why? Because they make the same amount of money anyway.
Try eating out in France, Italy or New Zealand: the servers basically throw food at you and are never around when you need them.
As for money, I've worked for $2.25+tips and the least I made was $35,000 a year. Let's say one averages an 18% tip on each check and the average check is $60. This server has three tables an hour on average for four hours, and has two hours without tables on the beginning and end of his or her shift due to set up and side work time. That equals $23.85 an hour all together.
So tell me, how does $15/hour mean more money than $23.85/hour?
A 15/hour minimum wage would, aside from being a disaster that only the hipsters of this city could support, mean LESS MONEY for tipped employees.
13
@8
Fantastic post!
I agree that there are better ways of raising wages in Seattle then "doing surgery with a hatchet", like the 15/hour push.
For example: figure out what the maximum wage every individual business can pay while still being profitable. For many businesses this will be below 15/hour while for others it will be more. Then, those businesses that raise their wages to their individual maximums will get a nice reduction to Seattle's MASSIVE business taxes and get a "blue eagle" certification that they and only they can display.
Then you encourage the populace to spend money at "blue eagle" businesses and avoid non-blue eagle businesses. After a little while businesses will see the benefit of paying their workers as much as possible in the form of increased customers and lower taxes and more and more businesses will sign on.
This could raise wages across the board with some going EVEN HIGHER than 15/hour, all without forcing anyone out of business and forcing places like the little pho' house up the street from me to suddenly see a massive increase in labor.
If we did that along with raising the minimum wage to 15/hour for all businesses that receive government money (i.e., the stadiums) that would do the trick...
But, I doubt Sawant and her followers will go along with it. They're the left wing version of the Tea Party.
14
@8, please don't turn into a Sgt. Doom by giving us multi links to read. Comments aren't supposed to be footnoted articles. You too, collectivismsucks.
15
@9 I'm a person of color, born into poverty, work in a restaurant and I've never made more than $45,000 a year, and I oppose this 15/hour push with every fiber of my being. So am I just a "millionaire against the poor"?
That's the issue with Marxists: they can never explain how so many working class people are against Marxism. They will NEVER admit that we understand it's slavery and theft but instead try to ignore the fact that we exist.
Good news is Seattle is really the only place this will ever happen, along with maybe Berkley or some other socialist hell hole. If this happens I'm going to go somewhere where socialists will never win: Houston, TX.
I have yet to hear a single one of these Marxist morons explain how on Earth they'll import Marxism to Texas, the Dakotas, Idaho, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Alaska, the Carolinas, Montana, etc etc...
The Seattle reds live in a bubble in which Seattle is the world and there is nothing outside of it. If they ever so much as drove to Bellevue they would realize how outnumbered they are and how popular liberty really is.
If this push fails in Seattle, it fails forever. If it succeeds in Seattle it will suck but hey, I can always fall back to Texas. The question is, where will the Marxists fall back to if and when they fail?
Maybe we should just let them have Seattle and make Bellevue the new economic and cultural capitol of Washington. After all, they have a Republican mayor and would stand to gain the most from having wages 60% lower than their nearby idiot brother.
16
@12 It is a sad world you live in where people work purely for wages and never for pride in a job well down. I'm glad I don't live in that world.
17
@16
One can take pride in one's job but still do it for the money. I take pride in being the best at what I do, pride I toast with using wine I purchase from my tips.
18
All eye know bros is that a certain store in the Puget Sound Arena has tkeys on sale for 1.74 credeets and imbout to gother and ges saom
19
@14,
my apologies for posting an example from The Heritage Foundation that illustrates what happens when dramatic increases in minimum wages shift jobs elsewhere.
20
@16, nice trolling. Yes, I'm sure the McDonalds/Taco Bell/Subway employees work there for the joy of serving high quality food to people that "are loving it". That same pride is why interns at creative positions can be paid peanuts, if at all, in the name of developing a portfolio for future employers.
21
@11 Nice job attempting to confuse the issue. I wrote that "when it comes to public opinion, opponents have already lost the minimum wage debate," and the poll you link to shows that 71 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage.

As for public opinion on raising the wage to $15, all that matters is opinion here in Seattle, since this is where we are attempting to pass one. And how much do you want to bet that Seattle voters overwhelmingly support a $15 minimum wage?
22
All this wildly imprecise whipping out of "M" word ... appears some of us are only bright enough to apply the Faux News definition "anything I don't like."

I'm not a Marxist, mostly favor market capitalism as an economic philosophy, vehemently oppose business taxes (which are a terrible way to build a tax base), and support a higher minimum wage, single payer health care and universal education that includes all residents from potty trained to 18.

On a different note the Chamber is already filling sandbags on this issue - interesting to see if any other business orgs (or prominent businesses) step up as countervailing force.
23
@12- I have my doubts you've ever eaten out in Europe. I have, quite extensively, and I've never seen much difference in the level of service between here and there.
If indeed you have been to Europe, and consistently suffered from from poor service, perhaps the problem isn't the lazy, socialist, layabout servers, which exist only in your mind, but the fact that you are an insufferable ass.
I've no doubt you would be happier in Houston. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.
24
I'm a Marxist because I support spreading the economic gains to the workers as well as the owners by raising their minimum wage?

