Skip to main content

This is what happens when politicians see the writing on the wall.

Just three days on the job, Seattle's new mayor Ed Murray, announced plans to raise the minimum wage for city workers.

"Today I will issue an executive order directing my department heads to develop a comprehensive strategy to implementing a $15 minimum wage in the City of Seattle for city employees," Murray said in a news conference Friday morning.

Murray said his personnel director and budget director will lead the effort and explore options to make the order retroactive to the start of 2014. Murray has said that he'll give his team four months to raise the wage.

Getting a $15/hr minimum wage for all of Seattle is going to take longer, but it is going to happen or be put to the voters.
Socialist City Council member Kshama Sawant rode the minimum wage issue to victory in Seattle...

... a ballot measure is possible because Sawant says she'll start gathering signatures if city leaders don't quickly pass a $15 per hour minimum wage.

Sawant has agreed to serve on a task force of business and labor leaders that will take four months to come up with a plan on how to raise the entire city's minimum wage.  Of course there is no mystery on how to wage the minimum wage: the City Council passes an ordinance saying the minimum wage is $15/hr, with adjustments for inflation annually, effective in some small number of months into the future.  Like, duh.

Sawant understands that the powers-that-be hope that somehow the issue will be derailed...

But big business will not let this pass without a fight. They will mobilize their resources to derail, delay, and dilute efforts to end the poverty wages that are the source of their profits.
...but that seems unlikely.
"My commitment is unwavering and unshakable on getting $15 an hour and making progress on making Seattle an affordable city," Sawant said last month.
She has already begun organizing a grassroots campaign, even before she takes her seat on January 6th, to make sure the politicians can't make the issue vanish into the mist.
The only way we can counter the power of Corporate America is by building a massive grassroots campaign with local neighborhood and campus groups, town hall meetings, mass rallies, and strikes.

Seattle Councilmember Kshama Sawant, along with a growing list of workers, unions, and activists, have come together to form 15 Now to organize this movement.

And the intent is to push for a nationwide movement.
15 Now is currently centered in Seattle - where the Fight for 15 has the best immediate prospects - but we aim to build a nationwide movement...

We will need real resources to organize the struggle and counter the lies and propaganda of the richest 1%. We are relying on you - workers, young people, and activists. To lay the basis for a serious campaign, we are launching an appeal for 1,000 people to donate $15/month. Sign up here to make a monthly donation or one-time donation, and add your name to the list of people supporting 15 Now.

It's beyond time the CEO's and the one percent owners of corporations that pay so little their employees are forced to rely on government (that is we the people) subsidies to stay fed, housed and healthy, transfer just a bit of their wealth back to the ninety-nine percent.  And it looks like it's going to happen.

Originally posted to jpmassar on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:45 AM PST.

Also republished by Occupy Wall Street, ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement, Progressive Policy Zone, Dailykos Kossacks For Action, and Seattle & Puget Sound Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (170+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, Mr Robert, Dave in Northridge, jacey, ontheleftcoast, TooFolkGR, tardis10, MKinTN, middleagedhousewife, poco, AoT, angel d, whenwego, jan4insight, ericlewis0, msdrown, maggid, trumpeter, HeyMikey, Lily O Lady, Polly Syllabic, Heart of the Rockies, Catte Nappe, mrblifil, librarisingnsf, PhilJD, Chaddiwicker, phenry, Egalitare, Matt Z, letsgetreal, peacestpete, Lost and Found, tegrat, northerntier, marzook, ColoTim, HeartlandLiberal, Shockwave, radarlady, Gary Norton, ten canvassers, nirbama, Susipsych, Involuntary Exile, YucatanMan, Satya1, Pilotshark, kevinpdx, petulans, crankypatriot, Late Again, Penny GC, markdd, gooderservice, kimoconnor, Assaf, jrand, smugbug, LynChi, ask, amyzex, melfunction, MuskokaGord, surfbird007, divineorder, WisVoter, BarackStarObama, sea note, IndieGuy, sulthernao, puakev, MBramble, Laurel in CA, Librarianmom, FloridaSNMOM, blackjackal, allensl, boadicea, leonard145b, Spirit of Life, Railfan, ItsSimpleSimon, kaminpdx, stevie avebury, DavidMS, Sun Tzu, afisher, zooecium, irate, Mimikatz, txcatlin, eyo, SME in Seattle, 4Freedom, PatConnors, Union Review, roses, HedwigKos, thomask, Simul Iustus et Peccator, PeterHug, Elizaveta, stvnjon, janmtairy, Tinfoil Hat, GeorgeXVIII, akmk, Brian82, Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees, carpunder, rapala, Angie in WA State, wa ma, chimene, newpioneer, where4art, page394, doingbusinessas, jaf49, Pablo Bocanegra, chuckvw, LarisaW, ERdoc in PA, tgypsy, Odysseus, Square Knot, ichibon, exNYinTX, Words In Action, anodnhajo, George3, bnasley, BusyinCA, wildweasels, eyesoars, NXNW, millwood, Tool, Kombema, We Won, JDWolverton, mconvente, LucyandByron, bleeding blue, navajo, deepeco, rcbouch, MartyM, DebtorsPrison, bloomer 101, koNko, dagnome, Tom Anderson, RUNDOWN, Terri, kaliope, rogerdaddy, offgrid, Burned, Bob Duck, yoduuuh do or do not, unclejohn, secret38b, Creosote, Sailorben, SphericalXS, Teenygozer, sciguy, todamo13
  •  thats a good thing. Frankly, cities like Seattle (34+ / 0-)

