@1,

That's because we all remember who was still Preznit when the economy tanked - in 2008. And also which party in Congress since then has consistently voted against policies that would have improved job creation, generated more economic stimulus, and provided desperately needed safety nets to the long-term unemployed. Remember all that? No? Slipped your mind? In that case, maybe you should pay more attention into which orifice your own head is lodged.

More than happy to see something @4 - when you actually have something worth showing - besides your "I have a shit-eating grin because I'm actually eating my own shit right now" expression, that is.

@6 - To the extent we're talking about large corporate employers, they absolutely can afford it. Costco is the current Great Example of a retail business that provides good wages and benefits above the minimum, fares well with employee retention, and rakes in huge profits. Maybe it's just time for the rest to follow suit.

Of course, then you get into the issue of franchising, and the profitability of that model if the wage floor is raised without any other adjustments. I'm sure people will be more skittish about investing if that is the case. But if McDonald's and Subway want stores in every town (and they obviously do), they'll have to figure out a way to keep franchise ownership profitable and attractive. They can hem and haw all they want, but they'll never leave all that demand (and profit) on the table just to spite a few cities/states with higher minimum wages.

@7:

Only if your definition of "burn" is one that would make a six year-old cringe in embarrassment...

The NELP has been reporting on Living Wage ordinances around the country for many years -- google Living Wage NELP and you'll find a lot of info on what other municipalities have done. We're are definitely not a leader here, but hopefully we'll at least be a participant.

Higher wages for low income wage earners increases the desire by companies to invest in new technology. New technology leads to better jobs. Pretty simple, really. As long as wage earners earn really low wages, companies have no incentive to invest in new machinery or technology. Folks building or designing that machinery or technology make better money. That explains, to a large extent, the mess we are in.

Of course, companies investing in more labor saving devices means less need for labor (in the short run). But that problem can be helped by lowering the work week. Lowering the work week right now would be horrible because ... people make too little. It is all pretty obvious if you know how things have worked over the last 100 years or so: Gilded Age, Progressive Era, Great Depression, New Deal, Oil Crisis, Reaganism (Gilded Age 2 or our current age). We screwed up and left the comfort and prosperity of the New Deal age for the radical world of Reaganism (in response to the hardships of the oil crisis).

"I'm really progressive but here on this one issue let me mansplain capitalism to you by saying exactly what Rush Limbaugh would say."

--OneSeattle

As someone in upper middle class, I have noticed that much of my work has been to create tools and processes to eliminate the jobs of lower middle class workers.

Bullshit. It was started by the (slowly dwindling membership) Big Unions to help them compete against entry-level positions regionally and nationally. Sprinkling more government on a broken system still gives you a broken system. But this time around, with less unique and small businesses and less jobs.

Here is what will happen:
Regional minimum-wage raise: Regional Inflation. Gentrification. low-skilled work moves to Tacoma and Everett.
National minimum-wage raise: Inflation. Loss of buying power. Major crisis.

In 6 years, if all this big-union and socialist crap gets passed, Connie Ogletrees will be right back where she started.

Needs to be $22. Even The Economist admits it would be $27 an hour based on productivity and Vancouver BC says (similar to Seattle) liveable wage is $22 an hour.

@17 last time we had a 66% minimum wage increase in WA guess what happened to jobs?

Nothing.

Yup.

@18. FAIL.

Productivity is not a good benchmark to determine wages. Because looking at productivity of fast food staff and -say- productivity of a secretary working with Microsoft Office is SO. COMPLETELY. DIFFERENT. It is embarrassing to use this as a benchmark.

(Fact: In the last 25 years, productivity of a fast food worker increased by 0.6%. Average raised 5% per year. Washington state has already kept up well above this.)

Also, the 66% minimum wage increase your referring to was from tipped workers. It was like $1.20 to $2.00 an hour - or something like that. In other words, they depended on tips way way way more than the minimum wage. Fail again.

And one more point. Why look at Vancouver, BC in Canada. Just look at Seattle "livible wage" study done by MIT. Google this phrase "Living Wage Calculation for Seattle city" and it comes right up. 3rd Fail.

Strike three, your out.

I dont know if The Stranger will let me post this, but to prove that the "living wage" is NOT at $22 or even $27 an hour, here is a link to the MIT test:

http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/5303363…

@22,

Are you trying to prove yourself wrong? Did you actually look at the contents of your link?

