Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Referendum on the $15 Minimum Wage Will Not Go to the Ballot This Year

Posted by on Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM

This landmark $15 minimum wage bill will not be subject to a referendum this fall.
  • City of Seattle
  • This landmark $15 minimum wage bill will not be subject to a referendum this fall.
Today's numbers are in, and it looks like the referendum campaign to put Seattle's $15 minimum wage on the ballot this fall has failed. While King County Elections is still counting signatures, at this point, it's mathematically impossible at this point for the referendum campaign to get enough valid signatures to succeed.

Those numbers: King County Elections had reviewed 15,004 signatures by the end of today and verified 11,412 of them. Since there are only 3,924 signatures left to review, even if every last one of the remaining signatures were valid, it wouldn't add up to the required 16,510 needed to qualify for the ballot. (So far, the validation rate is about 76 percent.)

A second referendum campaign on the minimum wage separately turned in 568 signatures, all of which have been reviewed and 456 of which are valid. Even if those 456 could be counted—we're waiting to hear from the city clerk's office if separate referendums on the same issue can be counted together—they still wouldn't add up to 16,510.

So, we can finally say it: The first wave of $15 minimum wage repeal looks to have been defeated. (Goldy will certainly want some credit here for calling it yesterday.) There will be more repeal efforts, including a statewide initiative in 2015 led by Tim Eyman. But this was the first big one, and $15 still lives.

Who defeated this first serious challenge to the new law? Was it the efficient organizing machine that is 15 Now, a group that has gotten a lot of the credit for the $15 minimum wage? No, it most certainly was not 15 Now. In fact, 15 Now was pretty damn silent while this referendum was going on. But Working Washington, a union-funded group that was organizing low-wage fast-food workers before 15 Now was a twinkle in a socialist's eye, got their hustle on when the $15 wage they fought for was threatened.

King County Elections will likely finish counting signatures tomorrow, and will then send a letter to the Seattle City Clerk's office officially declaring the referendum's sufficiency or insufficiency for the fall ballot.

UPDATE 6:00 p.m.: As reported by PubliCola, the signatures that King County Elections has not verified haven't necessarily been ruled invalid yet. They simply have not been able to be verified and have been "set aside." If the issues with those signatures are somehow rectified, they could be counted. But given that the top reasons for signatures not being verified are that the people weren't registered Seattle voters, it seems like a slim chance. But, y'know, counting chickens before they etc.

 

Comments (92) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Goldy 1
Hey, Anna, remember when Slog used to be the outlet with honor of always being the first one to call these things, like when it called the 2012 governor's race for Inslee on election night, while most other outlets waited a week? What changed?
Posted by Goldy on July 15, 2014 at 5:59 PM · Report this
seatackled 2
@1

Everything?
Posted by seatackled on July 15, 2014 at 6:00 PM · Report this
seatackled 3
Actually, Slog does offer presumably accurate predictions of what staff members will do during upcoming weekends and upcoming weeks.

But this defeat of the repeal efforts is shocking, given the assurances we have had that repeal was what people wanted. If poor collectivism_sucks hangs himself because of the horrible $15 wage he will have to accept, some poor sucker earning at least $15 an hour will have to clean up the site of the hanging, and how is that fair?
Posted by seatackled on July 15, 2014 at 6:06 PM · Report this
Goldy 4
@3 That is an awful thing to say. If you had an ounce of compassion you'd encourage collectivism_sucks to wait a few years to hang himself, until the $15 minimum wage is fully implemented.
Posted by Goldy on July 15, 2014 at 6:10 PM · Report this
seatackled 5
@4

As an independent-minded individual, collectivism_sucks may decide for himself whether or not to hang himself, and I fear he would not respect me if I either encouraged or discouraged him from such an action. He may make his own choices and bask it the Freedom of his actions.
Posted by seatackled on July 15, 2014 at 6:17 PM · Report this
6
I can't believe this is the punishment I get for linking to you, Goldy.
Posted by Anna Minard on July 15, 2014 at 6:20 PM · Report this
Goldy 7
@6 Come to Drinking Liberally tonight, Anna, and I'll make it up to you by buying you drink. Paul will be there. Come hang out with the cool kids.
Posted by Goldy on July 15, 2014 at 6:26 PM · Report this
8
but...but...but....I thought the $15NOW people told us that they wanted to take this to a vote 6 months ago.

Tools like Shill in Seattle and Cthulu said it would pass easily! What are they afraid of now??

Why are you scared Goldy?

Off topic" Goldy must be desperate to get his old job back. Guess those "fundraisers" he was holding(not reported to IRS either) never were enough to pay the mortgage, were they Goldy?
Posted by Goldy's mortgage lender on July 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM · Report this
9
So, we can still take a vote to stop all this nonsense in 2015, when the Seattle minimum wage will be $11/hr or less.... or in 2016, when it's $13/hr or less.... or in 2017, when only large businesses will be paying $15/hr.
Posted by ChefJoe on July 15, 2014 at 9:36 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 10
@9
Absolutely right!
What the 15Now/Working Washington fascists don't understand is that this is Seattle, Washington...they always forget the latter of the two. Now Forward Seattle and the rest can work with Tim Eyman (who I have issues with, but agree on this at least) and work on the STATE WIDE INITIATIVE in 2015.
On an off election year, do you REALLY think Seattle will have enough votes to offset the rest of the state? And the best part is, we libertarians and conservatives have the best spokesperson to get every pickup truck driving man and woman in Eastern Washington to vote for our initiative: http://www.votesawant.org/
Yep, the entire East side of the state will get out and vote for no other reason than to stick it to the socialist. I mean, Seattle couldn't even get enough votes to beat the Eastern side of King County and pass that metro ordinance, how the hell will they get enough votes to offset the entire eastern side of the state?
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 15, 2014 at 9:50 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 11
There you are, c_v! Hiding out here instead of facing the music on yesterday's thread about Republicans and gay marriage? I don't blame you. You really showed yourself as Slog's biggest ass there, linking up to shit that didn't back up your words at all. Priceless, Seattleblues-level stuff.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 15, 2014 at 9:57 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 12
@11
First, I NEVER said all or even Republicans want gay marriage, only that not all conservatives oppose gay marriage and how they are coming around to accepting it, slowly by surely.
Second, the Slog's biggest ass is @1, and he was such an ass he got fired.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 15, 2014 at 10:15 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 13
@11
Oh, and sense we're on the topic:
You claimed that Libertarians are somehow anti-gay marriage. I provided this link: http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/li…
as proof that that is BULLSHIT and that we do support marriage equality (which most Americans understand) and said link has this line in it:
"The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971."
So, how the fuck does this link not back up my words?
And here is a Wikipedia article, and I don't normally use wikipedia as a source, but you can click on the links to sources cited and see what EVERY LIBERTARIAN ORGANIZATION OUT THERE says about gay rights (hint, they all support it) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian…
For your own sake you should just stop talking, because you're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 15, 2014 at 10:49 PM · Report this
14
@13 Get some sleep, dude.
Posted by You'll have a heart attack before you get to vote on July 15, 2014 at 11:26 PM · Report this
15
Since we're on the topic. Since. If you're going to go off the rails, spelling and grammar are essential. Remember, if your words can't provide you with legitimacy, you can at least get some out of using the language correctly. If you can't even use the language correctly, what hope do you have that your words will have any impact?
Posted by If you're gonna troll, at least do it well c_s. on July 15, 2014 at 11:40 PM · Report this
16
Ladies and Gentlemen let us all rise and applaud The Stranger Village Idiot, Collectivism_sucks