    and NYC should have minimums of 15, same with LA. higher costs of living, higher minimums.  there needs to be a federal floor of around 11.

    •  That is exactly right. For too long we have (28+ / 0-)

      allowed CEOs to make ridiculously high salaries, when the real worker bees are producing the products and services that support the businesses.

      I hope Colorado follows suit.

      •  Yes Morrell (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, 4Freedom, ichibon, mconvente

        It has to start in Blue States and Blue Cities and grow from there. We can't wait on BHO and Congress.

        •  Agreed, just like gay marriage or pot, it has to (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, AlexDrew, mconvente, caryltoo

          go state by state city by city. frankly there should be a maximum salary ceos should make ie, no higher than 10 million a year, and tied to company performance. in other words, like a contract for an nfl lineman, its not guaranteed. if the company makes a profit, thy get paid the 10 million, if they dont, then they dont get the 10 million. and have it be straight salary, none of the stocks and writeoffs trick most ceos use today to avoid paying income taxes.

          •  It doesn't have to be a maximum per se, but rather (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jpmassar

            a formula, i.e. ceo's and other management can make no more than 15x or 20x or even 30x the average salary of bottom tier workers. In the 1950s and '60s, for example, CEO's made approx. 30x the salary of their lowest level employee, and no one thinks those CEOs didn't have it good -- nice houses, luxury cars, country club memberships, flying first class etc.

            Today, in the largest companies, it is something like 200x and even more, and that's a bit obscene. Now nothing less than a mansion, servants and private planes will do for the titans of industry while their employees far too often can't survive without subsidies from the government, meaning us.

            •  yes 30x, like in the 50s, would be fine. again, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jpmassar

              tied to performance. if the company makes a profit, they get paid. there should also be a requirement, that you cant lay off workers when the company is making a profit, with the exception that they are a lousy or dishonest worker. much of the companies profits right now come from laying off workers when, on paper,the company is in the black.

    •  Step by step (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar, ichibon, NXNW, offgrid, caryltoo

      and state by state, or in this case by city.

      1st Marriage equality - Massachusetts - 05/17/2004.

      1st Marijuana legalization - Colorado - 01/01/2014

      If Seattle is first to give us a living wage it will be another victory for the people.

      And if Vermont is first in universal health insurance (target 2017) all the better.

      The billionaires and corporations can buy Congress but they can't buy every state legislature and governor, every city council and mayor.  

      “The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.”  Martin Luther King

      When was the last time anyone in DC told America the f*cking truth?

      by jaf49 on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 04:31:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But they will give it a HELL of a try (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        caryltoo, jpmassar, jaf49

        ... before they lose

        The billionaires and corporations can buy Congress but they can't buy every state legislature and governor, every city council and mayor.

        America's LAST HOPE: vote the GOP OUT in 2014 elections. MAKE them LOSE the House Majority and reduce their numbers in the Senate. Democrats move America forward - Republicans take us backward and are KILLING OUR NATION!

        by dagnome on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:18:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They will, but with 50 states and countless (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, jaf49

          districts their buying power is diluted. The best thing about the city by city movement is that it will hopefully open the eyes of the partisan morons who continually vote against their own interests and have bought into the anti-union, anti-public sector worker as the root of all evil when it comes to their own lack of wages and benefits.

