Not enough like Twitter.

Nick CapHill
Capitol Hill, Seattle
website report this user


Grew up on Capitol Hill Formerly SCCC and UW graduate Lives, bikes, drives, and works… more »

Nick CapHill is burger flippin again.
Sep 23, 2014 Nick CapHill commented on In New York, Sawant Calls for Energy Corporations to Be Nationalized.
I bet you nationalizing energy corporations will go as well as nationalizing the control of the value of the dollar, healthcare, social security funds, USPS, and mortgage backing.

Which are all pretty much doomed for failure once I hit retirement age.
Jul 28, 2014 Nick CapHill commented on Guest Editorial: The Rent Is Too Damn High, Let's Get It Under Control.
Here we go again. Spears is a graduated economists that does not understand the economy - nor looks at plain examples of centralized control of the economy and how they have not succeeded. Especially with rent control.

"Market forces will tend to invest in high-end housing first... Research shows that new construction of expensive apartments doesn't generate affordable housing, and some experts think it may even be pushing rents higher"

At least she says something here that is somewhat meaningful. Affordable rent is a problem of aging housing. IN that "affordable" rent problem started happening long before Spears was out of diapers. Restrictive Seattle zoning laws, and a boom in urban inward flight creates the problem. As buildings age, you have cheaper rent.

Rent control will prohibit new construction, thus contributing to the problem years down the road.

Seattle is on the right track. We are still licking our wounds from a boom in population. Lets not cause more wounds.

Does Spears really want to up another government bureaucracy that somehow thinks that it can properly control the complex and hugely different market of rent? The Rental Market is an incredibly detailed and huge market with vastly different types of housing, types of needs. To think that somehow some central authority can regulate this properly is, well, absurd. This *IS* the definition of "NANNY STATE".

Jul 23, 2014 Nick CapHill commented on Seattle City Council Asks Feds to Ban Unsafe Oil Tanker Cars Immediately.
IF we understand that tap water is safer and cheaper than bottled water, we can then extrapolate that piped oil will also be safer and cheaper than transported oil.

Case in point above.
Jul 23, 2014 Nick CapHill commented on Referendum on the $15 Minimum Wage Will Not Go to the Ballot This Year.
@89 - “you dodge an obvious caveat to your point, which is that.. we pay more for care, and receive less ... than nation-states which almost all have some form of socialized care.”

I find this quote funny on two points. One, is that you are doing what you accused me of doing (Remember your jab? “non-literary types.. ill-schooled in nuance “). Second, it does not matter whom the customer is. Non-authoritarian (freer-market) approach to socialized benefits work to help the poor. Whether the state pays for the service, or individuals, that is for another discussion. Pricing negotiations are better left when parties can negotiate freely, unmanipulated by government.

My point in all of this was to present another example in which we do not need a centralized authoritarian structure to have huge benefits to the working poor.

“if wages aren't to be indexed in some meaningful way to the cost of living, the difference needs to be made up somewhere. ”

Again, (as I suggested in post #83) we should understand terms before using them. SEIU, and the 15now loved to throw out the term Cost of Living and Living Wage without defining it. They are relative, thus meaningless to the debate.

What is the meaning of cost-of-living? In incredibly complex markets, like wage negotiations, you have a huge amount of different needs and costs. A teenager living at home has a different cost-of-living than say a single mom with 4 kids; a mentally challenged adult; a college intern; a new immigrant living in South Park; a Capitol Hill hipster; or you and I.

But I understand your sentiment. My argument for making-up “the difference” is to make the rules fair. Keep taxes local and democratized. Keep the price of goods low with free-market negotiations. Eliminate wasteful spending that benefits corporations as well as unions. Most importantly, stop giving the corporations and unions huge unfair advantages over people, especially the working poor.

Will we walk away from this little bitty Stranger debate changing each others minds? I dont think so. But I think we should stop and come back in 5 years to see where Seattle is at with the whole minimum-wage debate. Fair enough?

