Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[GlyphGryph]

While it would probably hurt Seattle less than a one-factory town, it's still going to hurt some because it's easier to move out of Seattle than out of the US for example. I think the pro are going to outweigh the con though.

That only holds true if people are in Seattle to begin with because of the labour costs. It doesn't matter how easy it is, only how many businesses it will influence enough to change the cost benefit analysis from "stay in" to "get out".

The podunk town gets hurt not because its easy to move out of, but because there are plenty of other podunk towns, often nearby, that offer the same opportunities without the new cost.

There is not another Seattle near Seattle, so any company moving out WILL be making sacrifices... and Seattle is expensive enough that it seems unlikely this would be the thing to suddenly reverse the calculations of whether or not it would be worth it (for most of them).

[Sheb]

Well, as long as you raise the cost in Seattle, you have some marginal business that will move out/close. No matter if it's rent, energy or what. The question is whether the good side effects of a minimal wage will compensate those cost.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Trust me, one of the reasons a business is in Seattle is not because of a non-expensive environment. You don't have a company in Seattle unless you're pretty well aware of the costs associated with being in a modern city with high amounts of overpaid people [typically by these companies that want to burn themselves in the streets because poor people might get a raise].

[RedKing]

I think Seattle has an inflated opinion of how awesome Seattle is. I can tell you from experience, most companies don't really give a shit about the standard of living of their employees. If it's cheaper to move operations to North Shitsville, Texahoma then they will. If it's even cheaper to move it to Bumfuckistan, then they will.

[GlyphGryph]

RedKing - why would companies like that be operating in Seattle as-is though?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

There are plenty of benefits associated with being in a hub of technology, a port city, and a state environment that bends over backwards for companies that boost Washington's GDP. Bumfuckistan doesn't have a constant influx of educated workers, either.

[Culise]

So, why wouldn't those move to the Seattle suburbs?  All the benefits of being near all of that, without the issues of having to be located in Seattle proper.  This will more affect those offices and businesses that can't effectively move - restaurants, services, and the like.  The fact that it doesn't affect teenage workers will help with that a bit, but even so, I'll reserve judgment before calling it a good thing.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I believe employment for the top-tier in seattle is so competitive that HQing in the suburbs is an easy way to get laughed at by potential employees who don't want to spend 30 minutes going to work. And for companies that rely on foot traffic or exposure of any sort to continue operations, that's simply not an option. These companies do not pay minimum wage employees anyways, so an increase in wages for the lowest in Seattle will directly increase money going towards local non-luxury businesses as opposed to directly increasing their cost of operations. Sure, Micky D might pay more expenses, but trust me, they make plenty of cash.

[RedKing]

RedKing - why would companies like that be operating in Seattle as-is though?

A lot of what Mict said -- the "cluster' effect of having a lot of tech companies in one place. Same reason Silicon Valley exists, and same reason RTP was built here in North Carolina. But....tech clusters and highly-educated workforces are increasingly common and with telework becoming more common, it doesn't make sense to staff expensive operations centers or programmer farms in Seattle or San Diego when you can do it in say, Omaha and just have your main workers telecommute. If the HQs stay, it's because the executives want to stay in Seattle (though they might not be so thrilled when their mocha soy latte starts costing $15).

I'm not against the notion of raising the minimum wage, but $15/hr does seem a bit high, and I think there will be repercussions. You also have to consider how the ripple effect on local inflation will impact people on fixed incomes like Social Security and disability. Or Seattle's sizable homeless population.

[SalmonGod]

In other words, until steps are taken to modify the incentives underlying the problem, the whole thing will be eternally fucked no matter what you do.

Side note:  The whole telecommuting thing is advancing excruciatingly slowly.  I think it's going to take a much longer time than people are projecting for corporate middle-management culture to release its death grip on workers.  They vast majority of them are paranoid control freaks.  To not be able to step out their office door and tower over their office drones like an oar-ship slave-driver is unfathomable to them, and they will fight tooth and nail to hold on to that dynamic.  They have a fundamental psychological need to see their people working with their own eyes, or they'll be crippled with horror at the thought of employees not making efficient use of company time because they don't feel the scornful gaze of Sauron's Eye.  I've spoken with multiple managers about this, and they pretty much said exactly what I just described, but in more politically correct language.

[Descan]

I think 15 might not be high enough. Considering it's less than the 2 dollars or so that was considered a "livable wage" back in the 50s or 60s. Adjusted for inflation of course.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

No Descan, don't mention inflation adjusted wages or we wouldn't realize that the middle and lower classes haven't gained any effective wages since the 60s!


Do you not know how hard we've tried to hide this information from the general public?

[REDACTED] Pick up that can, citizen.

[GlyphGryph]

(though they might not be so thrilled when their mocha soy latte starts costing $15).

You seem to be confusing the proposal with a $50 minimum wage proposal or something.

You also have to consider how the ripple effect on local inflation will impact people on fixed incomes like Social Security and disability. Or Seattle's sizable homeless population.

Much like how you must consider the ripple effect of how a lot more people from a population group that is a lot more likely to spend their money locally have a lot more money is likely to impact the local economy.

These people are most definitely not the ones driving Seattle's local inflation though, this is just going to allow them to (barely) keep up. Lots of small businesses are already suffering because they are being pushed out of the market on account of their target audience not having disposable income - this will go a long way to giving them the opportunity to thrive again.

[SalmonGod]

IIRC, the federal minimum wage would be $27 today, if kept pace with both productivity increase and inflation.

[FearfulJesuit]

I'm not opposed to a minimum wage of $15, mind you. The economy can certainly bear it (it might be hard on low-wage startups, but the benefits will outweigh the costs). No, I'm questioning the wisdom of Seattle doing it when it's the only jurisdiction to do so, because that will be an incentive for low-margin companies to start leaving town.

On the other hand, it looks like it will be phased in over the next 3-7 years. We'll see.