http://media1.giphy.com/media/Ucvfi6Vnig…
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on July 15, 2014 at 11:52 PM · Report this
17
The gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on July 15, 2014 at 11:53 PM · Report this
sperifera 18
@12 - Is your entire existence here just an elaborate performance art piece? Asking for a friend.
Posted by sperifera on July 16, 2014 at 12:23 AM · Report this
19 Comment Pulled (Trolling) Comment Policy
Sean Kinney 20
Libertarians suck in the sack.
Posted by Sean Kinney http:// on July 16, 2014 at 12:55 AM · Report this
21
@19 ROTFLMAO That's the best you've got, a lame attempt at a "yo momma". Please.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on July 16, 2014 at 1:35 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 22
@1: They got rid of anyone who could analyze policy or politics in a factual way, and so all that is left is bar reviews, emotional coverage, and posts about music no one cares about. Oh, and Ansel put up a very informative post about how an Uber driver did not sexually assault anyone, but no one decided it was worth reporting on the yellow Cab guy that did sexually assault people.

I'm telling you guys, Collectivism_Sucks is 13 years old, maybe 14.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on July 16, 2014 at 5:22 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 23
@ 13, HAHAHAHAHAHA.... No, I never made any such claim. Libs could be counted on for lukewarm support. That diary, however, was about Republicans. You were specifically coming to their defense.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 16, 2014 at 6:59 AM · Report this
COMTE 24
Poor c_s. First the eighth graders took his lunch money, then he couldn't get a date to the prom, and now he's the collective laughing stock on SLOG.

You know what sucks worse than Collectivism, c_s? Your life.
Posted by COMTE on July 16, 2014 at 8:27 AM · Report this
25
Poor Uncle Ruckus. That vitiligo makes him so irritable at times.
Posted by Pol Pot on July 16, 2014 at 8:34 AM · Report this
seatackled 26
@19

I know "I screwed your mother" is a figure of speech, but don't you claim to be gay? So why are you suggesting you screwed Matt's mother?
Posted by seatackled on July 16, 2014 at 8:51 AM · Report this
Lissa 27
@26: No, no, no! c_s is bi. This allows him to be both a misogynist and treat the men he sleeps with like pump and dumps. He's also half black so he gets to say racist shit too.
c_s likes to have his bases covered.
Posted by Lissa on July 16, 2014 at 9:31 AM · Report this
28
@18: I've been wanting to ask that too! Like, is this the Slog's version of ZMF at the AVClub or something. I just didn't want to be the guy who's like "I think they are using wires" at a magic show.
Posted by themightywoozie on July 16, 2014 at 10:18 AM · Report this
seatackled 29
@27
Oh. Okay, so he's probably actually half-bi and half transgender, not to mention half-Asian and half-Latino.
Posted by seatackled on July 16, 2014 at 11:50 AM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 30
@24
I actually enjoy being hated by liberals, and since the Slog is 99.9% liberal, I am very happy to be the "laughing stock."
Post here, asshole: http://www.libertariansforum.com/
And you didn't mention ANYTHING about what I was actually saying: about how there is a state wide initiative is coming up next year and it will be VERY hard to defeat. This was reported in the adult newspaper (read, not the SStranger) the Seattle Times: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opinionnw/…
By all means, keep ignoring the substance. That's why libertarianism is growing more and more every fucking day and there isn't shit you can do about it:
http://www.theadvocates.org/evidence-lib…
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 16, 2014 at 12:18 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 31
Now that I'm tired of the childish name calling (the only way liberals can debate anyway)
Let's try to get back to the facts.
The fact is, if the Forward Seattle measure doesn't make it to the ballot, which seems likely, there is still the statewide initiative that Tim Eyman, who I usually don't care for, is pushing. Forward Seattle and others are not simply going to disappear when this doesn't make it to the ballot and it would be naive to think they will. They will most likely join forces with the Eyman measure and run the state wide initiative.
Now, Prop 1 failed to pass because the eastern part of King County voted it down. Seattle couldn't even get enough liberal voters out to offset the eastern part of King County, how on Earth will they ever get to votes to offset the eastern side of the state?
As the Seattle Times puts it: "During last fall’s SeaTac campaign, pollster Stuart Elway found that 58 percent of voters statewide thought a $15 minimum wage was bad for business, but it was a whopping 68 percent in Eastern Washington."
And even better yet: "At the least, it might be interesting to see Socialist Alternative Seattle Councilwoman Kshama Sawant making her pitch in the small towns of Eastern Washington, where the business-owner class doesn’t look much different than the worker class, and nary a one-percenter can be found."
Source: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opinionnw/…
I for one actually thought everyone who is against 15Now should focus on the state-wide measure, because Seattle is hopeless.
So, you can continue calling me a "poo-poo head" or answer the question: how in an off election year will Seattle get the votes to offset the rest of the state in 2015?
Feel free to ignore the question, you've done a good job of it so far.
I was against Prop 1 as well and of course the SStranger idiots laughed at me...but who had the last laugh, me or them? Likewise, when Eastern Washington gets a vote, I will have the last laugh once more.
More...
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 16, 2014 at 12:33 PM · Report this
Lissa 32
@29: LOL, like Libertarian Benetton ad.
Posted by Lissa on July 16, 2014 at 12:36 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 33
@23
Okay, fair enough. I misunderstood what you were saying. Hate to go off topic again but real quick:
I hate most Republican officials, as I hate most DemoKKKratic officials. They are all authoritarian. However, the GOP is slowly coming around when it comes to marriage equality as is shown here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/pol…
The GOP still stinks, but at least some of them are evolving on this issue.
I like to be fair towards opponents. I hate Sawant, but I am happy she voted against NSA funding for Seattle Metro and stood up to Seattle lights.
Unlike many (but not all) Seattle liberals who live in an eternal echo chamber, I don't hate people just because of party affiliation but actually try to look objectively at the issues.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 34
#31: "Now that I am tired of the childish name calling (the only way liberals can debate anyway)"

#33: "I hate most DemoKKKratic officials"
Posted by Theodore Gorath on July 16, 2014 at 12:53 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 35
@34
I'm calling an organization a name, not an individual on this forum. Sorry you can't tell the difference.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 16, 2014 at 12:56 PM · Report this
Nick CapHill 36
Funny. c_s is the only one talking about strategy and whats next for 15/hr. And people treat him/her like a troll? Ha.
Posted by Nick CapHill http://thestranger.com on July 16, 2014 at 12:59 PM · Report this
Nick CapHill 37
@10.

Good point about Eastern Washington and how they vote. I suspect that, like you said, Forward Seattle can now work with Tim Eyeman on a statewide strategy. I would guess, giving this time, many other groups and individuals would join in. 15now does not have time on their side. The more people learn about how basic economics work and how big this silly experiment is in Seattle, I suspect more people will reject this whole thing.

At least that is my hope.

If 15/hr is repealed statewide, Whats next for the fascist socialists and the liberals that love 'em? Probably splitting up WA state into separate jurisdictions (like the vote in California. ) Lol.

Posted by Nick CapHill http://thestranger.com on July 16, 2014 at 1:18 PM · Report this
38
c_s, nobody hates their laughing stock. Your vitriol encourages more people to become liberal and less people to become libertarian. You're your own worst enemy. Liberals love you, and want you to keep up the good work of exposing exactly how insane your concepts and ideas are. You and Seattleblues do a great job of driving people towards the left.
Posted by Why hate our best weapon? on July 16, 2014 at 1:35 PM · Report this
COMTE 39
@30:

Got it. We'll add "masochist with a latent persecution complex" to your ever-lengthening list of personality defects.
Posted by COMTE on July 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 40
@38
So why oh why is no one talking about the points I'm making?
They are, simply:
A) That this was a bad idea to have a city initiative in the first place
B) a State wide initiative is coming next year and it will be very hard to defeat Eastern Washington.
And no, I'm not driving people to the authoritarian-left. I am a leftist myself (a left-libertarian) so I would hope I am driving people to the left.
Sloggers are making fun of me, saying idiotic jokes, but NONE have addressed points A and B. They ignore the substance and go right to personal attacks.
This is why the non-koolaid drinking extreme liberals reading this will read my comments on facts and figures, and the other slogger's name calling, and slowly realize the libertarian position is far superior.
Why can't we avoid personal attacks and talk about substance? Why can't the liberals here do so? They are helping me create more libertarians.,
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 16, 2014 at 2:01 PM · Report this
COMTE 41
@35:

Organizations are people too, you know - or haven't you been following recent events at SCOTUS?
Posted by COMTE on July 16, 2014 at 2:01 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 42
@39
And yet you never addressed the issue. Here it is again, please try to stay on topic:
A) This was a bad idea to have a city initiative in the first place
B) a State wide initiative is coming next year and it will be very hard to defeat Eastern Washington, especially in an off election year. Seattle couldn't defeat eastern King County when it came to prop 1 in a special election, why should we think Seattle can defeat the entire Eastern side of the state in an off election year?
Answer the above or continue the name calling and making your side look bad. Your choice.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 16, 2014 at 2:04 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 43
@41
I am 100% against corporate personhood and would favor a constitutional amendment defining a human. And, if the wording was right, we could also define a fetus as not being human and guarantee Roe Vs Wade will never be overturned. Killing to birds with one amendment.
And you still didn't answer the issue:
A) This was a bad idea to have a city initiative in the first place
B) a State wide initiative is coming next year and it will be very hard to defeat Eastern Washington, especially in an off election year. Seattle couldn't defeat eastern King County when it came to prop 1 in a special election, why should we think Seattle can defeat the entire Eastern side of the state in an off election year?
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 16, 2014 at 2:06 PM · Report this
Goldy 44
@37 You're funny!
Posted by Goldy on July 16, 2014 at 2:10 PM · Report this
COMTE 45
@40:

Because everyone thinks you're a whiny, self-absorbed, narcissistic troll - have you really NOT figured that out yet?
Posted by COMTE on July 16, 2014 at 2:27 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 46
@45
You still haven't addressed the issue. Plenty of name calling and childishness, but the issue still stands. Here it is again:
again, please try to stay on topic:
A) This was a bad idea to have a city initiative in the first place
B) a State wide initiative is coming next year and it will be very hard to defeat Eastern Washington, especially in an off election year. Seattle couldn't defeat eastern King County when it came to prop 1 in a special election, why should we think Seattle can defeat the entire Eastern side of the state in an off election year?
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 16, 2014 at 2:41 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 47
@44
With replies like that it's no wonder why your blog isn't more popular and has zero traction outside of Seattle.
Goldy, here is the issue no one is addressing (again)

A) This was a bad idea to have a city initiative in the first place
B) a State wide initiative is coming next year and it will be very hard to defeat Eastern Washington, especially in an off election year. Seattle couldn't defeat eastern King County when it came to prop 1 in a special election, why should we think Seattle can defeat the entire Eastern side of the state in an off election year?
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 16, 2014 at 2:43 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 48
@ 40, a) it became a moot point once the city council took it up and passed it. b) It will be the epitome of the tyranny of the majority if that comes to pass. I know of no libertarian (or Libertarian) argument justifying a state ajority ato violate the sovereign decisions of the citizens of a municipality, but perhaps you can make that case.

Regarding the GOP and same sex marriage, the point of Paul's post was that party officials had no idea what to do. There are a few individual rank and file Republicans out there coming around, it's true, but it's mostly acceptance that opposing same sex marriage is now a fruitless position. For every 'pub who is accepting same sex marriage as the right thing, there are a hundred who now just want the issue to go away.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 16, 2014 at 2:54 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 49
Christ. Edit: "...justifying a state majority to violate the sovereign decisions..."
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 16, 2014 at 2:55 PM · Report this
COMTE 50
@48:

Don't bother. C_s will simply move the goalposts, or come up with some other reason why your answer ISN'T an actual answer, because it's not the answer HE wants to hear. This just one reason why SLOG commentors are increasingly disengaging from responding to him.
Posted by COMTE on July 16, 2014 at 3:06 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 51
@48
First, the city council passing it did not make a ballot initiative against it a "moot point." Second, Libertarianism is opposed to any big government, be it local state or federal. If the state does something to limit the scope of local government, that is a good thing. If a town voted back Jim Crow it would be a good thing for the state to limit its power. Likewise the state should limit the power of a local government to force firms to pay what they don't have for entry-level jobs.
And ideology aside, the question still remains: will Seattle be able to get enough votes to offset the votes in the East? They couldn't even get the votes to defeat Eastern King County on Prop 1, so I doubt it.
And as the link I posted said, Republican party officials, like Jon Huntsmen, Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Colin Powell, etc.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 16, 2014 at 3:11 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 52
@50
Or maybe this question has no logical answer that fits your ideology. It is a perfectly valid question given the article we are commenting on. Here it is again. If you can, answer it as an adult using logic.
B) a State wide initiative is coming next year and it will be very hard to defeat Eastern Washington, especially in an off election year. Seattle couldn't defeat eastern King County when it came to prop 1 in a special election, why should we think Seattle can defeat the entire Eastern side of the state in an off election year?
This exchange is best summed up with this: https://2wolvesandalamb.files.wordpress.…
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 16, 2014 at 3:14 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 53
@50
In one sentence I hope you can understand, here is my question: How will Seattle defeat the 2015 initiative that is state wide? How?
That is the question. Answer it if you can.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 16, 2014 at 3:16 PM · Report this
54
c_s, nobody is responding to your points because they are laughable. For the most part, they come across as Dadaist drivel. To go through your points, A is laughable and unsubstantiated and B is both unfounded speculation and potentially illegal under some rather bad rulings made by the state Supreme Court.