Please, @15, head down to Texas. I'll even open up the door for you.
25
@19, apology accepted for your posting something from the Heritage Foundation, a blatant apologist for the failed trickle-down theory.
26
@21
The 15/hour thing passed in Seatac by only 77 votes, and Sawant, the 15/hour candidate only won by less than one percent against an opponent who really didn't try.
I doubt Seattle will pass a 15/hour minimum wage because it barely passed in Seatac where the issue was the airport. In Seattle, the issue is going to be every small business owner. When they all have signs in their windows saying "vote no or we'll be forced to close" things will change...
....and EVEN BETTER, when they stop advertising in The Stranger after they get tired of its constant championing this dumb idea, I'm sure the Stranger will "coincidentally" decide that a compromise is a better idea.
I like most in Seattle who aren't Sawant and her followers am willing to compromise. I can learn to live with a many faceted minimum wage plan that raises wages without punishing small businesses owners. It's the whole surgery with a hatchet thing I'm opposed to,
27
@21
And I forgot to mention that Seattle may indeed go along with this, but they'll be alone. Again, for the second time: how on Earth will this ever fly in Montana, Idaho, Texas, the Carolinas, The Dakotas, New Hampshire, Alaska...you get the picture.
This will never pass in Bellevue even. By all means, destroy Seattle. Turn it into the next Detroit. Those of us who prefer freedom to slavery have many other places we can go and take our talents and money with us.
@23 I've been to Houston and found it to be a nice city with practical minded people and it actually has energy, not just the zombies we have walking around Seattle. Rick Perry has come out in favor of decriminalizing cannabis and it should happen in another year or so.
That, and they actually have a lot of nice restaurants in Houston, unlike Seattle with its "vegan this" and "natural, organic and flavorless" that.
And I've been all over Europe and I, as most who have been there, can tell you the service sucks. I was in France and went to a little restaurant and the servers were all sitting around on COFFEE BREAK. The ENTIRE RESTAURANT took a coffee break. Huh?
Never happens in the states.
28
@27 - ah, I see. The region that gave us The Sonics, The Wailers, Nirvana and Macklemore, Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, SubPop, etc. is peopled by brain dead zombies, and the restaurants of Ethan Stowell, Tom Douglas and Jerry Traunfeld are all paeans to tasteless vegan gruel and Rick Perry is a genius. Got it.
Most people who have been to Europe will not say that service sucks in Europe, because it doesn't. I don't for even a second believe your story about a whole restaurant going on break simultaneously. If it occurred at all, I think you probably walked into a small restaurant before they were open and imperiously demanded service, probably in loud English.
If you constantly received poor service in Europe, (assuming you've been), its because you're rude, arrogant and too lazy to learn ten polite words in the local language.
29
@26 Actually, Sawant won by 1.7 percent against a 4-term incumbent.

But that is neither here nor there. I say there is broad public support in Seattle for a $15 minimum wage, and you claim there is not. Care to wager?
30
@27
Service in Europe is fine, at least where I have been.
Bellevue has a LONG way to go before it stands a chance of being the regional center of gravity. Look at the development, every building going up in Bellevue has at least 3 cousins going up in Seattle.
31
There are different expectations of customer service in the US compared to Europe; that cultural distinction can make comparing them difficult.
32
@27
I think you should check out your comparisons. Raising the minimum wage = slavery? That's not only hyperbolic, it actually seems like going in the other direction. Relieving poor people's hardships, not enslaving them.
Also an entire restaurant taking a break is unheard of here, expect between 2 and 4, when they send tons of people on break for 2 hours, and often basically close. Even so, its a different culture. The idea that business culture here is a GLOBAL culture is just ignorant. The Japanese do things very differently. So do the Germans, the Italians, the South Africans, the Hindustanis, etc
33
More Trolling from Goldy.
34
@12 Service in Europe is a Godsend.

They don't rush up to your table while your mouth is full, or when interrupt you are in mid sentence repeatedly and ask, seemingly at random, "how are things?".

They don't drop the bill on the table before you are done eating and rush you out, in order to maximize the turns on the table.

Instead, you pay good money for a meal, you get to stay as long as you want, and there are a minimum of interruptions. In exchange, the employees are well compensated, have health care, and are not all over you like a stalker street vendor in a developing country.

That is the best argument for no longer allowing the employers to shift their costs onto the employer in a dishonest manner; put it in the menu prices so we can all decide what we are willing to pay. It is why restaurants that emulate a European service style--there are a few-- get my business.

Your market ideology sucks ass as usual. You want the business owners to shift their costs in a dishonest manner (tips) and not in an honest one (menu prices). Most restaurant owners are crooks in this regard.
35
*shift the cost onto customers.
36
@31,32 With out a doubt the restaurant experience is different in Europe. During the nearly 2 years I lived in Europe (various countries) it was not uncommon to see US tourist disoriented by it. If CS walked into an Italian restaurant in Rome between 4pm-7pm expecting a full course meal and to be out of there within an hour. I'm sure it was a bad experience for him. The staff would be looking at him like he was a uncouth lout.