@21,

Had the national minimum wage kept up with inflation (not cost of living, not productivity) since the late '60s, it would be $10.50/hour. It's almost like you're lying your ass off.

@9 Training means jack fucking shit if the jobs aren't there for the trained workers.

Schill in Seattle,

In 1988( when I518 passed) the national minimum wage was 3.35 and Washington State was 2.30 "well below". The raise to 3.80 the next year brought Washington from being significantly below market to above the market by roughly 15%. By 1991 ( 2years after it took effect) unemployment rose in Washington State to 6.9% in December(from the previous 5.9% from December of 1988) and then 7.4% the following year in 1992. For a point of comparison I will save you the trouble and let you know that the National unemployment rate did increase as well during that time frame but not as high as Washington.

Goes to show you're cherry picked point is garbage. Now ferociously try to disprove this and try and prove that at 9.35( top MW at state level) that raising the MW at 67% will not cause job loss in Seattle. Stop being a hypocrite shopping at the local Mom and pop stores you are pushing of a cliff and use Amazon.

http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-sta…

@23
The "living wage" is different for different people. Applying a one-size-fits all solution to an incredibly diverse workforce, is damaging to people whom may not fit into that size. Basing policy off of a fraction of workers is idiotic.

---

Let me correct your last sentence for you, "If you take the highest federal minimum wage that has ever existed, in history, and apply that wage to inflation data, it would be around $7.60..." according to national inflation data. At any rate, Ill give you the $10.50 since inflation calculations are tricky over 45 years. Fine. That is not $15. That is $10.50, which is much nearer to what our state already has. A big big difference.

I do not want to experiment with Seattle for the sake of Socialist rhetoric or Union special interest. You support passing policy that is an experiment in Seattle, and this would be devastating to many workers and small businesses.

@27 - Like domestic partnership registries were devastating to families? Like marijuana reform being devastating to children? Like paid sick leave has caused a devastating economic apocalypse?

HORRORS.

Why are conservatives always so afraid of every little thing? All I ever hear out of them is some variation on "we can't do that - it'll be HORRIBLE!" And yet, way more often than not, the negative consequences, if any, tend to be small-to-practically nonexistent.

ACA - HORRIBLE! Unless you're one of the 8,000,000 + Americans who either get healthcare for the first time, or get coverage at drastically reduced premiums

OBAMA - HORRIBLE! Said after 8 years of complete fuckery by a GOP President.

Abortions - HORRIBLE! Unless you're a rich, white person who can afford to send your daughter on a little "overseas vacation"

Gun Control - HORRIBLE! Even when the freaking GUN INDUSTRY invents an actual GUN that can't be fired by a curious 2 year-old.

$15 Minimum Wage - HORRIBLE! Except of course for the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of currently underpaid workers in Seattle who, according to Conservatives, apparently don't deserve even the nominal human dignity of earning enough to pay their basic living expenses.

Mass Transit - HORRIBLE! Because why would automobile commuters want to pay for those "freeloading" transit riders to ride their stupid buses, when they should all be stuck on the freeway in super-congested traffic for several hours a day like "real people"?

Federal Government - HORRIBLE! Unless Conservatives are running the show then it's all "mission accomplished, git 'er done, fellas and Good Job!"

Taxes - HORRIBLE! Hey, whyn't them lazy public employees out fixin' pot holes or learning mah youngun's whiles I'm at work!

Science - HORRIBLE! Besides, why should I give a fuck about Global Warming - Jeebuz gonna take me up to Heaven long before that happens!

I could just go on and on...

@29

"nominal human dignity"

Is this how you view your local book store worker/barista/17yr old grocery shelf stocker. Get out of the country, literally.

A mighty broad brush you paint with there COMTE. Conservatives?

Your rogues gallery of bullet points there have a more nuanced agree/disagree crowd than you think, I suspect.

@30:

So, just to clarify, do you believe all workers deserve at least a nominal amount of human dignity or not?

Comte you have some issues.
This is clearly a social justice issue for you and you willing to mark every "dissenter" of this ridiculous premise as the dreaded "conservative" label when i fact we are liberal.
The benefit that I see is more white people & higher skilled minorities who get the new $15 dollar jobs & rotate out low skilled workers and minorities. What "human dignity is their in crushing the truly poor with replacing them with the working class poor. Your to drunk in your idealogy to see that is what happens to poorest of workers over and over again which is why were here today. Unemployment may have not increased dramatically as whole but have you noticed how much more white seattle is today then it was 15years ago. Stop promoting discrimination

@32:

Son, if you're "liberal" then I guess I'm going to have to spend more time outside shoveling the pig droppings falling from the sky down onto my front yard.

