Smart Businesses Will Get Out In Front of the Minimum Wage Battle or Get Out of the Way


First of all, the claim that "opposition has already lost the minimum wage battle" is completely false. Most Americans are against the minimum wage being higher than 10/hour. Fact is, only 18% of Americans want the minimum wage to be higher than 10/hour. Source:…

Second, many places are fighting against the racist, anti-immigrant, anti-worker concept of a minimum wage itself. New Hampshire, for example, recently voted to remove the minimum wage completely from their books. Source:…

So saying the fight against this racist, job killing police is over is absurd. It may fly in Seattle, but this is SEATTLE, the worthless cesspool of liberalism.

This is the same Seattle where freedom of speech is under assault, you can go to jail for carrying something in a plastic bag and half the cities population appears to be boycotting bathing. Seattle is not representative of America in any way shape or form.

As for businesses, of course big businesses are going to be okay with a higher minimum wage. They can pay it. But small businesses, like the little immigrant run restaurant that maybe makes a 5% profit? This will destroy them. Why else did a bunch of Capitol Hill businesses send a letter to the mayor urging him to use common sense?

So this is anything but over and even if it is, it will just be another nail in Seattle's coffin of liberalism. Bottom line is this is a large country and those of us who want to live free can always move to Colorado, New Hampshire or Texas, where this idiocy will never pass.

This is just one more reason why the rest of the country looks at Seattle as being a collection of liberal fruitcakes with no common sense and yet another reason why I'm almost ashamed to say I live here.
Huge companies can leverage their wages internationally.
It's far more difficult for small local businesses-no matter how smart they are.
If the raise in the minimum wage isn't done intelligently, it will give chains a huge advantage over local businesses.
Is there any information provided by the Gap if the company will be reducing the overall number of jobs to help pay for this increase in wages? Will they be replacing any workers with automation or eliminating jobs by cutting services that guests used to receive? Or cutting the number of hours of these "higher paid" employees will be getting each week? Or cutting other benefits, like vacation and employee discounts, to keep their P&Ls aloft?

I wouldn't say the war is won if companies are increasing wages because it makes good PR but their employees are losing out everywhere else.

@1: please concentrate on leaving seattle as you promised.
@ 1 - Isn't it terrible how all that liberal policy has just destroyed the Seattle and Washington economies? What with our highest in the country minimum wage, relatively robust social services, and complete lack of anti-union laws. That must be why we Seattleites are longing for an economy more like that of Mississippi or Arkansas. This must also be the reason that all those Seattle (and other hippie west coast companies) that treat their employees decently and pay a living wage are doing so terribly--locally, nationally, and internationally.
@ 2 - That argument neglects the benefits that accrue to companies that pay decent livable wages. Dick's has been paying a living wage and providing robust benefits in an industry dominated by huge internationl companies that pay much less. It has not impacted their ability to compete. On the contrary, I suspect it is integral to their strategy.
#5...I would say that #1 isn't completely wrong about the minimum wage in a few respects: we may have a great economy up here, but we do have one of the worst unemployment records for teenagers in the US, and we also have one of the worst unemployment records for blacks. And for youth of color, it is amazingly bad: upwards of 60%. Raising the minimum wage to $15 isn't going to help those numbers go any lower.
@ 8 - You might be right that upping the minimum wage will not help those numbers, but it doesn't follow that upping the minimum wage is bad--or that a high minimum wage is to blame. I think it is pretty obvious that a high minimum wage is not the problem.

I think the biggest problem with the employment disparity is the disparity between schools and services in predominantly minority neighborhoods vs. affluent affluent neighborhoods. This means that minority kids tend to be less well prepared for the workforce. A problem that is made more pronounced in unemployment numbers as the number of truly undesireable and underpaying jobs drops (and, of course, magnified by other types of institutionalized discrimination). Expanding the pool of undesirable jobs doesn't seem like the solution to me.
@1 A vast majority of Americans support raising the minimum wage! That's what the poll you cite shows. They may not yet agree with Seattleites that the target should be $15, but the larger battle in the court of public opinion over raising the minimum wage has been won.
i agree that something needs to be done, and i think that raising the minimum wage is one of those things, but i have some serious concerns that always seem to get glossed over when i talk to the $15NOW people. @2 - local business is one of them. what about the local restaurants/bars that already operate on razor thin margins, to be able to afford to pay their people $15 they would have to jump their prices way up and that would make them less competitive vs large chains.