The evening meal, is a social occasion an evening. 2-3 hours don't worry if your alone you won't be for long the staff will take care of that. Expecting your main course to arrive minutes after you've slammed down your appetizer, you barbarian did you even taste it? Settle down have a glass of wine digest a bit relax chat and share with your companions what's your rush?
37
@34
Actually, anyone can see the economics of tips work in everyone's benefit. As I showed, tips make for great money (I've basically lived off of them for fifteen years) and they encourage hard work.
In the European system, when the service sucks (as it often does) the server makes the same as a great server, and customers have no recourse. In America, if the service sucks, the customer can just withhold tips. After awhile the server realizes that the better a job they do, the better the tips and have incentive to do a good job. In Europe there isn't that incentive and hence you have to light a flair to get a refill on your wine or absurdly overpriced coke and they just roll their eyes at you.
That's how America works. If you don't like it, move to Denmark and have fun paying all those taxes.
38
#37 Your theory doesn't hold up, because most of the service is mediorcre to poor in Seattle, even with all of your so called incentives that are externalized onto the arbitrary whims of the customer and not where they belong--on co-workers, on the owners. The exception is with the places where they are paid a good wage and the menu prices reflect it. The incentive is that they had better give good service or I won't come back, 20% tip entitlement or no. How many times will I walk into a Seattle restaurant and hear coughing in the kitchen, even with the so called paid sick leave? Once, and never again. It is clear that you understand your radical small "a" capitalist theory but not the real world. That is what you have in common with your Randroid counterparts.
39
@32
Removing choice is slavery, and that is exactly what the neo-liberals want to do to us.
Maybe I would rather not pay into Social Security and take my own chances on retirement. Sorry, there is no choice. Maybe I don't want to have my wages garnished to fund paid sick leave and instead I'm happy to keep my money and stay home sick for free? Sorry, the Seattle government thinks they know better than I do how to run my life.
And maybe I want to negotiate my own damn wages? If I go for a job and someone says "sorry, we can't afford more workers." And I say "look, forget 15/hour. You can start me off at $8. I'll do such a good job and prove my worth that you'll give me a raise just to keep me. Deal?"
In Sawant's Seattle, I wouldn't have that option. I know I would rather work for less money than no money at all which is one of the MANY reasons I'll never join some union.
Give me an opt out of this minimum wage and I'll be happy. That's all we want: choices. Neo-liberals believe that government should run our pocket books while right-wing hacks think government should run our bodies. No win situation for those of us who oppose slavery.
40
@12:

For the record, I've done just about every food serving job there is, from fast food counter & pizza delivery, to sit-down restaurants, room service, bar tending & banquet catering, and IME depending on the capriciousness of the general public sucks more than your handle. OTOH, in my travels I've been served by scores of individuals who didn't have to spend most of their interactions with patrons engaging in some form of bullshit obsequy in order to "earn" an extra percentage; and I've encountered just as many rude tip-earners as those who don't, so I'd call that not only a "wash", but irrelevant to the issue.

There are as many reasons why people go into food service work as there are people who do it, but doing anything "just for the money", is the very mind-set those at the top WANT to instill in those below, because, hey, what arrogance is it for anyone to think they deserve the basic human dignity of earning a Living Wage, right?

Seriously, just move to Texas; it sounds like you'd be much, much happier there...
41
@39:

Also, I hear Somalia is a veritable Libertarian paradise, where all of your dreams would no doubt come true. If Tejas doesn't work for you, check it out.
42
@37 - "Working harder" for tips, in many cases, seems to translate to working hard to get me in and out of the restaurant as fast as humanly possible so they can turn the table over to the next paying, tipping customer. I actually got a bit nervous eating out in Europe, because it was so strange to NOT be hustled out the door by the waitstaff. I guess if that's what you mean by "hard work" from a restaurant worker's perspective, then your argument holds water.

Beyond that, I can withhold a tip for bad service, but it doesn't change the fact that I sat through a bad restaurant experience. Similarly, I could leave little or no tip after a meal with great service (and most of us have known assholes who do that) just because I didn't feel like tipping. In neither scenario does the amount tipped or not tipped have any actual bearing on the dining experience that took place before it. So there's just no point to the tipping system at all. A restaurant's reward for a good meal with good service should be my repeat business, not my contribution on top of the bill to make sure my underpaid waiter doesn't starve.
43
In short, low wages and good tips ensure that the wait person will be kissing my ass, even though they are miserable at their job. It sucks for both of us. That's not good service, that is just being a servant.

A place where the employer takes care of their employees, who doesn't throw their income to the wolves of the emotional whims of each customer, are a bit more happier, relaxed, and the relationship between the wait person and the customer is better. For both of us. And for that, I might toss in a 20 percent gratuity on top, if the employer has enough sense to pay attention and not keep around people who "do" poor service.

And, Seattle wait people are like Seattle drivers. Almost all of them think they are the best, but in truth most suck at what they are doing in the present moment. Which means I don't dine much on Capitol Hill anymore. The parking sucks too.
44
@39 you are even more annoying then the socialists with that we live in a dictatorship/pie in the sky shit.
45
@29
So Sawant one by less than 2% against a guy people were tired of. Big deal. She also lost many working class neighborhoods in south and north Seattle while without the wealthy neighborhoods of Ballard, Capitol Hill and Fremont she would have lost. So how is she a "worker's choice" again?
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/fyi-guy/20…

And I understand she has a lot of support from the hipsters and whiny neo-liberals. This is Seattle after all, where common sense isn't very common (and racism in the form of paternalism is rampant, but that's another story)
But I doubt it will pass in Seattle.

And you never answered the question: how on Earth is this Marxist agenda going to pass in Texas, the Carolinas, the Dakotas, Alaska, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, Georgia etc?