Seriously, THIS is your argument? By paying people a Living Wage we are actually impoverishing them? Man, Orwell would be so proud of your proficiency in NewSpeak.

You DO understand the concept of a MINIMUM wage, yes? "Minimum" in this case meaning "you can't pay anyone LESS than that amount". So, if EVERY job pays at least $15 an hour, including all the manual labor jobs most white Americans won't touch with a 10 foot window washing pole, how exactly does this have a negative impact on unskilled or less skilled workers? Particularly when the historical reocrd clearly shows that every other time the MW has gone up, exactly NONE of the outcomes you posit have occurred; overall unemployment doesn't increase, small businesses don't fail at any higher rate than before the increase (and lest we forget, some 80% of MW workers are actually employed by large corporations, not mom & pop self-starters), workers at the low end of the earning spectrum aren't suddenly displaced by massive hordes of more skilled workers - these things have literally never happened. In fact, the ONLY people who make these spurious and unsubstantiated claims are - wait for it - Conservative outlets like The Heritage Foundation and their ilk. So, on what basis do you make the claim that suddenly THIS ONE TIME things will be completely different, and furthermore, hold this up as a "liberal" position?

I don't think I'm the one who's "drunk" on something here - maybe next time try typing when you're sober - if nothing else, your spelling and grammar should improve dramatically, even if it has no effect on your ability to construct a cogent argument.

@33 "when the historical record clearly shows that every other time the MW has gone up, exactly NONE of the outcomes you posit have occurred".

Challenge accepted!

Minimum wage has been a teenage job killer:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba292

Minimum wage causes higher unemployment in black than whites:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/mini…

Furthermore, $15 is not only one of the highest immediate raises ever, it is also higher than the national min-wage HAS EVER BEEN IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA. There is no data for such a high number. You support an experiment on Seattle.

This is a social justice issue, at least there we can agree.

@5, the difference is the owners stealing from the poor, not the other way around. without labor capital is worthless. in fact all capital is created by labor. yet somehow everyone is hoodwinked into believing that our economic system - capitalism - is somehow wonderful and synonymous with a free society, yet "owning" interests in every economic activity are entitled to extract a portion of the value created by labor for no other contribution than having previously amassed capital by the same exploitative means...

Demanding $15/Hr makes $12/hr look like the moderate compromise position, the way demanding single payer healthcare makes the public option look like a moderate compromise position. If you open a negation with the compromise you eventually hope to settle on, you lose. Every time. Good to see Democrats finally learning this lesson.

@34:

Really? Citing one "study" from a Libertarian-backed "think tank" whose expressed goal is total privatization of federal "social safety net" programs, funded by a plethora of RW backers such as the Koch Bros., Adolph Coors and the Heritage Foundation, and that can't be corroborated either by peer-review or by empirical study - AND one blog post from a shill for the American Enterprise Institute whose own "analysis" gets thoroughly dbunked - multiple times - in his own comments section? Really, that's all you've got?

I'd call your attempt pathetic on its face, but I suspect you already know that...

@37. Fail again. Those studies were using BLS numbers.

I dont care if the people whom made the correlation suck dick for a living. I just had to disprove the statement that, "historical record clearly shows that every other time the MW has gone up.. NONE of the outcomes... have occurred".

Furthermore, if raising the minimum wage to $15 (a minimum-wage amount that has never been tried before even if you factor in inflation), why not $18, why not $1000? To suggest that when MW goes up, "nothing happens" to people whom are more discriminated against in our society, and low-skilled workforce, clearly you can see that at SOME point, SOME minimum-wage level will hurt people that need jobs.

If you can agree to that, then the question is: At what level of minimum-wage raise will harm those people in society that are already discriminated against?

I believe $15 in Seattle will push those people already discriminated against to Tacoma or Everett to find jobs, among other negative consequences.

@38:

Speaking of failure - concocting an argument by taking some federal numbers out-of-context and skewing the results to fit an already pre-conceived outcome isn't a "study" it's propaganda, pure-and-simple. As I've stated, they've already been debunked, they don't fit any actual results observed in real life - and no credible economist agrees with these so-called "findings", so that tells me pretty much everything I need to know.

Again, your "why not $18 or $1000?" false-equivalency argument is an old, tired, and completely unsupportable canard - no one is trying to set a "maximum-minimum wage", which is what you're suggesting. $15 an hour is the goal, because, in Seattle at least, that's what it would take for a single person working full-time to earn enough income to pay for basic needs: food, clothing, shelter, transportation and some very rudimentary health coverage. It's not intended for anything beyond that; again, it's a MINIMUM WAGE, get it?

And what you believe is irrelevant; what matters is what has already been proven to be the case, and study after study - credible studies done by credible individuals and organizations - all point to an increase in the MW as resulting in net-positive outcomes: for employees, who will have more cash to pay for necessities; for employers, who will benefit from less turnover and higher productivity; and for consumers, who, even if some businesses raise prices slightly on the front-end, will see growth in their own businesses as more people have more money to spend on the goods and services they create.

And even IF a few people do end up seeking employment in Everett or Tacoma, maybe THAT will be beneficial to them as well: maybe they actually live closer to those places, so their commensurate transportation costs will be lower; and the fact that a neighboring city is paying a higher MW will also create upward pressure on employers in adjacent cities, if they want to attract low-skilled workers who could make more somewhere else.

Comte enough with the arrogant rooster cogburn crap. "Son" if you are a liberal...blah blah. Look if the sky is blue and a conservative says the sky is blue-- i am not going to disagree on the context of who it came from and say its green to be a "proud little liberal". Which clearly you cannot rationally argue, and therefore I would say you are perfect illustration of an "idealist" idiot.

What I can surmise of the hodge podge of you"re posts is that you are at best a bully who imagines himself to be something more then a middle aged white guy of influence. Likely you have never owned a business nor been in a position of influence..derived from your rhetoric.
Perhaps these small business owners who will be making the hiring & firing decisions would be a good place to start to have the conversation..as opposed to assuming what Seattle Small Business owners will do based on empirical data that is skewed whatever way you want.

Or don't engage in that dialogue & continue to look like the "court jester" of this website with your myopic political commentary crap that has minimal bearing on the MW discussion.

@40:

1. If you're younger than me, then "son" is a perfectly acceptable salutation.

2. You've yet to disprove any of the "hodge-podge" of anything I've posted - if you can't do that, what exactly is the point of arguing a position that is so easily refutable?

3. Stating facts isn't "bullying"; trying to force someone to believe something that isn't factual, IS.

4. How can I be, on the one hand "a middle aged white guy of influence", and on the other "have never...been in a position of influence." If can't keep from contradicting yourself in two adjacent sentences, you have a problem.

5. If it's empirical data by-definition it speaks for itself; the only "skewing" is when people attempt to force the data fit predetermined conclusions to which it does not correlate; basically the same trap into which NickCapHill keeps throwing himself.

6. If my "myopic political commentary crap" has such minimal bearing on the discussion, WHY do you keep responding to it? Why do you expend so much time and energy on something you find so inconsequential?

7. Learn to spell and use proper grammar and punctuation. It won't improve your arguments per se, but it'll at least give people the impression you have some modicum of intelligence.

Comte-- try to limit exuberance to a few paragraphs instead of writing a novel. Readers lose interest after point 4 in your posts.

Middle aged tech geek white guy apparently does not need to refute being "wind up toy" for socialism. When confronted with facts from Nick Cap Hill ..you then focus not on the facts > but where it came from instead. Hence my analogy about blue sky ect.

So I conclude that you are an ideologue who lacks wisdom and impartiality on this issue.

So i think its safe to say that you will be ignored and viewed by readers as the arrogant-court jester that you come across as.

@41
You still did not answer the question. Let me rephrase it.

At what level do you think minimum-wage would have to be to start to have consequences to people whom are discriminated against in our society, vs. people whom are not as likely to be discriminated against?

Could we raise it to $8? $12? 67? 215?

@42- Nick Caphill didn't present facts. The facts were from the BLS, Nick presented a opinion and analysis of the facts from highly partisan sources.

Grownups can read more than a couple paragraphs. If you're not going to discuss these issues at a grownup and honest level, then perhaps you out to withdraw from the debate. And stop voting.