what about the people making more than $15 an hour now? i would bet that they won't be getting raises proportionate with how much they are making now, my guess is that this lower middle class will be shoved to the bottom rung.

what about the people in the current middle class? im guessing they wont be getting raises either, but as everything gets more expensive to pay for the new minimum wage their wages won't go as far as they did before, basically giving them a pay cut.

what about manufacturing in the city? theyre already competing with china/india/korea/etc, with i'd assume very thin margins as well, are we basically pushing those jobs out of the city?

i want to believe that these types of things have been thought out, but no one seems to have any answers for me.
OMG, the Gap supports phasing in a minimum wage hike over a full year and still not hitting what would be a living wage in Seattle. That's slave wages (built on an empire of cheap, sweat-shop clothes).
Why $10 will not cut it:…

Especially since Washington state has the most regressive tax set-up in the country!
This is about relative wages, not absolute wages. If Dick's or The Gap raises wages relative to Burger King or Express, they can lure higher-quality employees away from competing stores. If wages are raised via a minimum wage hike, The Gap receives no such benefit. Walmart-quality employees don't suddenly turn into Costco-quality employees just because their checks get bigger.
@12. It's not just $15Now glossing over these issues. Goldy is as well.
I also think big business and big labor are effectively representing their interests.
There needs to be a stronger voice representing small businesses.
@15, you are assuming that employees cannot increase their skills over time in response to proper incentives or just plain experience. There is nothing inherently better about a Costco employee when compared to a Walmart employee. It's just that the people at Costco are paid well, respected for their work, and so stay and develop skills over time.

I think the idea that there are inherent classes of workers or people is a big part of the problem. It also has its roots in simple bigotry, even when there are legitimate reasons for different skill levels in workers.

If you're talking about profits, local bars and restaurants are already at a disadvantage compared to large chains. And, yes, whenever operating expenses go up, for whatever reason, the most marginal businesses get pushed out. Is it really sound governmental policy to prop up rats nest restaurants?
Poor business strategy and planning is the usual culprit for an undercapitalized or bankrupt business. You work with what you got and 15 dollars is not an impossible number. I don't think it'll solve the housing problem as rents are too high already but I think it's a good step to getting people aware of how some people have to live.
and when you come knocking for $15 in Seattle these same business the "got out in front of the issue" are going to tell you, "fuck off, we already raised our minimum"
Seattle has a VERY LOW local purchasing power (LPP) compared to other cities, like Houston. Even though minimum wage workers in Houston make over two dollars less than their counterparts in Seattle, their money goes further. Source:…

If this 15/hour garbage passes, it will mean businesses will have to raise prices. Of that I don't think anyone is denying. If businesses raise their prices, the local purchasing power will drop even further.

That, and at 15/hour almost no one will be eligible for the Earn Income Tax Credit, which gives people making minimum wage the equivalent of a 2/hour raise.

Once adjusted for the new tax bracket and the decrease in local purchasing power, the minimum wage will end up being the equivalent of 12/hour or less, plus all the layoffs that will come with a 60% increase in labor costs.

So the obvious question is: why not just raise the minimum wage to 12/hour? Or, better yet, not make a mandatory wage increase the law but instead offer tax incentives to businesses that increase wages?

For any of that to happen we would need a city run by adults. Instead we have that slimy mayor and that crazy councilwoman whose prone to public temper tantrums (like her recent fast food protests)
@21, purchasing power goes up if wages outpace price increases. And unless you believe that wages are 100% of business costs (they never are), that won't happen. The only way purchasing power could go down is if all low-end restaurants simply close rather than increase prices by the additional cost of labor to maintain margins (or accept lower margins in the short term to develop a more productive workforce that will raise margins in the future.)

In short, you don't understand the economics of this situation very well. But your username suggests that.
I'm down with that C.S. Tax the super rich at a higher rate to supplement the tax incentives given to the businesses providing a higher wage. We have the wrong kind if socialist on the city council!
If you talk to the 15/now Cult..ah, I mean campaign, you'll find that it's like talking to a brick wall. They don't want to hear anything about compromise and don't want to hear facts and they will shut up and walk away every time you mention two words: AMERICAN SAMOA!…

I'm a libertarian and I am against any minimum wage and ideally I would like to see the minimum wage removed from the books. That being said, I understand we don't live in an idea world and I'm willing to compromise. Like perhaps giving businesses the choice: either pay 15/hour or, if you can't afford that, agree to profit share with your employees and give them a quarterly bonus based on profits. If the profits to pay for a wage increases aren't there, the business goes under. If it is making some profit than it can at least share some of the profits.

But the same people, like Goldy, pushing for this are the same ones who are completely unwilling to compromise while calling me an extremist because I am willing to compromise. Welcome to Seattle, where nothing makes sense.
No, we should not steal from the super rich...BUT, I would support taxing monopolies, most of whom became monopolies with government support (like Comcast) to offset the losses in revenues from giving tax incentives to businesses to wage raises. And we could also levy the income from the coming cannabis retail stores, which Colorado has shown can be very lucrative.
Did I say the entire thing would be wiped out by increases in local purchasing power? No. In fact I said it would result in the increase in minimum wages being about 12/hour in today's money, when you add in the loss of an earned income tax credit.
And I provided a link proving that Houston, with its $7.25 minimum wage, has a higher local purchasing power than Seattle, with its $9.32 minimum wage. Here goes some more of those annoying facts:…
And my used name refers to Collectivism, the political system of state control and seeing people not as individuals with individual rights, but as collectives. Here is a dictionary definition of it for you:…

Because I have to repeat myself because you obviously didn't understand what was written the only logical conclusion is that you have a reading comprehension problem. Might I suggest Hooked on Phonics?
@ 21/23 - Even if upping the minimum wage were to drop the LPP (which is a dubious claim, partially for the reasons @23), it would be the overall LPP. People whose wages are currently under $15/hr would see an increase no matter what. Only people making more than $15/hr might see a small decrease. But any increase would be almost entirely at the top--which is the point.
@27 - If you are going to be snide, at least make sense. Hooked on phonics doesn't have anything to do with comprehension. It is right there in the name.

And I would suggest that @23 did understand your argument. It is your argument that is confusing. You are saying that increasing the minimum wage would increase the purchasing power of the people whose purchasing power we are looking to increase. But, because a small portion of that increase will be eaten by an increase in the cost of goods, it is a bad idea. Like how when people win the lottery, but then you realize you have to give half of that money away in taxes, so they just decline the money to avoid paying the taxes?
@17: Costco offers a much higher starting wage than Walmart does. As a result, the employees Costco hires tend to have better skills and more experience than the employees Walmart hires. This has nothing to do with class and you're a boob for claiming that it does.
@ 30 - Read again, @17 says:

I think the idea that there are inherent classes of workers or people is a big part of the problem.

I think @17 was saying class has nothing to do with it, and the idea that it does is part of the problem. As in the idea that Costco attracts a better class of people than Walmart vs. the idea that Costco and Walmart attract similar people but Costco nurtures their employees, makes them feel valued, creating a better work place and therefore more productive employees.
That Costco and Walmart are hiring identical employees despite one company paying significantly more than the other is an absurd notion. You're going to have to try a lot harder than that.
@30 - At least when it comes to Costco, I think that @17 is correct. What Costco is famous for is hiring people more or less out of high school and then helping put them through college and then keeping them afterwards. Most of their executive level employees started at the very bottom. So it really isn't that Costco is using its higher wages to attract candidates with more experience, because almost all of their outside hires are for warehouse floor positions (they promote from within instead of hiring managers from outside). They really are hiring the same people that Walmart is hiring. Then they are using a living wage, the prospect of being able to rise to any level within the company (they don't hire business school grads, they send warehouse employees to business school), etc to cultivate a good relationship with their work force.…
I'll try to use smaller words that you can hopefully understand a little better.
If the minimum wage goes up, prices go up, and the wages don't go as far. Local purchasing power decreases. Add to that the loss of the earned income tax credit and the new tax bracket people making more find themselves in, and all of a sudden 15/hour doesn't really go that far.

Does the decrease in purchasing power ALONE mean this is a bad idea? No. But add to that the loss of jobs such an increase will cause, the increase in unemployment of low skilled workers and the increase in youth unemployment and the fact that this will hurt small businesses more than it will giant corporations, and it all adds up to a disaster.

The obvious solution is some kind of compromise which I, unlike the 15 Now cult or Goldy, am willing to do. For example, raise the minimum wage to maybe 10.50/hour and give tax incentives to businesses that go up further and tax penalties to businesses that don't. Then give those businesses that give all employees a living wage a special "stamp of approval", like the Fair Trade logo, to encourage people to choose them over competitors that don't pay their workers as much.

The result will be an increase in wages with minimum effect on purchasing power or employment. And this does have precedence: The Blue Eagle program was a stamp of approval program created by the FDR administration and it was relatively successful:
(sorry for the wikipedia article, but it's the quickest explanation I could find)

Bottom line is going from $9.36/hour to 15/hour in a single move is performing surgery with a chainsaw. Real, thinking adults would be able to put emotion aside and use logic to raise wages. Alas, Seattle is not run by logical adults.
" Smart Businesses Will Get Out In Front of the Minimum Wage Battle or Get Out of the Way"

Goldy, I'm glad you are on a big business promotional campaign today. You realize that Walmart, the gap have little to do with the economics of many of the businesses you visit in your own neighborhood. I can not believe how little voice, or objective thought you are putting towards small business struggles with making an absurd MW hike like 15 work into reality.

One thing is certain, small business CAN move out of the way for companies like The Gap and Wall Mart if more consideration is not put into the concept of total compensation for small business.
@ 34 - No. Minimum wage goes up by x (a percentage). Prices for some things--but not everything--then go up by as much as .25-.35x (a high end for labor as a percentage of cost, multiplied by x, the increase in that cost, and that is assuming no benefits from increased wages and everyone in the economy getting a raise equivilant to the bump in the minimum wage, both of which are unrealistic). So wages go up by x and cost of living goes up by some amount significantly less than .25-.35x. LPP therefore goes up by at least .65x (x - an amount < 0.35x). At least for the people making minimum wage. The people making a lot of money will probably see no change in their incomes and a slight (very slight relative to income) increase in the cost of local goods, and therefore a decrease in LPP (although the model assumes that they also got a raise of x).
As I said, three times already, decreasing the LPP is NOT the only reason a 15/hour MW is a bad idea, but also for the other reasons I cited. But it is a fact that higher wages do not necessary equal better LPP. The opposite is often true. As I showed before (but was ignored) Houston has a lower minimum wage than Seattle ($7.25/hour vs $9.36/hour) and yet their LPP is better.

So making $7.25/hour in Houston actually goes further than making $9.36/hour in Seattle. Source:…

The fact is that when you add the loss to LPP and taxes, 15/hour isn't worth the losses to small business, losses to jobs, less hours etc.

A "Blue Eagle" style campaign based on tax incentives and penalties plus a small increase in minimum wage is a much sounder, logical compromise. But alas, for the 15now cult words like "logical" and "compromise" are not part of their vocabulary.
@ 37 - No. You said increasing the minimum wage would decrease LPP. My contention isn't that a decrease in LPP alone would not be enough to justify opposition--it is that raising the minimum wage would increase not decrease LPP for people making minumum wage. That is straightforward and obvious.
@34 if you are earning WA minimum wage right now and working 19 hours or more a week, going up to $15 / hour will not change your 2014 tax bracket. Also remember that when you move into the next bracket, you are taxed on the income above that bracket's minimum value.
@ 37 - Also, your oft repeated claim that $7.25 in Houston goes further than $9.36 in Seattle is wrong, according to your source. According to your source $4,604.40 in Houston is equivilant to $4,900.00 in Seattle (assuming you rent in both cities). That means $1.00 dollar in Seattle goes as far as $0.94 (4.604.4/4900=0.94, think of that as like an exchange rate) in Houston. That means that $7.71 in Seattle would purchase as much as the $7.25 minumum wage does in Houston. In other words, the $9.36 Seattle minium wage would be equal to $8.80 in Houston. So making $9.36 in Seattle is better than making $7.25 in Houson. Significantly. By almost 10%. According to your source.

You are confusing the average purchasing power of the entire city with the purchasing power of people making minimum wage. You are also assuming that minumum wage is the prime driver for the difference between the LPP in the two cities, even though there is no evidence to support that correlation (as opposed to, say, cost of housing being the primary factor).
The snarky term for the sort of thing c_s is doing is "Gish Gallop". He's saying many many false things, demonstrably untrue but difficult to succinctly refute due to their sheer number. He's sacrificing quality for quantity.
@37 - I'm sorry, not almost 10%, more than 20%. People on minimum wage in Seattle have >20% more purchasing power than people making minum wage in Houston. Again, that is based on your source and I have no idea how accurate it is.

Also, it is best to avoid saying things like this:

I'll try to use smaller words that you can hopefully understand a little better.

Especially if you are wrong...
@41- I have never heard that term. It seems to be a common tactic. It also tends to win people over who can't see all the logical fallacies stacked on top of each other. That is basically how Fox News or Rush Limbaugh work.
@16 - Keck, the reason small business hasn't been able to make their case is because you have created a poisonous culture around expressing opinions your writers don't agree with. No small business owner in Seattle wants to disagree with The Stranger and then be slaughtered in your publication. In Seattle, a person could be for raising the minimum wage, for gun control, for every liberal position locally and nationally, and still be vilified as a greedy business owner wanting to exploit their workers at slave wages and portrayed as an evil Republican, because they want to raise the minimum wage to $15 in a different way than the dogmatic $15Now organization. Maybe you should think about the atmosphere your business has created that silences progressive voices in the small business world. Notice how people won't write the articles you ask them to? Think about it.
@44- Do you have an example of a local business slaughtered for one small difference in opinion?
@43: Named after the late Creationist Duane Gish, popularized by RationalWiki.
@ 44. Sheesh! Are you responding to my comments or is this in the middle of the night from wherever you're writing from?
Go for it morons. I will be laying off 2 employees if it happens.

I don't make a profit on either one, but the net effect is a small enough loss that I can subsidize them learning the trade at $10/hr. At $15/hr. it's not an option.

Down the road, I'll have trouble getting guys capable of doing the work, because the current crop of young ones won't have the skills since the positions where one learns the skills pay crappy wages in exchange for learning. Short sighted? Sure, but thanks to the Obama economy (or lack thereof) I can't pay guys just to learn.

So you assholes keep pushing the stupid and see what happens.
@ 48, I don't believe you own a business.
Again, if you actually read my link you would see the price of living in Houston is lower than it is in Seattle. Lower rent, lower food costs etc. The result is that money goes further in Houston as it does in most red cities.
Why not try actually reading the links first?
Again, in Houston, as the link I provided proves, rent is cheaper, food is cheaper, everything is cheaper. Hence, money goes further. At the bottom of the link you ignored there is a graph showing the price of living in Houston vs Seattle.
Fact is, despite being bigger and having more population density, money goes further in Houston. Here it is again, the liberals enemy: FACTS
"In first place is Houston, where the average annual wage in 2011 was $59,838, eighth highest in the nation. What puts Houston at the top of the list is the region’s relatively low cost of living, which includes such things as consumer prices and services, utilities and transportation costs and, most importantly, housing prices: The ratio of the median home price to median annual household income in Houston is only 2.9, remarkably low for such a dynamic urban region; in San Francisco a house goes for 6.7 times the median local household income. Adjusted for cost of living, the average Houston wage of $59,838 is worth $66,933, tops in the nation."

Actually, what I'm doing is citing sources and using facts, something liberals rarely do.

Notice no one else is citing sources or making a real argument or, more importantly, providing any compromise or alternative. I'm saying let's use tax incentives and penalties as well as public pressure by choosing to shop at businesses that provide better wages as opposed to ones that don't to bring wages up without hurting businesses and employment.

But for the liberal fanatics, that isn't good enough. It's their way or the highway. Fortunately there is still freedom of movement in this country and I can and will leave this liberal, racist, statist, anti-freedom cesspool for someplace in which people have common sense.

Again, the question no one is answering: because this will NEVER pass on nationwide level thanks to the GOP (they have their uses) what makes anyone think this will ever happen in Texas? And, for that matter, what would happen if a Sawant ran for office in Houston or Dallas?

And Appeals to emotions are how liberals work in all endeavors. Like this idiotic 15/hour push: sure it SOUNDS good, but in reality it will be very, VERY bad.

A liberal is like someone giving children candy for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Sure, it SEEMS like the nice thing to do, but in reality it is bad for them. Likewise having any minimum wage seems like a good idea, but it causes nothing but unemployment, hardship and hurts those it claims to help.

An example is the obvious correlation between youth unemployment, especially African American youth unemployment, and a higher minimum wage. Here it is, in a simple graph using data from the Department of Labor itself:…

Another example is American Samoa: raising their minimum wage almost made that poor region even poorer. Source:…

We libertarians and conservatives understand that sometimes that which seems counter intuitive may be the best thing to do. Liberals either can't understand that or choose to ignore that and condemn those they claim to help all so they can feel good about themselves.

And what venomlash is doing is what liberals often do when confronted with an opposing argument: argumentum ad lapidem. He's just dismissing an argument as "right wing blah blah..." while not providing any counter argument.
@37, 50: Your math is wrong, as brent.b pointed out. Or rather, your unsupported claims in lieu of any simple arithmetic are wrong.
Your link claims that $4604 in Houston will go as far as $4900 in Seattle. (That is, money is worth about 6% more in Houston in basic purchasing power.) You then claim that you're therefore better off making $7.25 in Houston than $9.36 in Seattle. Excuse me, that's a hefty 29% increase in wage! If you make the minimum wage, you're actually getting 21% more in Seattle than Houston.
Please stop making arguments that the facts, especially the facts you yourself supply, don't back up.

@53: OF COURSE teen unemployment rises as the minimum wage does. If you have to pay your workers slightly more, you'll look for slightly more-skilled workers, which leaves teenagers out in the cold in that regard. However, that's not necessarily a bad thing! TEENAGERS SHOULD BE IN SCHOOL, NOT WORKING FULL TIME.

Requiring that every fallacious point be refuted is exactly how the Gish Gallop works. I really don't have the time to debunk ALL of your claims, so I'm giving out some free samples. That doesn't mean that the stuff I pass by is correct or accurate or anything.Also, you've demonstrated that you use terms of logic without knowing their meaning, confusing simple name-calling with "argumentum ad hominem" and using the term "strawman" to describe a secondary point raised and supported by people arguing against you rather than a misrepresentation of your own argument. You also had the chutzpah to claim "[i]f you can't argue using simply facts and logic, try not to argue at all" after spending much of the thread engaged in argumentum ad lolcat.
Why can't businesses have a minimum sales price? Oh, that's right, the world economy will collapse with trade wars if cheap, foreign produced goods have a minimum price (tariff) put on them. If TVs, shoes, and automobiles had a higher minimum price minimum wage might not be a problem. Hopefully those who demand a higher wage will only buy products made by people who are paid the same or more then them.
@ 52:

Actually, what I'm doing is citing sources and using facts, something liberals rarely do.


A case of it being funny because it's untrue.
Again, my math is accurate as the neutral third party sources I've linked has proven.
Here it is again: clearly it shows that the cost of living in Houston is lower than it is in Seattle:…

So if liberal policies are so great, why is it liberal cities are so expensive compared to moderate ones? No one is answering that question because THERE IS NO GOOD ANSWER.

As for teenage unemployment, WHERE THE HELL DID I SAY YOUTH SHOULD WORK FULL TIME?! I didn't. That is a strawman let me define that term since your liberal mind doesn't seem to understand it.

I make a claim: higher minimum wage makes it harder for teenagers to find work. You say "good because teenagers should not be working full time, they should be in school." Your rebuttal had NOTHING to do with my claim because I didn't say anything about teenagers quitting school and working full time, but it was just about youth employment in general. Hence, your rebuttal was nothing but a strawman.

I am sure you may not know this, but having a PART TIME JOB is good for young people as it lets them earn money and teaches them that dirty word liberals hate to hear: responsibility.

I think it's actually pretty dreadful if teenagers can't work part time or during the summer. Granted, most liberals are wealthy, so it doesn't surprise me that they don't understand why some teenagers want to make some money to buy a car that their parents can't afford them.

Also, I NEVER said that $4,600 in Houston will go as far as $4,900 in Seattle. Scroll up and show me where I said that: I didn't. Yet another strawman.

Third, pointing out how Local purchasing power decreases when labor costs increase was only a part of the argument. When you add how after mm goes up to 15/hour the price of everything goes up AND the fact that people making 15/hour will most likely no longer qualify for the earned income tax credit AND may find themselves in a different tax bracket, it brings the 15/hour down a notch or two.

When it all adds up what we have is people making maybe the equivalent of 12/hour today give or take.

So, as we clearly see your "arguments" are based on fallacies, not backed up by facts and amount to no more than liberal daydreaming.

And, you (again) never answered the question: considering that Seattle is a well known liberal cesspool that most Americans with sense avoid and that Congress will be controlled by the GOP for the foreseeable future (thanks to Gerrymandering) the fact is this 15/hour crap will most likely never happen nationally.