You're not driving people to the authoritarian left, no. You're driving people to the libertarian left (to use the Political Compass definition). You're arguments come from the libertarian right (and I must admit, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on that. I'd place you in the authoritarian right, regardless of your claims).
The short of it is you don't have any points. Your facts and figures are skewed and rigged in a way that would make Samuel Clemens declare then the fourth kind of lie. I don't know you in person. I don't know enough about you to malign or impugn you. All I know of you is what I've seen lurking on these boards. I can tell you however, that you come across as the love child of Ron Paul and Ayn Rand. If that is your intent, congratulations. If it isn't maybe you need to look at what you are saying and how you are saying it.
Posted by Really c_s, you need better material. on July 16, 2014 at 3:21 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 55
@ 51, I was speaking of the ballot initiative to CREATE the $15/hr minimum wage, which you seemed to have meant. After all, the city took it up mainly because they didn't want a version that may be too radical on the ballot.

In that case, would you please state why it was bad for them to do it? Outside of any personal opposition you have to the concept of minimum wage, that is.

Your stance of opposing big government on these grounds confirms for me the naivety of libertarianism - the idea that protecting people from exploitation should be opposed because that's "big government." Government 's number one job is to protect citizens, and that means wages as much as it means life and property.

Anyway, I wouldn't be so sure that a statewide ballot will even gather enough signatures, let alone appear on the ballot. Or that it would be a slam dunk if it does. Social cons are mostly workers, too.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 16, 2014 at 3:33 PM · Report this
Nick CapHill 56
@48 - Your being sarcastic but you bring up a good point. Why wouldn't a libertarian allow for a sovereign municipality to pass a law like this? Ideally, I suppose, they may.

The problem is the word "sovereign".

Set aside the ridiculous claim that the majority of Seattle citizens even want this (it was not brought to a vote). Set aside that *Direct or even *Representative *Democracy represents the will of "sovereign" people. Set aside that this was decided by a handful of people whom are known to be cozy to union interests anyway. Set aside that this was an SEIU push to put their union in a position of more power, and thus bigger paychecks for their leadership. Lets set these aside - and other arguments aside.

This law doesn't just affect Seattle people. It can affect the whole region. So the citizens of WA State may yet have the last say over the citizens of Seattle.
Posted by Nick CapHill http://thestranger.com on July 16, 2014 at 3:34 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 57
@ 56, I'm sure that you're right. The majority did NOT want this. That's why it passed by a 9-0 vote, that's why the repeal effort failed, and that's why it won't be any kind of issue in next year's elections.

Get a grip. Any time a representational body passes simething unanimously, it's a sure sign that it is supported by a safe, or even super, majority of the affected constituents.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 16, 2014 at 3:42 PM · Report this
Nick CapHill 58
@55 When you say "Government 's number one job is to protect citizens, and that means wages"

Your exactly right. Libertarians do not disagree with what you said. However, they disagree with your assessment of how it is done.

For example, How is raising the minimum-wage to the highest in the nation going to help those youth that are unemployed in Seattle? Who will protect their wages, or lack-of wages?

Libertarians would feel that the proper approach is, rather not putting bandaids solutions over a broken economy, but to get rid of the unfair economy. Get rid of the huge benefits that the wealthy and corporate elite consume as a first step in helping people get jobs, and get raises. Hell, if "raising the minimum wage to a liveable wage" was all that it was about, we need something close to $23.80 an hour to be realistic.

Libertarians mostly believe that in order to fix an unfair system, the government should be simple, and the rules fair for everyone.
Posted by Nick CapHill http://thestranger.com on July 16, 2014 at 3:51 PM · Report this
Goldy 59
@47 I don't think you're as in touch with E. Washington as you think you are. The last time a minimum wage was on the state ballot, in 1998, it passed in all 39 counties, and by by a 2-to-1 margin statewide. In 2008, Dino Rossi's support for weakening the minimum wage sparked a decisive shift in favor of Chris Gregoire. Polls consistently show that a comfortable majority of Washington voters support raising the state minimum wage.

Yes, a statewide initiative that say, raised the state minimum wage to $12.50 while preempting municipal minimum wage laws might pass. But it's hard to see the restaurant and retail industry getting behind that. And don't really expect an anti-minimum wage initiative to get traction on its own.
Posted by Goldy on July 16, 2014 at 4:42 PM · Report this
60
@47 I'll answer your stupid questions, after all you've been so entertaining spinning yourself into the ground.

"A) This was a bad idea to have a city initiative in the first place"

First off that is not a question it is a statement. Besides apparently the answer was YES. After all the initiative failed to gather the need signatures. The residents of Seattle gave their answer and it was, "we're fine with what the City Council did with regards to minimum wage, no need for an initiative."

B) a State wide initiative is coming next year and it will be very hard to defeat Eastern Washington, especially in an off election year. Seattle couldn't defeat eastern King County when it came to prop 1 in a special election, why should we think Seattle can defeat the entire Eastern side of the state in an off election year?

Answer, One shouldn't assume Seattle can defeat the entire Eastern side of the state. Just as one should not assume that an initiative that apparently doesn't exist yet would get the needed signatures. Nor should one assume that if an initiative does get circulated it won't include a carve out for existing local laws regarding minimum wage. Or that a counter initiative, or more, also get on the ballot confusing the issue and canceling each other out.

Not that you'll accept either of those as answers to your questions since neither accepts the alternative reality that your questions are predicated upon.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on July 16, 2014 at 6:54 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 61
@35 - Is your notion that an organization is distinct from an individual when it comes to name-calling really congruent with your apparent belief that corporations enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of religion?
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 17, 2014 at 1:42 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 62
@40 (and every-fucking-where else you opted to be so dubiously relevant) -
A) That this was a bad idea to have a city initiative in the first place

The city is where cost of living has most pointedly outstripped wages. In order to address the difficulty of living in the city where you work if you happen to work in the service industry (where even non-minimum wage workers are at least three or four raises from $15/hr.), it makes sense to address wages (which are easier to mandate than costs) in the city in question.
B) a State wide initiative is coming next year and it will be very hard to defeat Eastern Washington.
Good point. But the answer to that question (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with whether it is right to bring wages in the city up to the level of cost-of-living in the city; it speaks more to the questions of how we attempt to win hearts and minds in Eastern Washington (if only on the matter of how a city should be able to adjust wages to reflect cost of living) and/or what we do about the incongruity of wages and prices in the current economy.