As I said, we who love freedom can always jump ship and move to a free state. But if Marxism fails in Seattle, where are the hipsters going to go?

Seattle is a backwards freedom-hating spot on the map, I'll never deny that. But the country outside of Seattle is moving more and more in the direction of liberty.

Hey...maybe I'll move to Mountain View, CA. Home of Google...and a pretty good place to live: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.co…
46
@39: "Removing choice is slavery"
Really? I suppose any form of government is slavery then, since it limits your actions in some way or another. This is the social contract: you give up certain choices/privileges in exchange for certain guaranteed necessities. It is one of the most basic parts of civilization, second (in my opinion) only to division of labor.
Compulsion without remuneration is slavery. Setting a minimum price for an hour of labor just isn't.
47
@42
Servers, especially in Seattle, are NOT underpaid. They get $9.32 an hour on top of tips.
Second, repeat businesses means NOTHING to a server when they get paid regardless of how busy the restaurant is, while tips encourage servers to keep the restaurant busy and keep the people happy.
And most guests at restaurants in America do tip well if the service is good. That's the point of tipping: the guests decides how good a job the server did, not the government or the restaurant. The guest is the one paying for it so the guest should be the one deciding how much to the server gets paid.
And I've never seen a server in America rush anyone unless they said they had to be out by a certain time. Why rush them out? The longer they sit the more likely they are to order another drink.
In Europe on the other hand, after my plate is cleared I sat there for LOOONG stretches until the second course came out. I ask them what the hold up is and I explain that I'm very hungry and they give me a look of surprise. I guess people in France and Holland don't eat out when they're hungry...
And, I might add, there is little variety in Europe. Every restaurant serves the same crap. Almost as bad as Seattle, where flavor is frowned upon and people prefer to masturbate to how local their food is as opposed to enjoying food with their mouths.
48
@39: I don't care if you don't want to help pay for those less fortunate than you. I don't care if you want to start a race to the bottom which only helps the wealthy.

Our current existence owes an unpayable debt to past generations, which only way we can meaningfully honor is to make sure future generations owe us as much as they owe those who came before us.

Collectivism is one of the most successful adaptations on this planet, and I don't care if you, having made it this far, want to throw it away, while pretending that my sister will continue to be cared for, or that people will manage to scrape by because of the benevolence of other people. If you think it is the right thing to give to charity, but only if it's not forced, that's ludicrous. Your morality says "well it's wrong to let people starve, but more wrong to make sure they don't."

Fuck. That.
49
@46 "I suppose any form of government is slavery then, since it limits your actions in some way or another."
Yes, it is. Minarchism is the least slave like government but even it should only be a temporary and eventually be phased out in favor of a stateless society.

"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."-Lysander Spooner

And if Social Security, medicare, etc are all "Social contracts," why the hell am I forced on them when I DIDN'T SIGN SHIT!? I never asked for the "guarantees" of social security, medicaid etc and never asked for government to tell me what I can and cannot accept as starting salary.

If something one never asks for is thrusts open them and they have no option of saying no to it, that person isn't really free.
50
@48
Collectivism is the political systems of totalitarianism...not the best system to say the least. If you're talking about "community", I'm all for that. It is just the government enforcing it with guns that I have issue with.

And yes, it is wrong to steal. Taxation is theft, and even if it's to help those less fortunate then ourselves, it is still wrong. Most people would gladly take care of each other if government didn't force us to...also, most of that money the corporate-owned state says goes to help the poor actually goes to overpaid government officials or is used to fund endless wars of aggression.

No one has the right to use force against anyone unless they are defending themselves. If you disagree, let me ask you this: if someone puts a gun to your head and robs you because they are poor, are you okay with that? No.

But if government uses armed thugs (police) to rob from me (force me to pay back taxes) because they claim poor people need that money, you are okay with that?

Wow...some consistency.

And just as you would voluntarily give people money if they were poor I too would voluntarily give money to social welfare programs. It's the whole force thing I'm against.
51
@45 Indeed we all want Freedom it is one of bedrock founding principles. We've been struggling to define, achieve and expand it for centuries. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

[84] The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

[85] The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

86] The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world." FDR

http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/fdr-the…

Freedom it is the founding principle we've been struggling with, towards, from the beginning. It's spread has always come slowly. So to answer your question about, "Texas, the Carolinas, the Dakotas, Alaska, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, Georgia etc?" Slowly.
52
What would Fnarf do?
53
@51
Never in a million years will Marxism come to Texas.
And those "freedoms" are self contradictory: how can you guarantee everyone "freedom from want" without taxation? And when you have taxation it has to be enforced, and that can only happen with police. Hence, physical aggression will be an absolute necessity and all those who disagree with say a 15/hour wage will live in fear of getting caught by the police and sent to jail.

If I am willing to work for less than 15/hour as opposed to having no job at all, that is my right. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being a statist piece of filth.

In the words of the great Lysander Spooner:

" The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."
54
51: There is an opt out system to your fantasy of government agents forcing you with guns drawn to pay taxes. You can go to a US consulate, sign a paper, and tada - you're no longer a member of any state and no longer liable to pay any taxes. Other people have done so and become stateless people, I recommend you do so as well, instead of complaining what we want to do with our state.
55
I meant @53 and pretty much every other comment for the past 2 months, not @51
56
@49 "Minarchism" *wtf? wanders over wikipedia* Oh I get it, well thats a complete mess, a bunch of mini non violent anarchies. Yeah that'll work.
57
@CS
Your idea that removal of any choice = slavery doesn't pass the laugh test. Just take an extreme example, murder. Say I want to kill someone, but *gasp* society removes that choice from my hands per heinous penalties. Oh no! That makes me a slave! What the eff ever man.
There are tons of choices we as individuals don't get to make, because we as a society have already made them. Get used to it. That's what people do.
Honestly, you sound like a man who doesn't want to have to care(materially) about other citizens, but is mad that the rest of society doesn't care that you disagree with the social contract. Its just silly.
58
@cs, why are you talking to the adults? There are other internet forums for you to talk about your juvenile ideas. Use them. Grow up or get out.
59
Removing certain choices can increase total choice. Taxing everyone to provide food, shelter, and a basic income to all would, for example, provide more people with choices as to what to pursue, and how to live their lives.

Certain goods are best provided by an outside actor. We have chosen government to do this for us, because that is the best solution. You may opt out of certain aspects of this, for example, public schools, but this does not free you from the obligation of living in a nation built by all, to provide for all.

Having to work for a living is a form of slavery more onerous to most than taxation.
60
@57
That is where the non-aggression principal comes in: you committed aggression, hence you committed a crime. Unless someone is hurting someone else or their property (including the environment, which is everyone's property) no one has any right to commit aggression against anyone.
And as I said (repeatedly) I'll be more than happy to help my fellow man. It is just the taxation aspect of it I'm against.

Saying all libertarians are against programs that help the poor because we are against doing so with involuntary taxation is like saying everyone who is against rape is anti-sex. Both sex and giving money to the poor are great, as long as they are consensual.

"There are tons of choices we as individuals don't get to make, because we as a society have already made them."
That is some 100% Orwellian shit right there. What if society decided blacks must be segregated by force? What if society decides abortion should be illegal? What if society decides to send you to fight a war against people who did nothing to you?

You seem to prefer to let society make decisions for you. I don't want to make decisions for anyone or have a group make decisions for me.

It sounds like these are your people right here:
http://mbtimetraveler.files.wordpress.co…
61
raku - Thank you.

CS - If you don't want to pay the taxes that help run the society you benefit from - to pay for the infrastructure, the cops, the firefighters, the armed forces, the emergency relief - then just go out to the far wilderness somewhere where there's no society. Go back to the cave and subsist as a hunter-gatherer, like we used to before we decided that we were better off engaging in collectivism and inventing civilization.

As if you've done everything on your own. Nobody has ever helped you.

P.S. I'm pretty sure they pay taxes in your paradise of Texas. Can't get away from the highway man there. They don't run that place for free, you know.
62

If you want to see the extent of the problem, download the PowerPoint presentation here (the one that refers to 2013 demographics):

http://www.kingcounty.gov/exec/PSB/Demog…

It clearly shows that this region's growth is not being fueled by well heeled artisans bringing cash and skills, but by many poor immigrants who are thrown to a system from which they cannot generate wealth.

Among other eye openers it notes that:

In many areas, half of households were
paying 30% or more of their incomes for
housing in 2008-2010.


64
This idea that any state that incorporates enough socialism that their people don't starve, have health care, and can get an education are failed Marxist nightmares you would need to run and hide from is not only stupid but cowardly. Any changes made can be changed back and shit always takes forever to implement. CS is a yellow dog with no empathy. I'm not Christian, but Jesus would shit in your mouth if he heard your lengthy but impotent tirades on the virtues of being selfish dickweeds. Moving into a future where life is decent and equitable for everyone might be hard, scary, and take a lot of effort. It is still worth having the courage to work towards. We have tried the pure capitalist experiment since Reagan's days and it has resulted in our education and health standards being lower than any other 1st world country. Grow a pair CS. Stay and make the system you disagree with work like a real man. Why do you think I am still in Kansas? Because it is the liberal wonderland of social equality I've always dreamed of? No, it's because it is my home and I want to make it a better place. But by all means scurry off to Texas. I wouldn't go to Austin though. Your kind of thoughtless right wing douchery would get you dropped to the ground and stomped.
65
@59
Providing healthcare, housing etc can be provided without any armed men forcing me to do so. It's called "voluntary taxation."

We didn't decide on government as it exist being here. We inherited it from those who came before us and it has outlived any usefulness and it is completely unethical.

And the whole "you didn't build that" fallacy is absurd. Yes, I need society. The question is, can society exist with a smaller government and do just as much as it does now? Of course it can.
66
@56
Minarchism worked in America during the early days (minus slavery) and worked in the old west and worked in many civilizations throughout history.
What doesn't work is socialism. They tried it in North Korea and it hasn't real gone over to well for them...
67
@54
Oh yes, give away my citizenship and pay no taxes...and be unable to legally make a living, unable to purchase property or most goods and services, unable to open a bank account etc.