So...what are the chances of this passing in Texas, New Hampshire, Alaska or any other state filled with people with common sense?

And, what would happen if Sawant tried to run for office in Houston, Dallas or Amarillo?

Feel free to avoid the question.
Please show me where anyone else used a link to a neutral, third party source to back up their claims. If you can do so I'll donate $20 to 15Now.
@57: Houston has a lower cost of living but also a lower minimum wage than Seattle. You claimed that the cost of living effect more than compensates for the minimum wage effect. As brent.b and I explained, that is patently untrue according to your own sources.
I quote you VERBATIM: "making $7.25/hour in Houston actually goes further than making $9.36/hour in Seattle."
That is a bald-faced lie. Own up to it, and do the math next time before you make wild claims.

Roughly 3/4ths of unemployed youth (ages 16-24) are seeking full-time employment rather than part-time employment (source). Your claim that teens working full-time doesn't relate to teen employment in general doesn't hold water.

Your grasp of terminology remains shaky at best. A strawman is not when an irrelevant or tangential point is raised; a strawman is when someone pretends that their opponent argued something in order to refute it rather than addressing the argument opponent actually made. An example is when you claimed I was arguing against youth part-time employment rather than acknowledging my actual point (which was, for the sake of clarity, that lower rates of youth full-time employment are acceptable losses). Also, your use of direct quotes needs a little work; you quote me as saying something which I never actually said.

@58: In post #40, brent.b used your link "to a neutral, third party source" to back up his claim.
Send those folks a Jackson!
@ 58, that wasn't the part of your sentence that I found specious.
The cost of living is lower in Houston, and yet it is not run by liberal policies. How did that happen? You have no answer.

And when did I say youth FULL TIME employment? I didn't. YOU were the one who brought up youth full time employment, while I was talking about employment in general. Hence, bringing something into the equation (teens working and not going to school) that has nothing to do with what I was saying (teens having ANY job at all, including the traditional Summer job) is the definition of a strawman.

And I said "Please show me where anyone else used a link to a neutral, third party source to back up their claims" "Used", if you didn't know this, is a past tense word. I did not not say "if someone uses a third party link to cite their source." I was talking about post 1-58 obviously.

But why should I expect the same people who most likely voted for Obama to look at what is actually written? After all, that fascist piece of shit gets away with bombing kids in Pakistan and taking money from Goldman Sachs and no one pays attention, why should the same people who probably (but I'm not sure, I admit) support that bastard pay attention to the tenses I use?

And you still ignored the question: where else but in liberal cesspools like Seattle would a 15/hour wage ever pass? Where else but in extremely liberal cesspools would Sawant get elected?

The fact is, Seattle is like an insane asylum: just as the one person who doesn't hear voices in his head in the asylum may be considered "crazy" by the lunatics there in but is normal everywhere else, a limited government advocate may be "crazy" in Seattle but is normal everywhere else.

Once you get out of the People's Republic of Seattle, such insanity as what Goldy is pushing is dismissed as it rightfully should.
@61: I explained why it's reasonable to treat youth employment and youth full-time employment similarly. If you can't read and understand that, it's not my problem.
You support my claim that you're bad at math when can't tell if 40 is between 1 and 58. In that light, I'm starting to think you actually are unable to understand why a low cost of living might not necessarily make up for a low minimum wage.

I'm not going to make conjecture about whether laws passing in Seattle are likely to pass elsewhere. You see, I am not a Seattleite but rather a proud Chicagoan, buddy.
@ 44
Actually, I just read Dom's Facebook post and you're absolutely right. And that needs to change.
Seattle has a remarkable small, progressive, business community who has legitimate concerns on the way we raise the minimum wage.
Impressive display of alphabet soup, number one.
@49 Go to hell.

@ Keck - I tried to provide my situation as an example and I get this shit.

@ 65 - You literally started your comment off by calling the people who disagree with you morons. Then you whine about people being mean to you and not taking your anecdote at face value (despite the fact that you gave very few details, and those you did give don't support your statement anyways).
@ 62 - I am guessing that a big part of the Gish Gallop strategy is that when someone tries to pin you down on one of the patently false things you say, you just slip on to the next one without ever admitting you were wrong on the first one, refusing to discuss the old issue and repeatedly pointing out the other person's unwillingness to discuss the new topic. Of course if you disprove that as well they will just move on again. It is never ending. The thing he has moved onto is also wrong, but what is the point?