          They are the ones who ask why should a cop or teacher have a living wage or good benefits on their dime when they're struggling to get by, never bothering to ask the real question, which is why don't they have a decent salary or good benefits too. If the raises come via the city councils or district voters, it takes away the anti-union meme the powerful corporatists have played for decades now.

        •  "Can't Buy..." (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar

          Huh?

          congress was bought and paid for by big corporations years ago... please wake up.

          "It is essential that there should be organization of Labor. Capital organizes & therefore Labor must organize" Theodore Roosevelt

          by Superpole on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 04:01:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  @ jaf49 et al (0+ / 0-)

        I hate to pee on everyone's parade, but, being a WA St. resident, we've just witnessed what multi-national corps will spend on grassroots causes. I-522--the initiative to label GMO food--was defeated by <2% this last Nov. The Grocery Manufacturers Assoc and Monsanto Corp were the main contributors to defeat this off-year ballot measure--spending over $20,500,000. That's $5.32 for every registered voter in Wash St. -or- looked at another way--$11.69 for every one of the 1.7 mill. who cast a vote. -or-more investment oriented--$22.89 for every "no" vote counted. -or-dividing by what's most important to them--$538.80 for EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 38,047 votes it took to kill the measure.
        caryltoo mentioned luxury cars, country club memberships, and nice houses. HA! That's mid-level executive stuff. The owners? THEY buy people.

        "There is a stage of hard luck that turns into fun, and a stage of poverty that turns into pride, and a place in laughing that turns into fight."
         -Woody Guthrie

  •  15/hour (29+ / 0-)

    comes out to about 30K/year for a full time worker.
    A survivable salary for a single person, or a couple without much in the way of needs.

    The worst part is when you consider how many make less.  City workers on starvation wages.  And they call this civilization?

    I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

    by trumpeter on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:22:18 PM PST

  •  Would love to recommend (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, caryltoo

    but don't see the usual radio button allowing it. Something changed? I remember something about Facebook sharing but didn't pay attention.

  •  And also... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrand, jpmassar

    Require overtime to start at 30 hours a week, instead of 40.

    Yes, this would encourage employers to limit hours of each worker to 30. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Because they'd have to hire now-unemployed people to get all the work done.

    Working 75% of the hours for double the hourly rate would still be a net pay raise. And it would put the unemployed back to work.

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:26:05 PM PST

    •  Then $15/hr is insufficient to live on (9+ / 0-)

      You assume overtime as a given, and it's not. You are proposing that most get cut to an annual inocme that is the equivalent of $11.25/hr. currenlty.

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:34:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Compared to what? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kimoconnor, jrand, WisVoter, jpmassar, eyo

        "Enough" is relative.

        40 hours x 2014 Washington minimum wage of $9.32 an hour (current law effective 1/1/14) = $372.80 a week.

        30 hours x  $15 an hour = $450.00 a week.

        Now consider this:

        When the federal program [emergency unemployment benefits extension] expires, just one in four unemployed Americans will receive jobless benefits — the smallest proportion in half a century.
        http://www.nytimes.com/...

        That's right: three-fourths of all unemployed Americans are now getting zero per week.

        Is zero enough to live on?

        My proposal would be a net take-home raise for those already working, and would get a significant number of unemployed from zero to something.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:18:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wouldn't that shoot the ACA in the foot? (4+ / 0-)

      Under the ACA, full-time equivalency starts at 30 hours per week, with companies employing over 50 FTE employees required to give health benefits to all employees working more than 30 hours per week or pay a fine.

      Wouldn't starting overtime at 30 hours per week be just another incentive for employers to give their employees less than 30 hours so they could avoid overtime and health benefits?

      Alternatively, if the employers did want to keep the employees on at 40 hours per week and give them benefits under the ACA, wouldn't this provide an incentive to give them a salary at their current rate rather than keeping them as hourly employees, instead of promoting additional hiring?

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:54:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  2 points. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jrand, jpmassar

        (1) Please see my reply to Catte Nappe.

        (2) Obamacare means that if they have no employer health coverage, they can get coverage via healthcare.gov with income-based premium.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:20:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you're missing something here. (5+ / 0-)
          Please see my reply to Catte Nappe.
          Your reply to Catte Nappe presupposes that the additional costs for employers in hiring new employees would be lower than the cost of making 40-hour employees into salaried workers, or simply requiring more productivity out of their current employees.