And I already said SOME taxation is fine for the time being. Left-libertarians like myself want to slowly reduce the size of the state and hand its functions over to the people to run through voluntary taxation and create minarchism and eventually anarchism. But that will take generations. For the time being we're willing to settle for smaller government that spends less time telling us what to do as long as we're not hurting anyone, their property, or the environment (i.e., what we can or can't do with our bodies or HOW MUCH WE CAN ACCEPT AS STARTING SALARY)
68
@60
Your first point refutes your third point!
You can't say "That is where the non-aggression principal(which is a social norm) comes in: you committed aggression, hence you committed a crime(enforced by society)." AND "You seem to prefer to let society make decisions for you. I don't want to make decisions for anyone or have a group make decisions for me." Previously you held that society has a say in what I do to others, but then say that I should not listen to society. You might not like the extent to which our society has structured itself, but tough titties. You can organize others and try to reform it as you see fit. But....
You aren't going to get there with points like #2. Comparing supporting having to pay taxes with supporting the raping of women?!?!?! REALLY?! If you say that sort of thing at a party, the whole room goes quiet and the host says "dude, you got to go".
Aside) Social contracts are not Orwellian except in the sense that Orwell was all for them. You should read some of his books. Rewriting history, disregard for the poor, total buy in to a political ideology(you maybe?) as in Popper/historicist, massive lies and propaganda, ubiquitous spying, that's all "Orwellian". Paying taxes isn't. He was actually explicitly for massive taxes on the wealthy, who he called the "idle class", making money simply by having "their names on stock certificates", who could die tomorrow and the economy wouldnt notice until their estate lawyer started on the case.
69
@66 ok I'll bite. During what period of America's history (minus that pesky slave thing of course)?
70
@67
Are you claiming that low wage workers actively want to get paid less? How does it negatively effect them to have a bargaining floor of $15? And where did you get the idea that these jobs have negotiable wages? In a lot of cases, the person hiring DOES NOT set the wages, that is done at a much higher level. A new starbucks barista doesnt go down to corporate to negotiate how much they get paid.
71
@68
Again, for the third time, Minarchist society is one in which the only function of government is to prevent aggression. We can have police and military and courts and they will exist to prevent crime against people in the form of violence or fraud or against their property including nature, which is everyone's property.
I've been consistent with that viewpoint. It is not a "social contract" to say you won't kill or destroy property. If you kill or commit fraud or destroy property, you will be punished.

In short, non-aggression punishes people for what they DO (beat someone up, dump toxic waste) while social contracts punish people for what they DON'T DO (you didn't pay taxes)

As for rape, the analogy is this: is rape justified? (I never specified woman, btw) No. Why? It is sex by force. Is sex justified? Yes. What is the difference between the two? Force.

Now, is taxation, as it exist today, justified? No. If voluntary taxation justified? Yes. What is the difference between the two? Force.

And yes, saying society has the right to make decisions for me is Orwellian. If I don't want to live long enough to collect social security, how can anyone justify forcing me to pay into it? Because the government knows what's best for me? How is that not some 1984 shit?

And "social contracts" are a myth really: For a contract to exist, I have to agree to it. I NEVER signed anything or made any agreement, hence it can't be called a "contract."
72
@69
During the era of the "old west" there was little to no official government in the territories, and yet things still got done voluntarily or for-profit and things were nowhere near as violent as some claim it is, as the link I already posted proves.
73
71- Your parents signed you up for the social contract. If you don't like it, you can opt out at a consulate. It takes 5 minutes. Nobody is forcing you to stay signed up.

You're saying you want the benefits of the social contract while ignoring the basic requirements. Like all privileged shits who think they deserve more than everyone else.
74
@71
Have you read orwell at all? He was not some sort of rugged individualist. He was not a libritarian or an anarchist at all. You should really read "as I please", it gives a lot of insight into his daily thought process.
You can off yourself if you want to, whatever. Paying taxes to help old and vulnerable people is not some sort of crime being done to you. You might have that viewpoint, but no one else does, which means you have three choices. Stop being butt-hurt about it, organize others to work for change, or just stay butt-hurt.
Give it a rest with the trying to show that rape and taxes are wrong for the same reason. Its gross. Like, really gross. One leaves horrible emotional scars on a person, the other makes you pay for old peoples rent so they aren't homeless. That you are so emotionally blind to that difference is crazy and says something about how you are too deep into your ideology.
75
@70
Let's say this 15/hour thing passes. A restaurant owner gathers her staff together for a meeting. She says "we don't make the profit here to afford 15/hour. I can give all the tipped employees 10/hour and all the non-tipped 13/hour. That's all I can pay and its either that or I close and you all lose your jobs"
The workers do the sensible thing and stay on and work for that much.

What happens when the police find out about this arrangement? You guessed it: they get arrested.

Most people, if given the choice between making no money or less money, most people would choose to make less money. And that is a choice you want the government to take away from people.

Again, as I already said (and you ignored) if I go for a job and the potential employer says "I can't afford another server" and I say "You know what, I REALLY need a job. How about this: pay me just $5 an hour. I'll do such a good job I'll make up the rest in tips. Deal?"

Under this law, I won't be able to make that decision for myself.

How can so many people be okay with government making personal decisions for us? You may be for legal abortions (as am I) but there is no way in hell any of you could be honestly called "pro-choice"
76
@74
Fine, not rape, theft. How is theft and taxes any different?

And "Orwellian" means "like 1984." I'm aware Orwell was a statist. I would say "Zamyatinist" bet 1984 is more popular than "We", even though "We" came first and 1984 was really a ripoff. Kind of like the whole "Hunger Games vs Battle Royal" thing.
77
@73
Again (second time) if I become stateless, I can't engage in commerce and the laws of the state still apply to me (I can get arrested for doing Molly etc)
And I NEVER said I wanted the benefits of Social Security. I would like the option of paying less into it if I agree to not receive any benefit.