@43 -
I am 100% against corporate personhood ...
So on what grounds do you think corporations should be allowed to opt out of buying insurance that covers items with which they morally disagree for their employees? Or is it just that employers shouldn't carry that burden; and if so, do you favor single payer; and if not, do you honestly believe that all medical expenses should be paid out of pocket in an economy where a sliding-scale rate for a mere doctor's visit for a working individual is equal to 2-5 days' wages?
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 17, 2014 at 2:04 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 63
@58 -
Libertarians would feel that the proper approach is, rather not putting bandaids solutions over a broken economy, but to get rid of the unfair economy. Get rid of the huge benefits that the wealthy and corporate elite consume as a first step in helping people get jobs, and get raises.
That sounds dangerously close to being an actual idea. What does that mean, though? What are these huge benefits, in what way are they created by government rather than by a lack of oversight and regulation, and what legislation or other action would serve to rectify the problem?
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM · Report this
watchout5 64
@53 because people rarely vote against anything, they usually vote for something. You have this idea that eastern Washington is salivating at the idea of "sticking it" to Seattle because SOCIALISMS but I don't buy it. People are going to look at it and ask, "why the fuck am I voting to stop any possible wage increase for me and the only reason I'm voting against this is because I'm supposed to hate Seattle" and they're going to reconsider. You might be the kind of person who's obsessed with the rest of the state showing Seattle who's boss but you don't represent a very large group of people. You're just vocal and opinionated. You'll grow up one day.
Posted by watchout5 http://www.overclockeddrama.com on July 17, 2014 at 3:37 PM · Report this
Nick CapHill 65
@63 - Good question. Trying to stick to the subject of this thread, one good one is of the issue of rent. As you know, rent is a huge driver of why Seattle citizens "need a raise".

One reason why real estate is so expensive is that the creation of new money and low interest rates granted to the well connected (the 1% if you will). This government policy has created imbalances in fair and equal access to housing and property. The extreme wealthy, using nearly 0% loans of newly crated money from Fed policy, and use this to buy up property in markets that they know are good investments. Seattle is very high on this list as a great place to invest all this new capital. In a nutshell, the housing bubble (or more specifically the government policies set in place after the housing bubble) have granted the wealthy untold benefits in the real estate market. Especially here in Seattle.

As for minimum-wage laws being the solution?

The owner of Liberty, The Subway franchise owner, nor you and I and most of the 99% (whatever) have access to these tools for the rich, Starwood Capital Group does. (Starwood is owner of some of the new condos, FYI.)

Minimum-wage laws do not address this issue. Minimum-wage laws essentially look to small-business (whom employ over 70% of the workforce) to solve the inequalities - even though, obviously - small business owners struggle with high rent too.
Posted by Nick CapHill http://thestranger.com on July 17, 2014 at 4:28 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 66
@65 - That sort of looks like an explanation; I appreciate some of the levels of detail. But just as a for-instance, I'm self-employed--a stage actor/acrobat/playwright and a personal trainer/martial arts instructor. Keeping my prices the same, my clients-most of whom are also theatricians, which means they work for, if not minimum wage, low administrative or service industry wages to support their art--are better able to afford my services, so more of them train with me, and the ones training with me train more days-per-week, which allows me a greater amount of buying power and greater freedom to take on theatrical projects (some of which will pay and some of which will not ... but the more work of either kind I do, the more projects, including paid projects, are on offer).

In theory, yes, some prices may go up if the wage goes up, but most the evidence I've seen on that is ambiguous and inconclusive; in any case, it's fair to say that prices don't go up across the board, and if I play my cards right, I can live frugally-but-comfortably (as opposed to the frugal-but-uncomfortable lifestyle to which I've become all too accustomed) in the new economy with a greater income. And Seattle theater has more athletic actors and more me, both of which will add to the greater good of the city. :)

Furthermore, while your analysis looks fine on paper (I'll leave it to the number crunchers to figure out if it actually works out the way you say it works out), it seems you're elucidating the problem without really offering a solution. How do we make sure that Starwood Capital Group either pours more money into those sectors of society where wages may be low, but where more victories for humanity per capita will likely be won by the end of the week than collectivism_sucks will have offered by the time they lower his sad little body into the ground, or, at least, ensure that the Starwoods of the world aren't granted any special favors that inspire them to jack up real estate costs?

Also, what is the libertarian take on transit, in which this region is sadly deficient? Do you think it's a coincidence that the cities that have produced the overwhelming global majority of cultural-linguistic product (art, literature, science) are those with comprehensive transit systems, while collectivism_sucks's Texan paradise, Houston, has produced nothing of cultural significance since ... well, since ... (I'm sure somebody'll think of something)?
More...
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 17, 2014 at 4:47 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 67
@59
Actually Goldy, according to the Seattle Times, YOU are the one who is out of touch with Eastern Washington. An independent poll on the minimum wage, the fist independent poll done to my knowledge, finds that 49% of all Washington voters believe cities should not have their own minimum wages but that it should be uniform across the state, while 43% disagree.
The Eyman initiative will NOT lower or effect the minimum wage but simply insure that it is even across the state, hence comparing it to 1998 makes absolutely no sense.
Also, this same poll finds that a majority of Washington voters think a 15/hour minimum wage will hurt Seattle's economy (54%) and that a whopping 40% of Seattle residents think this is a bad idea.
Source: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsno…
Again, the Eyman law doesn't lower or effect the state minimum wage, it only says it has to be uniform. With most of Eastern Washington hating this idea and no shortage of Seattlites who hate the idea, we can be sure that the 15Now crowd will have a tough battle ahead of them in 2015.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 17, 2014 at 6:13 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 68
@60
You said: "Answer, One shouldn't assume Seattle can defeat the entire Eastern side of the state. Just as one should not assume that an initiative that apparently doesn't exist yet would get the needed signatures. "
Ah, hate to break it to you but, TIM EYMAN HAS THE INITIATIVE WRITTEN AND IS COLLECTING SIGNATURES AS WE SPEAK! http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profi…
Why don't you read what I type before you reply, and then maybe you won't look so foolish next time.
Later you said: "Nor should one assume that if an initiative does get circulated it won't include a carve out for existing local laws regarding minimum wage."
The initiative does exist, and it includes no such carve out.
" Or that a counter initiative, or more, also get on the ballot confusing the issue and canceling each other out."
That is a good point. However, it would be hard to get a state wide initiative off the ground in time to beat the initiative Eyman is already getting signatures for.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 17, 2014 at 6:19 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 69
@64
Why would someone in Eastern Washington vote for this aside from giving the finger to Sawant? (which they would love to do, btw) Simple: how are they suppose to compete with Seattle if their wages go up? What will it do to the state economy? Will outer areas see an influx of low-skilled workers who can't find work in Seattle as college educated people are applying to Subway to make 15/hour, out competing them?
And, the best selling point: If local minimum wages are banned, it forces the state to raise the state minimum wage. So if someone in Yakima wants the minimum wage in their town to go up they would vote for this because it would make Seattle be on their side in raising the whole state minimum wage.
This initiative could even win some liberals to its side.
And as for this line: " You're just vocal and opinionated. You'll grow up one day."
My boss essentially guaranteed me that she won't renew the lease to her shop after June of 2015 when it goes up because of the minimum wage increase. So, I just had my job voted away by a handful of politicians. Excuse me if I sound a little angry as a result.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 17, 2014 at 6:25 PM · Report this
70
@68 *shakes head sadly* Dense and tribal is no way to look at the game of politics. You are so busy running around slapping labels on things, conservative, liberal, libertarian, progressive, left libertarian, communist, right libertarian, socialists, the Peoples front of Judea, The Judean peoples front. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7Va…

You can't even see what is happening on the field.

