Seattle needs to get expensive, real fast.

All this easy living for in-grown locals, paying little or no of their fair share, and relying on Home Teams, High School Allegiances and decades old cultural references has to stop.

Let's not only pay people what their worth, let's price things accordingly as well.

"....raised its minimum wage from $6.75 to $10.74 over the last decade."

To me this is the key thing to focus on. It's not the absolute amount of the increase that could be damaging (at least up to point). It's the speed with which the increases are phased in. They didn't raise the minimum down there from $6.75 to $10.74 all at once. They did it over a period of time.

It's not $15/hr that is inherently a problem for small businesses. It's "now" that could be.

I long ago came to the conclusion that most republicans/conservatives know almost nothing about business and economics.

San Francisco seemed considerably more expensive than Seattle -- I was continually surprised by how much stuff cost in grocery stores and restaurants. I don't think I imagined it; cost of living in SF vs SEA is higher in those categories: https://tinyurl.com/mtvoabt

To anybody who has visited SF, your argument is not persuasive in the way you want it to be.

Corroborated by this article.

Highest Minimum-Wage State Washington Beats U.S. in Job Creation

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! ...err, JOBS!!!

;^)

@4: The problem is, which came first: the above average cost of living or the higher pay rate?

I don't have data....just that old enemy anecdote.

SF in the early to mid-80s it was unbelievably expensive. Rents were already going through the roof and most other things seemed more expensive than elsewhere. One of the main reasons I moved from SF to Seattle, was that you could live so much larger on the same wage.

My guess is the wage increases in SF are an attempt to address/redress the very high living costs there.

@1, what's with the slam against people like me who have lived in Seattle my entire life? I was here first. Take your elsewhere mentality back to wherever you transferred from. Grunge was great, this city has changed in some really bad ways, the bluest skies are here, and I still miss Uncle Fran and J.P. In fact, you and your kind might be the real problem.

@4,

San Francisco has been punishingly expensive for *years*, long before they instituted a higher minimum wage. To anybody who has *visited* SF and has never lived there or anywhere nearby, your argument is not persuasive in the way you want it to be.

@4 Let me see if I got your argument straight... the minimum wage is the only thing that contributes to a higher cost of living.

That's ridiculous. Anyway, the difference between the minimum wage in Seattle and San Francisco is less than a dollar/hour.

Really nice try though.

@2 I agree. I'm strongly in favor of raising the minimum wage and believe it will have benefits for workers and employers. But phasing it in is critical for small businesses.

The damage to businesses is not random. Labor intensive businesses that have close substitutes that are not labor intensive will struggle and fail, while businesses that are not so labor intensive and have close substitutes who are will benefit. Examples: florists versus floral departments at large grocery stores, small shops versus big boxes, table service versus conveyor belt sushi. Fortunately though, many of the prospective losers already pay quite a bit more than their rivals which tend to be bigger and can deal with very high turnover better. So the relative wage increase difference could potentially offset some of the risk, but this also makes it impossible to extrapolate from a 30% increase to a 60% one, since all of that difference would affect big and small alike.

There are studies that show negative employment effects as well, including the American Samoa experience.

But for sure, just saying increasing the minimum wage kills jobs seems untrue. But we all agree that at some point, say $20 immediately it would. So what's that point?

What does seem to be clear is that phasing in to $15 won't have a net negative impact on jobs. Some jobs might be lost. Some will be gained. Especially in Seattle where we'll be adding a ton of job anyhow.

So do we phase in at 17% per year - so 4 years? Maybe it's quicker for large businesses, a little longer for small biz and non-profits?

@12,

I generally agree with you, but I'll be damned if I've ever encountered a florist that had more than one employee (not including the owner).

Certainty is more important than the amount.

I'd recommend a 2015 phase in for large employers, a contract renewal or extension date phase in (or 2016, whichever first) for unionized employers over official small business size limits (city standard), and a 2018 phase in for small business (not chains) which means $12 in 2015, $13 in 2016, $14 in 2017, and $15 in 2018.

No exemptions. No benefits or tip "credit"

We paid $20/ hour minimum wage in the 60s, during our period of greatest US growth. In today's dollars.

@15 - the high point of the minimum wage was in 1968, in today's dollars that would be about $10.37. Not $20.