Why not let people who don' want SS sign a waiver and not receive anything when they retire? In exchange they'll pay less into it, that way those who are collecting now will still be able to keep it? What exactly is so immoral about that arrangement?

Or how about just letting us have some choice in it? Like maybe I don't want the retirement benefit (my 401K will handle that) but would like to double to disability benefit instead? (if I get disabled as a restaurant employee, I'm fucked) Honestly, what would be so bad about letting people do that?

We left-libertarians do NOT want to do away with things like social safety nets. We just want to make them optional and make it impossible for the government to use that money to fund things like the war on drugs and endless wars overseas.
78
best. thread. ever.
79
@76: ok, how do we get to minarchy from here?
80
@CS
The workers would not get arrested. Owner would. And IF that happens to a restaurant, I don't really care. Ultimately more money in poor peoples pockets means more customers, and business will survive. Honestly I cant see how you think that workers having the "choice" to get paid less is somehow good for our country. Especially since wage stagnation has been such a huge problem for so long. How do you propose we fix that without raising wages?
Have you ever been robbed? Did filing your taxes feel like that?
Also, I've never been able to influence how a thief spent his swag, but I have with local government.
81
77: You're on state land. There are plenty of people who are not part of the social contracts - millions of them in the USA. Yes, if you are in our home, you have to follow our rules. If you don't want to follow our rules, you can go to hundreds of other collectives throughout the world. If you don't want to follow any of their rules, there is plenty of private property outside of state control. If you're complaining because you can't afford it - well, that's what libertarianism gets you.
82
Tips are not only sexist and racist but don't affect service at all. There's been jack tons of studies on this.
83
@82,
quite true. Didn't want to add more noise to the thread, but tips are very weakly correlated with service and extremely prejudiced (although it looks pretty good if you're a slender, good looking, big breasted blonde woman in her 30s) .