Eyman has and has been circulating an initiative in preparation for the next round of play. Mostly to raise money in order to actually run an initiative, so really what he's got is a draft the final wording of which depends on the backers he can find. Good move on his part, but known.

Known by the the supporters of 15Now who you better believe have a counter move(s) in the can already even if YOU don't know what they are. They just didn't send out a press release about it.

If your proposing a change to the rules regarding how these types of decisions are made I'd be happy to entertain them, open to it even. But you are not, you don't, in fact when directly asked to you vaguely refer to some deliberative body and then spout your views on various issues.

Your so stuck on forcing everything into left right, right wrong, good bad, you spin yourself into the mud while the world in living color walks by laughing.

Posted by Machiavelli was framed on July 17, 2014 at 9:52 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 71
@70
Ah, did you not read the article? Eyman has his initiative and is now getting signatures. Nothing will be added to it because that will invalidate any signatures he's getting. That's not how initiatives work and trust me, I've worked on several.
As for the rest of your dribble, yes, this is pretty black and white: raising the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour is a bad idea. It is costing me my job and many others will be hit hard by this: http://seattle.eater.com/archives/2014/0…
And no, I don't put people in "left, right" boxes. It's the opposite, actually. I'm further to the left than many here, but I'm called a right-winger because I believe in less bullying from government of small business owners and believe in the right of people to have a job.
Oh, and 15Now will NOT be able to mount a campaign on a statewide level. The Seatac measure required a ton of money and only won by 77 votes out of over 6,000 cast in one small city. How the hell can the unions win a fight in all of Washington, especially with the poll numbers on our side?
And the way we know the 15Now people will lose is because of how hard they're trying to prevent anything from getting on the ballot, even only in Seattle where they could probably win. If they are terrified of it coming to vote in Seattle, what does that tell us about their chances of winning on a state level campaign?
Go ahead, call me a name, and ignore the facts: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsno…
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opinionnw/…
More...
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 17, 2014 at 10:11 PM · Report this
72
@71 "I don't put people in "left, right" boxes."

No you put yourself in a box. Hell you open posts with. "I'm a left wing Libertarian and I believe....... everyone else is wrong and or doesn't understand me."

As for the rest of your rant, you're 0 and 2 in Seattle on minimum wage, so forgive me if I don't buy into your analysis of how it will play statewide.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on July 17, 2014 at 11:09 PM · Report this
Nick CapHill 73
@66 When you say, "I can live comfortably in the new economy with a greater income" - The "new economy" will not be how you envision it. Not for everyone. Sure, there will be some people that benefit. Perhaps you. But there will be other employees that wont. This is not theory, but basic understanding of how economics work, and how imbalances caused by draconian government mandates change the regions economy.

Complex imbalanced system create inequalities.

Here is my point: This whole Seattle debate was drenched in the argument about one industry. The Service Sector industry. Hardly a mention of what may happen to light manufacturing, mailorder services, or the hundreds of other non-service industries that do not depend on local commerce and services to stay afloat. It is all about the perceived notion that service sector employees "need a raise". (Speaking of "service employees", can you think of an organization that has funded the minimum-wage campaign and whose leaders paychecks will be going up with the new minimum-wage mandate? Ill give you a hint, their acronym starts with *Service* *Employees*. But I digress.) Many businesses and employees are going to find the "new economy" very difficult for their industry to survive in. The employees, whom could be your clients, will have to either find a *Service* job to survive, or leave the region.

City council's mandate has created an imbalance that will drive away industries that do not benefit from being in a high wage regional economy. collectivism_sucks completely understands this.

There is a lot of talk about what Seattle will gain with higher paid service jobs, but no one wants to talk about what it is about to loose.

Posted by Nick CapHill http://thestranger.com on July 17, 2014 at 11:56 PM · Report this
74
@73 "Complex imbalanced system create inequalities."

You got that part right. Now I'd suggest you go back and look at the last Robber Baron age in America and the labor movement in the US as compared to Europe. That rebalancing eventually lead to America winning the world.

Yes yes by the 1960s the mob had corrupted the US labor movement but all things considered beats Hitler and Stalin. Reagan didn't really need to (the Unions were shedding the mob by then) but he finished the job of breaking the back of Unions thus gutting the foundation of middle class. Throwing the whole complex system into complete imbalance ushering in today's Robber Baron age. And here we are.

So with traditional paths for labor negotiations cut off how would you suggest rebalancing today's complex system?
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on July 18, 2014 at 12:33 AM · Report this
Nick CapHill 75
@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.

Posted by Nick CapHill http://thestranger.com on July 18, 2014 at 10:53 AM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 76
@67 - a whopping 40% of Seattle residents think this is a bad idea.

1) 40% isn't whopping amount of support.
2) The 60% who DO think it's a good idea would be considered a super-majority.

So, given that, why should I believe your stance on any of your other numbers? You're making libertarians look bad.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on July 18, 2014 at 12:24 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 77
Sure, there will be some people that benefit. Perhaps you. But there will be other employees that wont.
Which would appear to be true of any and every system we've seen thus far. The market is not, by and large, a fairer mistress than the state; indeed, I'd hold that corporations, churches, governments, tribes, clans, etc., differ from one another only as a matter of preference; as social animals, we organize ourselves into collectives with hierarchies. A collective in which the least well compensated can access the basic building blocks of participation in and enjoyment of the fruits of civilization strikes me as preferable to one in which they cannot.

Like you, I'm not 100% positive that a higher minimum wage is the best way, or even a particularly effective way, to achieve that. But I've yet to hear a viable alternative, even from you, to solving the problem of the condition of inequality that currently exists.
Complex imbalanced system create inequalities.
As near as I can tell, ALL systems create, or at least maintain, inequalities. What interests me is if and how those inequalities are mitigates so those who benefit least can still count on a certain baseline of solvency.
Here is my point: This whole Seattle debate was drenched in the argument about one industry. The Service Sector industry.
Largely because we are a service economy, and the service sector is where full time hours are least likely to provide a living wage.
(Speaking of "service employees", can you think of an organization that has funded the minimum-wage campaign and whose leaders paychecks will be going up with the new minimum-wage mandate? Ill give you a hint, their acronym starts with *Service* *Employees*. But I digress.)
The participation of unions is hardly, for me, an argument against something. I am not always pleased with how unions operate in practice; I do not even belong to any of the unions available for actors because I value my freedom as an artistic freelancer more than I do the notion that I will be compensated for my work (that is, I'd rather do the work I find worthy regardless of the paycheck than do work I find unworthy for the dubious bounty afforded me by a union contract). But I do support unions in principle.
Many businesses and employees are going to find the "new economy" very difficult for their industry to survive in. The employees, whom could be your clients, will have to either find a *Service* job to survive, or leave the region.
As I pointed out, my clients all spend half their time working in an industry which is perpetually on the verge of dissolution (theater), and feed themselves almost exclusively by way of--wait for it--service jobs.

Those who don't work as service employees are, like me, self-employed service specialists--trainers, teachers, aestheticians, life coaches, and, for the more mathematically inclined, accountants and tax preparers who benefit from higher service level wages.