@1 could you provide an example of what I’m paying less for by growing up here? Because I’ve never encountered this magical pricing for people who grow up in Seattle, the advantages are I don’t have to travel during the holidays to visit my family and I live in the best city ever.

Credit where credit is due?

I miss Goldy. Y'all are keeping his pet topics alive. $15 minimum wage, guns keeping us safer, etc. How long til we get a report on Dan Savages gardening?

Brutal news for Keck and Meinert and Douglas. You guys are getting hammered aren't you? Even the Seattle Times is kicking you square in the balls.

That's what happens when you declare war on reality. Facts come right back and kick your ass.

I'd bet ten thousand dollars business owners commissioned your own poll hoping it would say $15 NOW was doomed and you got back the answer you didn't want to hear and you buried it, hoping the truth would never see the light of day.

You need a more dirty polling agency.

I think Murray and Burgess are going to give you the "business friendly" Swiss cheese wage increase you want, and then a solid $15 is going to go up for a vote and win huge. And Seattle's feckless Democrats will suffer another defeat and be all the weaker going into the next battle. Socialists could even win a second seat on the Council in a year or three.

You should cut your losses while you still can.

So your example is from a city with a significantly higher cost of living than Seattle, with a far lower minimum wage than what is being proposed here, and a wage that was phased in over time rather than imposed immediately, as the 15now folks insist has to happen.

OK then. What reasonable person could see a problem with that?

@16: Your insipid opinions are one thing, but don't go making up data and passing if off as fact. At no time was the minimum wage the equivalent of $20/hour in today's dollars:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/…

@16 and 21,

Are you two expecting actual facts from Will in Seattle?

Dave: why use American Samoa as an example? Their economy is not analogous to ours. In a comparative sense the models that can be drawn are dissimilar.

@23

Because he needs it to claim that there's a study that supports his point.

Side note: today in Ballard $15/now thugs were harassing people on the street who wouldn't agree with them that anything less than $15/hour is not a living wage. When asked for details on that statement, I was told that you simply can't support a family while making $15/hour. Is "a living wage" supposed to mean enough to feed a family? If so, then no you do not have my support. Entry level job positions really aren't intended to be the end goal for employment to care for a family. Shouldn't people be encouraged to pursue education, experience, and skills before popping out babies they do not have the resources to care for?

"A report last year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office said employment in American Samoa has declined because of the minimum wage increases that began in 2007. The 142-page report said the decrease in employment was a result of losing a tuna cannery in American Samoa. Employers blamed the minimum wage increase for layoffs, work hour reductions and hiring freezes."
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19…

But I guess the Huffington Post is a "right wing rag"?

@25

Why didn't you call the police?

Washington State already has the highest minimum wage in the country. All that this study does is demonstrate what happened when other cities raised their minimum wage to be less than our already is. What is the point of promoting this study, when we could have just looked out our back door for the same information?

This gives us no data to rely on for a straight 60% increase.

@29

Not so fast: Washington Restaurants Already Weathered
an 85 Percent Minimum Wage Hike (and Apparently Survived).

In 1988 I-518 increased the tipped employees wages from $2.30 to $3.85 (January 1, 1989) -- that's 67% jump! - and then a 10% bump to $4.25 the following year. That's 85% in two years.

There's your data. Restaurants here in Washington have already survived -- and gone on to thrive -- with wage increases greater than the current jump to $15/hr.

There is no evidence to support the hypothetical claim that business is harmed or jobs are lost by minimum wage increases, and the current proposal is not unprecedented. That's why 68% of Seattle supports $15 now, and that's why the business moguls attacking the living wage are not citing any facts. They're just spreading doom and gloom and fear, but they give us no facts.

@31

What "avg hourly wage" are you citing, specifically? What "mountains of evidence" are you referring to? There's whole mountains of it, yet you don't name one bit of evidence.

Keep in mind that in the late 60s the Federal, not Washington, minimum wage was above $11/hr. Current worker productivity is $22/hr. $15 is well in line with where we should be to address poverty and the disappearing middle class. The only reason paying less than a living wage even works is that these businesses are subsidized through pubic assistance to underpaid workers.

Cite your evidence. And is any of these threatened restaurant empires going to open their books?