http://freakonomics.com/2013/06/03/shoul…

DUBNER: So clearly there are all sorts of little things that can nudge a tip up or down. But forget all those little things for a minute. What about the big issue: how good is the service? The conventional wisdom says that good service brings a good tip and vice versa. True? Not true, says Michael Lynn.
LYNN: First off, I’ve done a lot of research looking at the size of tip and how it relates to the customer’s perceptions of service quality. And a consistent finding is that there is a relationship, people do tip more the better the service they get. But that relationship is very weak. It’s a correlation…The average correlation is 0.2. That means about 4 percent of the variability of the differences in the percentage tips left by different dining parties can be explained by their service ratings. So…
DUBNER: It’s astonishingly low, isn’t it? Not just a little bit?
LYNN: Yes, it’s astonishingly low. So it’s absolutely the case that tips are not as strongly related to service as you would expect. Absolutely, I believe that that’s got to reduce the incentive value of tipping. Having said that though, even though the actual relationship between tips and service is low, servers think there’s a relationship, and that’s enough to motivate them to deliver good service.
-------------------------------------------
DUBNER: Justin Swartz is a lawyer at Outten & Golden in New York City. He represents employees in class-action discrimination cases. He’s sued some of the biggest restaurants in New York for shorting employees on the tips they deserved. If his firm were to take on a discrimination case, like Michael Lynn has proposed, Swartz pursue two lines of argument.
SWARTZ: The first would be disparate impact analysis. The purpose of disparate impact analysis is to eliminate what the Supreme Court calls headwinds, policies that make it harder for racial minorities or other people in other protected classes to succeed.
DUBNER: With disparate impact, you don’t have to prove that discrimination is intentional; it’s a proxy for discrimination.
SWARTZ: The idea is that if there’s a disproportionate impact on a particular group here it would be African American or non-white servers, then the plaintiffs have made the first showing that they need to make in their case.
DUBNER: And the second argument?
SWARTZ: The second step then is the employer’s burden.
DUBNER: Meaning, it’s up to the employer to prove that tipping is a business necessity—not a custom, but a necessity.
84
@72 ah ok I get it your idea of utopia is Gunsmoke, Big Valley, Bonanza, and the Rifleman. Without the spaghetti westerns.
85
Collectivism, you simply must stop using the roads. Doing so only plays into the hands of the government who has stolen from you to provide them.
86
@cs, you're repeating yourself. Stop talking.
87
Hey "collectivism sucks"
1. Maybe try reading up on marxism; it is a very particular concept and isn't defined as any governmental policy that you are opposed to.
2. "minarchism" = corporofascism. Your assumptions about free choices assume a equality in power dynamics, which is so utopian that it makes your whole grand vision laughable.
Also, you're a moron.
88
Holy fuck this thread on the Times and min. wage strategy is now about tipping and where one irrational douche nozzle wants to live? The inmate is running the asylum.
89
Minarchism=recycled FA Hayek, predecessor of Ayn Randoid "objectivism". Still quacks like a duck. Your "minarchism" of early American was actually republican communitarianism al la deTouqeuville, which cannot exist in an urban setting. How old are you, 17?
90
@76: Most thieves don't provide you with military defense, guaranteed education, a social safety net, transportation and utilities infrastructure, and consumer protection standards before they take your money.
If you live here, you benefit from government services; Uncle Sam is investing in YOU. Refusing to pay reasonable returns on the investment is closer to being theft than is taxation itself.
It's easy for you to trumpet "COLLECTIVISM SUCKS" so long as you avoid thinking about the degree to which you benefit from collectivism. I'm an avowed antisocial curmudgeon, and yet I'm staunchly in favor of collectivism, because it means I can do the things I'm good at and leave the other stuff to people who are better at it than I am.
91
What's the lowest wage at The Stranger? Please take us through what impact, if any, there will be on business operations for The Stranger. You know, transparent example, yada yada.
92
@89
Actually, minarchism goes back to Lysander Spooner, and I hate Ayn Rand. As for your cries of "what are you, 17?" my reply is this:
http://d75822.medialib.glogster.com/medi…
93
@87
I don't need to read up on Marxism. Why? Because I was one for over a decade. I was a member of CPUSA and then the SWP.
Minarchism is the opposite of corporatism. Corporatism is only possibly with government able to do things for corporations. Take that power away and corporations become essentially powerless.
As for calling me "a moron," you do realize that the moment you utilize an ad hominem attack, you lose, don't you?
But I know for a fact that Marxists can't use logic. If they ever embraced reason and actually thought about other positions rationally, they would become libertarians. That's what happened to me, after all.
94
@79
Finally, someone just asking questions politely with none of the "you're a dumb Ayn Rand poo-poo head!" comments.
How do we get to a minarchist society? Simple: slow and steady reforms that DON'T pull the rug out from under people.
For example: we could give people options with Social Security, like allowing them to forgo the disability insurance aspect to double the retirement benefit or vice versa, whatever the individual decides. And we can give younger people a choice to pay less into Social Security in exchange for not collecting. At the same time we can end the overseas empire and use the money we save to keep SS fully funded for those who depend on it now.
Likewise, with education, we degrease the amount of federal government oversight (but not funding right away) and let individual communities decide how best to educate their kids.
We can also deregulate non-profit and make it easier for people to take care of their communities themselves, without the government. Right now, it's easier to open a bank than it is to open a soup kitchen when it comes to regulations.
We can also end victimless crimes and with the money we save from policing and building endless prisons we can provide tax cuts, starting with the poorest who will benefit from them the most.
^^Could someone explain how the above makes me an "Ayn Rand sociopath"?
95
@90
Collectivism (upper case "C") is POLITICAL COLLECTIVISM, not simply voluntary groups. We can have all the things government provide without forced taxation by simply transitioning to a voluntary society.
And I never asked Uncle Sam to invest in me. Saying I was "born into a social contract" is like saying a Serf was born into a contract. How can it be a contract if I never signed anything?
Everything the government does can be done more ethically and efficiently if run by SOCIETY as opposed to THE STATE. Need healthcare? People come together and form a co-op, as they used to once upon a time. Need roads and bridges? We create a committee and fund it through voluntary donations and tolls on the roads we build. Need education? We fund it through voluntary taxation and donations as well as tuitions.
I am love community, and prefer it over government. You seem to believe that no one will ever do anything without a government, complete with armed police and surveillance and prisons and wars, to make people do anything.
I'm glad I don't live in the world you live in.
96
@80
So, you are okay with workers loosing their jobs.
As I said, we can use tax incentives and public pressure to raise wages WITHOUT killing jobs. This feel good legislation is a horrible idea and I would rather leave Seattle forever than let the government negotiate my wages for me.
Here's an idea: minimum hotness. Every man dating a woman is not allowed to date or marry one ranked below a "6". How can you be against that? Are you in favor or men dating ugly women?
97
@83
I'm an unnattractive man without boobs. I've worked for tips my entire adult life and never made less than $35,000 a year. Please explain how that is possible.
98
@85
Please, the old "roads!" strawman is old and tired. If you're going to use a strawman at least come up with a new one.
Roads are fine as it stands now. All we libertarians would do is fund them only with car tabs, tolls and gas taxes as opposed to a general fund. I pay gas taxes and hence I CHOOSE to drive and CHOOSE to use the road. We may even create new taxes just for people who own cars, as they are choosing to drive and hence they should be expected to pay for what they choose to use.
We have NOTHING against people paying for something, as long as they choose to pay for it.
So please, come up with another strawman.
99
@93: Simply calling someone a moron does not constitute argumentum ad hominem. If he said "you're a moron, therefore nothing you say can be believed", that would qualify. However, justsomebody actually did argue against your statements rather than your person, and added the insult only as an afterthought. In light of this and your strange perceptions of society, I surmise that you have a poor grasp of logic. Also, you are a moron.

@95: You, unlike serfs, had the option to move out of the USA, eschew public education, and/or build your own little self-sufficient la-la-land. You may be confused as to how quotation marks work, because nowhere did I say you were "born into a social contract". Hell, nowhere here did anyone say you were an "Ayn Rand sociopath".
If you want to discuss policy with the adults, you may want to get your syntax untangled so as not to make obviously false statements. Or you could just claim that people are being mean and not listening, like you've done so far.

@96: Nice comparison. Because physical appearance/desirability is totally similar to hourly wage.
100
@98: Also, you don't understand what a "strawman" is. A "strawman" is slang for a deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent's argument in order to more easily attack the misrepresented version. (A common example is to claim that being pro-choice means being in favor of infanticide in order to argue against infanticide rather than against legal abortion.)
Please don't use terms if you don't know what they mean.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.