          Also consider that the real difference between a 30-hour and 40-hour overtime cutoff is only 3.33 hours, if overtime is time-and-a-half. An employee working 40 hours with no overtime costs the same as one working 36-2/3 hours with overtime at 30 hours.

          So the real comparison from the employer's standpoint would be whether hiring someone else to take up that 3-1/3 hours' worth of weekly production per employee is more expensive than simply requiring more productivity out of the 36-2/3 hours the existing employee is working. I can't think of a lot of business scenarios where that would mean substantial additional hiring.

          Also, don't assume that with such a significant change to the work week, all wages would rise commensurately with the minimum wage, as they have in the past. Employers who are currently paying their workers $2/hr above minimum wage wouldn't necessarily raise their wages to $17/hr, particularly if they're getting 3-1/3 hours' less work out of them per week.

          Obamacare means that if they have no employer health coverage, they can get coverage via healthcare.gov with income-based premium.
          I thought one of the purposes of raising the minimum wage was to make it so that employers couldn't pass their labor costs on to the government by paying their employees so little that they still required public assistance.

          Wouldn't this run counter to that purpose, by giving employers more incentive to cut their employees' hours below the ACA minimum and make them reliant on the public subsidies for the ACA exchanges instead?

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:38:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tradeoffs. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jpmassar

            There is no perfect solution. I'm trying to address the greatest harm, which is millions of Americans with no work at all and no unemployment benefits.

            (See my other comment in this thread with the NY Times link: 75% of the unemployed now get NO BENEFITS.)

            I don't think your comparison to a 40-hour employee with no overtime is relevant. Under my proposal that would not exist.

            And in any business with more than a few workers, additional hiring would quickly become justified. I.e., suppose I now have 5 employees working at least 30 hours a week, an average of 34 hours a week each. If I cut them all back to 29 hours, I've taken 5 hours x 5 workers = 25 hours out of my schedule. Thus I need to hire one worker at 25 hours a week. One currently-unemployed-probably-getting-no-benefits worker.

            And if I have 50 workers now, and I cut their average from 34 to 29 hours, then I have to hire several currently unemployed workers.

            I know, lump-of-labor fallacy. See my comment with the embedded corporate-profits graph.

            Dumping people onto Obamacare: A lot of the unemployed don't have any health coverage. (In Washington I suppose they'll get Medicaid; in 20-odd states they won't.) I'd rather them and other workers get taxpayer-subsidized health coverage than continue to have some get job coverage and others have no coverage and no job.  

            Bear in mind: if your income is under 100% of poverty (like, say, out of work and not getting unemployment benefits), you are technically eligible to buy insurance via the Obamacare exchange, but you get no subsidy. That's right, under 100% of poverty you are too poor to get a subsidy. So unless your state is expanding Medicaid, you're effectively SOL.

            And if your state is expanding Medicaid, then keeping you off the Obamacare exchange just means you get another form of taxpayer-subsidized coverage.

            I come back to the bottom line: generating work for the maximum number of people.

            "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

            by HeyMikey on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:01:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Want to put people back to work? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jpmassar, Turn Left

              Then oppose free trade deals, put tariffs in place and bring back manufacturing. Shrinking people's salaries even more by making 40 hours into 30 isn't going to grow the economy or provide any real help.

              JamesGG is right, companies will just find ways of making due with fewer workers. You won't get the hiring bump you want, and the existing workers will just be poorer for it.

              •  That's not going to work, either. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jpmassar, Superpole

                Raising the price of imports to manufacture stuff here, at higher cost, puts some people back to work but raises the cost of living for everyone.

                Have you read this piece by Stiglitz, Nobel economics winner? Basically, we can now produce more stuff than we can consume. We have to figure out what that means in terms of "surplus" workers, or "surplus" person-hours.

                Http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/01/stiglitz-depression-201201

                "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                by HeyMikey on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:31:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Then we should all be super rich right now (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jpmassar

                  But making everything at Walmart 10 cents cheaper didn't help much did it?  Our standard of living went down with outsourcing, so I don't buy your claim. We need to undo what's been done.

                  •  Anything taken to extreme is destructive. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    thestructureguy, jpmassar

                    The starting point should be: all people have inherent dignity and deserve a decent opportunity to earn a decent living.