Again, I do see the potential for consequences arising for which I have no solution. Which means I'm exactly as perplexed as to how to make ends meet in the terrible, service-centric dystopia you foresee as I have been in, well, the world in which we've been living all along.
City council's mandate has created an imbalance that will drive away industries that do not benefit from being in a high wage regional economy. collectivism_sucks completely understands this.
Then I would love to hear what those industries are, and what you propose that will keep them here while putting more money in the pockets of people who work for a living. Collectivism_sucks buys into the myth that some people's jobs just aren't "worth" a living wage. I say all value is assigned or imposed; the assignment of value, as a trait, is a necessary survival adaptation, but the particular values assigned are always and in all cases arbitrary, and no one's survival should depend on the caprice of our collective distractibility. If you don't grow food or treat illnesses and injuries, your job is basically made up. I might make some exception for, say, construction and repair of functional commodities like transportation, shelter, and clothing, but we're still talking about a tiny fraction of the work force and an awful lot of automation; for the rest of folks, the actor, the lawyer, the accountant, the burger flipper, the teacher, the project manager ... our tasks are fabrications, moving parts of a grand game we call society. To pretend that any one of these tasks is more "valuable" than any other on any basis but our personal preferences and/or some collective preferences regarding the society in which we live is silly.

In that sense, I value artists because, without art, I fail to see how we're anything but flatworms with thumbs, our existence anything but mere survival. Since innovation is generally carried out outside the careerist track, we will always need a fertile underground from which the mainstream can regularly steal; the worker in that underground will require jobs that benefit from industry without a level of specialization that distracts from the workers using their off hours to do the work of the gods.

Here's the thing, though--we may all have different notions as to what the work of the gods is, but I can guarantee that few humans of any kind assume they're doing it at "work," per se. In point of fact, I don't much value "work" at all. I value MY work; I value YOUR work to the degree that it amuses or edifies me, or, if you're someone whose person amuses or edifies me to any degree, the degree to which what you do animates and enlivens you. Your job is either a reptilian means to a grander end, unless you're lucky enough to combine your vision quest with your paycheck--a true rarity. Whether your idea of an important pursuit is making art, raising children, drinking oustanding whiskey or cheap red wine, volunteering at a soup kitchen or building houses for the homeless (and so on and so forth), or, hell, getting stoned and watching Jason Statham movies, we all benefit if more of the jobs to be done can be relied upon to offer both the money and the time/attention with which to pursue these other avenues in the communities to which we belong. One of the reasons I support transit and universal healthcare is that I really don't care how hard anyone works, and don't think that how hard you work should have much bearing on your access to the most basic amenities. The relentless dissatisfaction with mere survival, mere existence, experienced by every human organism I have encountered all but guarantees that no one will become idle simply for having shelter, clothing, food, and a doctor; all but the most resolutely indigent will make extra effort in order to cram a little more subjective meaning (if only meaning through pleasure) into this objectively valueless life.

If none of this strikes you as important, well, I just plain am not interested in living in the world you envision, and will put every ounce of energy into fighting the creation of such a world. If any of it strikes you as important, or viable, well, then, I'm all ears as to how you think we should make it happen. I'm still not hearing any ideas that add up to a better alternative than making sure that even our shittiest jobs (still probably more important than anything collectivism_sucks is doing, and more important than anything he will find to do in Houston) pay enough to make living in this civilization possible.
More...
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 18, 2014 at 6:00 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 78
@76
You are really making liberals look bad. As the story I posted a link to and my message said,40% are opposed and 48% are in favor of a higher minimum wage. That's an eight point difference, which is far from insurmountable.
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsno…
The 60% number you just pulled out of thin air.
And considering that earlier polls showed that 70% or more of Seattle voters supported it, I think the article I linked and the polls show that things are moving in the right direction.
Try again.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 19, 2014 at 12:12 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 79
@72
When oh when did I say or allude to "I'm right and everyone else is wrong"? Aren't you the same person who noted that I often defend conservatives, even though I'm far from conservative myself? Now I say anyone who thinks differently from me is wrong? Cognitive dissonance much?
And when did I say the MW would fail in Seattle? I never said that so you're claim that I'm "0-2" is absolutely unfounded. Seattle is a liberal cesspool where emotions win out over logic and as I said, I could see it winning here easily, but it has a decent chance of losing if taken to a popular vote. It would have a much better chance of losing statewide.
My real issue with the minimum wage, aside from that little detail about it taking away my job (which is happening at the end of next year when my employer closes) is that it will NEVER pass in places like Texas, New Hampshire, North Carolina, etc.
That's the question no one is answering: how will this crap ever pass in any but a few liberal cities? Will 15Now and Sawant be well received in Texas? How about Montana?
Go ahead, attack the question, ignore the question, but continue to do everything but answer the question. Seattle extremist hate to admit how unpopular their beliefs our outside of the echo chamber that is this shitty city.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 19, 2014 at 12:23 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 80
@77
The old "living wage" argument rears its head again. There are two big problems with the "living wage" argument in the context of the whole 15Now issue. They are:
A) What the fuck is THE "living wage"? No such thing exist. Different people have different needs. A mother with three kids does not need the same income that a single adult does to make a living. Is every employer suppose to sit down with their employees and figure out how much they need and pay them, regardless of the job? So a mother with three kids gets more money for the same work than a single woman with none? If she doesn't, than she's not getting a "living wage".
B) King County commissioned a study a few years ago to determine how much a single adult needs to be self-sufficient in the city of Seattle. Self-sufficiency for a single adult seems to be the consensus for what a living wage should be. And their finding? A living wage for a single adult in the city of Seattle is $10.62 an hour. Source:
http://www.selfsufficiencystandard.org/d…
According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology living wage calculator, a living wage in Seattle is even lower than $10.62 an hour: http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/5303363…
This assumes the person in question will be living with roommates which, in a city, isn't that horrible a thing. I live with roommates now and I don't feel like "one of the starving proletariat masses". Sharing an apartment, not owning a Playstation 4 and cooking more and eating out less is hardly a major sacrifice. If you think it is, why not ask one of the Somalia or Ethiopian immigrants how hard they think life is when you can only afford to go bar hopping twice a month, and see the look they give you.
If the city council passed a living wage law based on actual data, and raised the minimum wage to maybe $11.25 an hour, I wouldn't be flipping out. I'd still have my job and an extra two dollars an hour wouldn't make or break any business and $11.25, as the data I provided in the link shows, is more than enough to be self-sufficient in Seattle.
And that brings up the question no one is asking: how did they come up with the 15/hour number? What data or study did they base it on? Or did they just pull a big number out of a hat and run with it?
And as for art, most artists are part time artists and have day jobs. Art never paid much and never will, unless one is successful and becoming successful is a process that one has to work towards.
More...
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 19, 2014 at 12:38 PM · Report this
81
The fact the C_S is so freakishly passionate (scared) about all of this is really telling. If he didn't think this whole thing had a chance at going forward, he would be sitting at home comfortably drinking a lemonade and waiting for it all to be over. Instead, he's glued to this thread, arguing the same, tired, old points over and over to people who will never change their mind, especially at the behest of some dude with half-baked ideas about the future of the fastest growing city in the nation.