I appreciate the debate and only wish the best. _Nick
Jul 22, 2014 Nick CapHill commented on Referendum on the $15 Minimum Wage Will Not Go to the Ballot This Year.
@86 - Yes, I agree with most of what you said. As you said, "all valuation is arbitrary". And it should be arbitrary. If valuation were not arbitrary, it would indeed be tyrannical.

The things you may deem important as "basic blocks" to subsistence for all people in a society are often the most manipulated. And thus, harmful to the people whom most need these basic blocks.

One example with medical care.

The obvious state of one of your "basic blocks", that of medical-care, in this country is all to clear. The macro-data shows that we pay more for care, yet receive less. This is compared to other similar countries. In this example, allowing medical services/goods to be free from tyranny (government manipulation) would tremendously help out the people we claim to care about. Many, even on the left, recognize that lacking a freed-market approach to price negotiations IS the problem with medical care. The Medicaid cost of $77 for a box of gauze, after all, has everything to do with socializing (if you will) the profit for corporations, and very little to do with helping the poor.…

It is not as if you and I disagree with the goals, but it is just that we differ on the roads to get us there. As I repeat like a mantra, the solution is for the government to be simple, and the rules fair for all.

It is not fair for huge wealthy corporations to essentially be given trillions to speculate in real estate markets like Seattle, and drive up prices of property. This is a form of tyranny of the poor, to those whom may own, or have the privelidge to speculate in Seattle property.

It is also not fair for government to come in and to tell an employee (and employer) that the wage you agree upon is not legal. This manipulation can be tyrannical to some, for the benefit of others.

Indeed, this has been the case:…

Jul 22, 2014 Nick CapHill commented on Referendum on the $15 Minimum Wage Will Not Go to the Ballot This Year.
@84 - It would seem you are suggesting that YOU have the right to put a value on your work, but that those paying for your work do not have that right. I can see how an authoritarian socialist economy would serve you well.

With the direction that Seattle is going in, it makes me wonder if my dream of becoming a triangle player for an orchestra was given-up too early in life.
Jul 21, 2014 Nick CapHill commented on Referendum on the $15 Minimum Wage Will Not Go to the Ballot This Year.
@77 "The market is not, by and large, a fairer mistress than the state;"

In order to make generalizations on how the "market" should be controlled, an understanding of what the market *is*, needs to be defined.

The market is where the "social" negotiates.

The market is not just about negotiations on labor cost, or stocks, or capital, it is also where people come to agree on other things. This could be marriage, international trade, services, drugs. It is vast and, or course, incredibly complex.

Socialists believe in authoritarian control over the "social". Free-market advocates, like Libertarians and c_s agree in less restrictions on how the "social" behave.

When you say that the state is a "fairer" mistress than the market, this is incredibly naive. Should the state have a right to define how the "social" operate? Like whom whom you marry, what stocks you can trade, what you can write in the press, how you sell your time/labor, and from whom, what plant you may smoke.

But I understand that in THIS thread, you are referring to how the market behaves when negotiation what price someones time and labor is worth. So you are referring to, in part, economic state control. (Rather than -say- social/personal choice or non capital negotiations). This is an important distinction.

I am not here to change your mind. I dont think I can. But I will say one thing to this: If you look historically at countries that have had state control economies, without a doubt you will see that the more extensive the state control is, the more inequality that favor of the elite and well connected. The more liberal economic controls are, the more equality of prosperity.

Contemporary and historical study of controlled economies have a pattern we can recognize when it comes to liberty and prosperity. These patterns do NOT agree with what you refer as a "fairer mistress".
Jul 18, 2014 Nick CapHill commented on Referendum on the $15 Minimum Wage Will Not Go to the Ballot This Year.
@74 - "with traditional paths for labor negotiations cut off how would you suggest rebalancing today's complex system? "

Keep the rules fair, and the government simple.

Boeing, SEIU, or even Comet Dogs should not have imbalances and favoritisms that benefit their industry. Labor and Unions have played important parts to American justice. But at the same time, as you admit, they can deviate from their own purpose and be used to benefit a few elite members.

In a nutshell, if SEIU can not grow membership and power through organization and education, it is disingenuous for them to do it through government. If not outright damaging.

Of course, this should be true across all industries.


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy