First. ("first" posts are always stupid but after finally falling asleep I just got woken up by the girl in my bed spilling champagne on me and the Chihuahua. I need an outlet and it's just in time for Eli's scheduled post.)

...aaaand Slate just made my 'no-click' list. Morons.

It's not just this writer, or just this issue: Slate seems intent on becoming the go-to site for concern trolls. Slate has also been flogging the "I'm a (straight) supporter of marriage equality, but you uppity gays had better watch out because you are doing it all wrong and you're about to provoke a well deserved backlash" meme. (Slate's chief competition in this particular contest has been The Atlantic.)

Someone should tell him phased in over 7 years so not a shock to the system.

Does the Stranger have a backup plan for when local bars have to slash their advertising budgets to pay their employees $15 an hour?

@5 Selling advertising to the new bars which replace them?

@5: such concern. you should write for Slate.

I had no idea who Slate were earlier this year (ie did they lean left, right or what). Wikipedia says they're kinda left, but everything I've ever read on their site is utterly obnoxious. Maybe it is the concern troll thing, or do they pride themselves on being an open forum so they get dicks?

Wait, the city council candidate Kshama Sawant who ultimately won her race is a SOCIALIST?!!!!!

More money circulating in the economy is always a good thing.

@8 Middle/left concern trolling (and contrarianism) seems like a pretty good evaluation of their usual editorial stance. Unless I'm thinking of Salon. I have a hard time keeping them straight.

@8: At its heart, Slate is left, but their M.O. is click-bait contrarianism, so you get articles like this. It's too bad, they used to have some thoughtful writing before it became a glorified "One Weird Trick" site.

@5, is that what's likely to happen ? I guess we know what Danielle's salary is being saved for now that she's gone.

@5

I think Dan Savage and his minions are supposed to corner you with theatening giant stone truncheon dildos and force you to empty your bank account at a no-fee ATM.

Yes, the article is dumb, but it's also over 5 days old. That's like a month in internet time. Why is Slog always 3-5 days slow on these things?

@13
She's gone? Seriously? Damn, did she get Goldied?

The truth is that several articles have appeared lately saying that we are headed towards a labor shortage.

$15/hr may be codifying the reality of the free market. It may even be a move to suppress even higher wages by setting what seems to be a high bar, when it fact, it's below what they might have to pay anyway...

@16, Sounds more like she traded up to a full time gig. Goldy has a blog with a "donate" button.
https://twitter.com/knottyyarn/status/46…

@19
She didn't post much but I thought this was supposed to have been a full time gig. Anyway, maybe I just missed it but I didn't see any announcement. So maybe she just "quit" in much the same way he did, and without any acknowledgement from coworkers.

@17 of course, the "truth" that only you know.

Yay! No more "Cumberbatchery."

Yeah, $15/hr is just politics. That's what you say when the rent is due: "You want me to pay the rent? That's just politics, man! Don't play politics with me!"

Sure "Having enough money to pay for things you need" is a nice slogan, it's not reality. When they ask for money at the grocery store checkout, I just say, "Hey, put it on a bumper sticker. I don't have time to play politics."

Thanks, Slate, for taking politics out of it.

Crap. I super, duper liked Danielle.

Crap.

What's a bumper sticker?

Wait, didn't Danielle just join the staff? Has she actually left the stranger?

@12, Slate used to be left. Now they're just desperate. They're going the click-bait route because it's their only option. They'll be gone soon, and it won't be $15 an hour that kills them; they're already the walking dead.

Danielle Henderson is gone? That sucks. That sucks BAD.

Not Danielle too! Damn, Stranger, what the hell are you guys doing over there?

To be fair, Weissmann ends up saying he thinks it is a worthwhile experiment.

One of his most dubious statements is that businesses can easily relocate to suburbs with a much lower minimum wage. Which businesses are these? Restaurants? Grocery stores? Convenience stores? Most businesses that pay minimum wage cannot just up and relocate. Non-profits maybe.

I wouldn't mind if Friedman relocated his shitty restaurants to the suburbs.

@32

Glad to see you guys are still around stink up the place and help make sure Charter Amendment 20 passes.

@36 It seems like the effect of raising the MW to $15/hr might result in a cost of living increase which would offset the gain. Markets do tend to charge as much as possible. The cheap places for rent (few as they are) might well see rent increases for example. Thoughts on that?

@37

Well, first we know that even though Sea-Tac's $15/hr increase excludes airport workers until the courts are done with it, the airlines had to bump pay up $2 to $3 per hour to compete for good workers with the surrounding businesses that are now paying $15. Second, 15Now has always wanted the wage to be pegged to inflation. So as prices rise, the wage keeps pace.

As far as the theory that the minimum wage itself is inflationary? Well, where's the evidence of that? In spite of all the crying wolf, actual research has shown no such inflation, job losses, business failures or any of other doom.