Keep going though, I've got lots of popcorn and legal weed to sit and watch the pointless mayhem.
Posted by Eckstein on July 19, 2014 at 12:43 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 82
@81
"is so freakishly passionate (scared) about all of this is really telling. If he didn't think this whole thing had a chance at going forward, he would be sitting at home comfortably drinking a lemonade and waiting for it all to be over"
Hey, genius, THIS ALREADY PASSED! My boss already told me in a year and a half my job is closing shop over this.
And of course no Seattle liberal is ever going to change their mind. Which is why I'm moving to the second and soon to be number one fastest growing city in America: http://money.cnn.com/gallery/real_estate…
I'd love to see a socialist get elected there or 15Now pass something there. I'm still waiting for a Sawant apologist to explain to me how that's going to happen...
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 20, 2014 at 2:02 PM · Report this
Nick CapHill 83
@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".
More...
Posted by Nick CapHill http://thestranger.com on July 21, 2014 at 12:15 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 84
And as for art, most artists are part time artists and have day jobs. Art never paid much and never will, unless one is successful and becoming successful is a process that one has to work towards.
That's kind of my point--most artists need day jobs that can not only sustain them on a reptilian level, but can, in fact, provide them with the necessities of their career (which can include the materials of their artistic trade[s], marketing portfolios, headshots, reels, voiceover recordings, wardrobe, exposure to the work of other artists, etc.).

I worked full-time while pursuing my art, even while performing in paying gigs, and barely made ends meet at a peak wage of $12.50/hr., 40 hours a week, while my wife was also working full-time. We do fine without a Playstation, but it behooves us to keep up with what's happening in cinema and television; at the very least we need websites for our businesses and online headshots and resumes to keep our acting careers afloat.

We're both self-employed now--struggling, but doing better than we were able to do as employees, despite any struggles. As a married couple, however, roommates are not an option. Also, we're in our 40s. :)
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 22, 2014 at 10:47 AM · Report this
thelyamhound 85
@83 - Perhaps you need to read more carefully (I realize you non-literary types are ill-schooled in nuance). I never suggested that the state was fairer than the market, only that the market is not fairer than the state.
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 22, 2014 at 10:48 AM · Report this
Nick CapHill 86
@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.
Posted by Nick CapHill http://thestranger.com on July 22, 2014 at 1:01 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 87
@86 - In a sense, I have no trust in anyone's individual or collective capacity to place value on work--his own or anyone else's. We do our best to evaluate what we observe by whatever criteria strike us as right and true and enlightened, including but surely not limited to our subjective emotional judgments. But as I said above, all valuation is arbitrary. If you're not a farmer or a doctor, your job is a fabrication, its value a whim.

Actually, even if you are a farmer or a doctor, your job is still based on a set of whims that we all just happen to share--a basic (and still basically arbitrary) notion that life is more valuable than non-life, human life more valuable than non-human life, and the lives of those in our nation/state/community/subculture more valuable than those of strangers. Since these whims are the foundation for having any society at all, and since, as social mammals and primates, we are essentially non-functioning without some semblance of society, I'm more or less willing to acquiesce to these valuations.

I'm more or less willing acquiesce to most others, as well, provided that the basic blocks of subsistence within society are provided for. As I said, I don't think that the way in which work is valued (or, really, in principle, that one does or does not do any work at all) should have any bearing over whether one has adequate shelter, clothing, medical care, and balanced nutrition to serve as a "base" from which to better oneself or not.

I have no strong feelings as to whether this support should come from employers or government; the history of most churches makes me skeptical of their ability to functionally provide for the populous now that we're no longer particularly united under common fairy tales (if, indeed, we ever were). This is a matter of principle, for me; I no longer earn a wage, but work for myself on an appointment-based basis, and am reasonably successful given how young my business is; I am respected in the community in which I ply both my training practice and my acting and playwrighting. The point is that I work no harder than when I was earning $12.50/hour, and if I think that the work I do is marginally more important, I also don't feel that the fact that the market rewards me in concurrence with that opinion reflects an objectively superior practice, or some clear notion of what I or anyone else "deserves." Most importantly, the fact that I'm making half again what I was making and still barely getting by in the city suggests that even for those well above minimum wage, living in the city where we work is barely sustainable. I would like to see that fixed. If there are examples of efficient units of social organization that can provide this base in an urban environment aside from either government or business owners, I'll happily hear what you have to say.

If, on the other hand, you're simply going to toss about innuendo that I support totalitarianism or an art-world lackey, you might save us both some time.
More...
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 22, 2014 at 1:26 PM · Report this
Nick CapHill 88
@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.

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/artic…

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:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffi…

More...
Posted by Nick CapHill http://thestranger.com on July 22, 2014 at 3:45 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 89
@88 - I find it strange that you dodge an obvious caveat to your point, which is that yes, we pay more for care, and receive less ... than nation-states which almost all have some form of socialized care. You can certainly argue that market-based solutions are "better" in principle, but it would seem that, in practice, a government-run, subsidized system certainly works better than the hybrid system that we have now (and have had, in some form or another, for quite some time).

As for government telling an employer that the pittance they pay is illegal, and whether or not that is fair, I would agree with your assessment if all citizens were provided either with a basic wage separate from employment or with the root amenities (housing, nutrition, medical care, clothing, transportation) to which the majority of those wages (if not an amount in excess of those wages) would go ... because as I say, it shouldn't matter whether or not I value your work, or whether a blighter like collectivism_sucks (who would be honored beyond his merit to gather the sweat from my balls to collect the salt) values your work, when it comes to determining whether you earn the basic benefits of living in a society; indeed, it shouldn't matter whether you work at all.

Until we have a way to ensure that all citizens are cared for before we even factor in wages, those wages should cover cost of living in the region where the employees work. If you don't want that to fall on the employer, great! So who's gonna do it?
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 23, 2014 at 7:59 AM · Report this
thelyamhound 90
And it amuses me how you sound like you get it, but you don't get it. If valuation is arbitrary, then why should the whims of the market determine if and how one's labors are rewarded? Why should someone like c_s, who, if I ate him and shat him out, would likely gain 12 IQ points for passing through my colon, get to determine whose work is "worth" $15/hr.? Indeed, why should I, regardless of my IQ or the regard in which others hold my work, get to make that determination?

Bottom line: if wages aren't to be indexed in some meaningful way to the cost of living, the difference needs to be made up somewhere.
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 23, 2014 at 8:04 AM · Report this
thelyamhound 91
@82 - Your capitalist paradise has contributed nothing culturally or linguistically to the world or the nation in generations, if, indeed, it ever had. There might be work and affordable real estate there, but are they ready to receive anything that anyone will care about a generation or two down the line?

I mean, not that that'll matter for you, but for those of us who care about such things ...
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 23, 2014 at 8:09 AM · Report this
Nick CapHill 92
@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
More...
Posted by Nick CapHill http://thestranger.com on July 23, 2014 at 3:14 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


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