@43- A $15 minimum wage will have drastic effects on the discriminated against in Seattle. They'll get paid a lot more.

@42:

I'm sorry your inability to focus on anything longer than a Twitter post makes you incapable of grasping an argument that might contain slightly more nuance than "some guy said something I agree with, so it must be true!" Besides, you're not looking for "impartiality", you're looking for someone to parrot your own equally unsupportable assertions back at you.

In short, you got nothing.

@43:

Ask a question that makes sense, and I'll be more than happy to take a crack at it. But, since it's pretty obvious you either haven't been paying attention, or are just willfully obtuse, may I suggest you read the following words VERY...SLOWLY...and give them plenty of time to sink through the turgid, muck-encrusted layers of cognitive dissonance infecting your neural pathways. Ready? Okay, begin:

$15 an hour is the amount being proposed, because that's what's been determined to be a wage level just barely adequate to meet MINIMUM living conditions in the Seattle market. That's why it's called a "minimum wage".

Now, what more do you need to know to understand this very elementary concept?

@COMTE

Hmm. So I think in your obviously arrogant response, you are saying that $15 an hour is the level at which everyone working in Seattle will be fairly employed? And your "economists", that have NO POLITICAL AGENDA whatsoever have determined that $15 an hour is the magic number that achieves this goal in Seattle.

One more question: Who is your dealer, cause I want some of those drugs.

Stick to negotiating contracts for actors. No wonder you are such a shill for socialism and a higher MW being a union crony. You have been fighting for it for awhile for profit. You must be a natural Comte. Irony is a bitch and you will get a big mouth full of it..very soon I imagine.
Now lets "wind you up " and you can chirp about "impartiality" you union hack.

Stick to negotiating contracts for actors. No wonder you are such a shill for socialism and a higher MW being a union crony. You have been fighting for it for awhile for profit. You must be a natural Comte. Irony is a bitch and will turn around and bite you..very soon I imagine.
Now lets "wind you up " and you can chirp about "impartiality" & stuff..

@46:

It's not the economists with the political agenda: their job is to simply research local market conditions, and based on the data they gather come up with an hourly wage number that fits the established criteria for what would be required to meet minimal cost-of-living in that market. $15 an hour is what they've determined to be the answer to the equation. Whatever "political agenda" there may be resides solely with those who either agree or disagree with their assessment. If you believe their calculations to be in-error, I would suggest you find another group of economists who can replicate the research and see if they come up with a different figure in response. Because, you know, that's how scientific analysis is supposed to work.

@47/48:

Well, at least we now see your true colors: apparently, you believe paying people sub-standard wages, forcing taxpayers to make up the difference by supplementing your avarice via increased contributions to the social safety net, while you as the employer reap the profit off their backs, is just peachy-keen. Thanks for clearing that up for the rest of us.

Not that we had any real doubt as to YOUR agenda of course.

And seriously, do try and stay away from multiple mixed metaphors; in your case, they are definitely NOT your friend...

@48 You won. I give up. I'm off to beat my head against SCCC's wall to the sound of Justin Beiber. It is much more enlightening.

Ultimately, it's important to remember that the wealth created is because of the workers, not the owners. Bosses/owners/"employers" steal from working people; a minimum wage increase is just reducing the theft a fraction.

@51 So the workers come up with the business model, do payroll and administrative duties, schedule and train, ect. ect.? a person who could be considered a managing partner and puts in 16 hour days is stealing how exactly?

@53- "Who the fuck would create manufacturing jobs in Seattle? "

Someone who put treating their fellow humans and the environment in a moral fashion above extracting the maximum possible number of dollars from the world no matter what the cost.

@49

Settle down Chris. It isn't a big surprise that MW hikes can hurt the least skilled, most discriminated against, etc.

We lost middle class jobs, we are recovering those job numbers in low wage positions - with me so far? OK, great. Who were the people that lost their middle class jobs? Older, whiter(on average), better educated than the aforementioned least skilled, most discriminated against, yes? Still with me? Good!

So, who gets the $15/hour job - the older, better educated, whiter(on average) applicant, or the teenage minority?

Go ahead and get all snitty at me if you like Comte, but MW raises really can hurt the chances of the most needy and disadvantaged.

Ultimately I believe the cost of living will simply increase to offset any minimum wage increase, but that'll be a forum topic with rabid leftists blaming and criticizing any dissenters in 18 months or so.