But even so, inflation is the bane of the wealthy. Inflation shrinks the fortunes of the rich, while workers generally are in a position to keep up with it through wage increases. Why do you think Republicans traditionally for higher interest rates to fight inflation, while progressives want lower interest rates to heat up the economy and reduce unemployment?

@37
Actually wealth inequality if a much bigger problem for renters than raising the minimum wage. Here's the reason; landlords tend to charge rents based on what the wealthier people can afford, not based on tenants income. This is because as long as there are wealthy people around willing to pay those rents, the tenant who cant pay will just be replaced by a rich person. At least that's how the landlord thinks of it. So the wealthy wind up paying a usual(30%) of their income on rent, but the poor pay a ton because most units cost basically the same. Raising the poorest's wages wont change the rent they have to pay.

@38 "where's the evidence of that?"

Thats the thing, we're in uncharted waters here, hence the many committee meetings, opportunities for public input, etc. Economics is a complex field. When you change one number in the enormously complex equation, numbers elsewhere change as well, often enough in ways that the professional economists didn't foresee. So all we really have are our thoughts, our best economic analysis (for whichever econ theory we believe in), our hopes, and our best guess.

What I do know, and can prove with 200+ years of US politics as evidence: This initiative, if it fails - that is to say, if it has negative effects on our community - will be brought up as "the evidence" for every other effort to raise MW from here until the end of the universe.

So while both those who approve and those who do not can say "No evidence!" and "Where's your proof?!", that reaction just isn't helpful. The stakes here are too large to just hope this thing though. If it works, *then* we have evidence, if it doesn't then *they* have evidence.

We need to get this right the first time.

@40

Washington increased the wages of tipped workers by 85% in 1989. Santa Fe increased its minimum wage by 65% in 2004. No job losses. No bankruptcies. No inflation. None of the FUD happened.

It is the Big Lie of Seattle business that this is "uncharted territory". That it's "unprecedented". It's a big lie. It's not true.

Sea Tac got this right before us. Washington got it right with I-518. Santa Fe got it right before us. It's been done. We don't need to get it right the first time because this is not the first time. In the late 60s the poorest workers in the dirt poorest states in America made the equivalent of $11 per hour. Obviously Seattle's living wage is a few dollars higher than the dirt poorest places in the country.

Saying that passing Charter Amendment 20 is all or nothing is like saying that if California Proposition 18 passes, there can never be gay marriage ever again anywhere. Oops! Prop 18 passed, the world didn't end, gay marriage continued to advance, and now it's spreading to the deep south. Charter Amendment 20 can fail and progress will not grind to a halt.

It's trash talk from the opposition to fool us into surrendering. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

FUD. FUD. FUD.

@41 Uncertainty and doubt? You bet. Seattle is going to be a test case, a guinea pig for these changes. They are unprecedented in scope.

Your comparables seem disingenuous. "increased the wages of tipped workers by 85% in 1989." except that washington MW was below federal MW at that time. The raise you refer to plugged the gap for tipped workers, from $2.30 to $3.35 IIRC. Not really on the same scale at all. Notice as well that this was a State change, most employers did not have the option of simply relocating a few miles. That is not the case here.

Santa Fe is likewise not a comparable, with a total population of about 70k, and nearest major communities 40+ miles away. Again, not the case here.

Sea-Tac MW affects 1600 people or so, and we have seen layoffs and prices increases there, as well as greatly increased competitiveness for the jobs available.

A bit of fear, uncertainty, and doubt seems completely reasonable. Questioning all aspects of this change isn't trash talking, no matter how many oranges you wish to compare to our apples.

@42

Nonsense. First you say it's unprecedented, then when you're shown multiple precedents, you pick at them for every arbitrary difference you can find. If I gave you a city with the same population, you'd say it doesn't count because the name of the city doesn't begin with S.

It's a Big Lie.

Why can't you find even one instance of a minimum wage increase causing inflation, unemployment, bankruptcies, or any other harm? One. One instance, ever, in history. On the whole planet Earth. Why can't you name one? Because business did cry wolf before every one of them. Before they happened they claimed they were outrageously high. But after the fact, when no doom fell, you claim they ALL were reasonable? Every other minimum wage increase in the History of Man was, in retrospect not too much. But now this one is too much.

You know what? In retrospect, $15/hr in Seattle will look perfectly sane. Because nothing bad will happen. Crying wolf will, once again, be so much hot air. So much FUD.

A living wage is not unheard of, and it's not an outrage. A living wage is utterly unremarkable. What's remarkable is the learned helplessness of Americans who've been beaten down so long they parrot their oppressors nonsense that a living wage is some kind of unicorn from outer space.

Seattle's living wage starts at $15 per hour. Obviously. Kind of a boring thing to say and a silly thing to even have to discuss.