                    Our enemy is not poor Mexicans or poor Chinese. They should not have to be destitute so we can live a little better. We should ensure that corporations pay living wages, wherever the jobs are. And that they provide reasonably safe working conditions; use reasonably enviro-friendly processes; and that their workers have a right to organize. If I were King of Trade, I'd allow tariff-free trade only of goods and services meeting all those conditions. (Note: right to organize would be the killer for China.)

                    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                    by HeyMikey on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 08:22:09 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Outsourcing didn't help Mexico or China (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      jpmassar

                      China didn't need our manufacturing jobs to not be poor.  They needed to develop their own internal economy.
                      All those sweatshop workers are still dirt poor if you didn't notice.

                      With the massive corruption, pollution and inflation in China, the poor Chinese would be better off today if outsourcing had never happened.

            •  Your math is wrong. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jpmassar, Sparhawk
              suppose I now have 5 employees working at least 30 hours a week, an average of 34 hours a week each. If I cut them all back to 29 hours, I've taken 5 hours x 5 workers = 25 hours out of my schedule. Thus I need to hire one worker at 25 hours a week. One currently-unemployed-probably-getting-no-benefits worker.
              Why would you cut them all back to 29 hours? If you wanted to pay a 34-hour employee the same amount per week as you would pay them under current overtime law, you only need to cut them back to 32.67 hours.

              I'll show the math, presuming a $10 wage (to make all the numbers nice and round):

              34 hours at 40-hour overtime: $340/week
              $340/week non-overtime (34 hours x $10/hour)

              32.67 hours at 30-hour overtime: $340/week
              $300/week non-overtime (30 hours x $10/hour) +
              $40/week overtime (2.67 hours x $15/hour)

              So you've really only taken 1.33 hours x 5 workers = 6.67 hours out of your schedule. At that price point, I don't see how it would help the bottom-line to take on the much larger cost of adding headcount rather than simply paying those workers for the extra 1.33 hours at the overtime rate (a total of $66.67/week combined), demanding more productivity out of them in the 32.67 hours they're working, or making changes elsewhere in the business so less labor is required.

              Even for companies with large numbers of workers—the only point at which that would become economical—your calculation assumes that all those workers' labor is fungible, such that you could have one additional employee doing what 20-25 employees would be doing with 1h20m of their time every week. If the business has people who play various roles—as most businesses do—that's not going to work.

              You can't just cut 1:20 from the accountant, 1:20 from the admin assistant, 1:20 from the line worker, 1:20 from the janitor, etc. and then give all those various hours of labor to one employee, because each of those jobs requires specific skill sets, and the costs to train one employee in all of those areas would make the price point far too high.

              I come back to the bottom line: generating work for the maximum number of people.
              That's not going to be the bottom line for business. They don't want to generate work for the maximum number of people. They want to make money, which means spending as little on labor as they can. You haven't yet shown what price point would make it economical for them to add headcount instead of just adding productivity or eating a little bit of additional labor cost for their existing workforce.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:06:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I disagree with your logic. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jpmassar

                You assume the employer wants to pay each employee the same as some relevant-in-the-past, no-longer-relevant figure.

                I assume the employer wants to pay the minimum aggregate in payroll needed to get the work done.

                They don't want to generate work for the maximum number of people. They want to make money, which means spending as little on labor as they can.
                Exactly.

                Thus the relevant comparison is between (a) a smaller number of employees, accruing substantial overtime, and (b) a larger number of employees, accruing little to no overtime. The less overtime the employer pays to his workforce in the aggregate, the more the employer keeps as profit.

                What the employees used to make, before the overtime trigger was (hypothetically of course) reduced from 40 to 30 hours a week, is irrelevant.

                You can't just cut 1:20 from the accountant, 1:20 from the admin assistant, 1:20 from the line worker, 1:20 from the janitor, etc. and then give all those various hours of labor to one employee, because each of those jobs requires specific skill sets
                Of course that's factually true, and also irrelevant. Many of those people are already well above $15 an hour, so they would not be affected. The people who would be affected more commonly work in crews--warehouses, restaurants, retail stores, etc. In those situations there is a large enough pool of workers so the employer could indeed take a few hours from each of several old workers and give them to one new worker.

                Getting back to your figures: why pay everybody on the crew that extra 2.67 hours of overtime? Why not cut them back to 30 hours instead of 2.67? If you have 5 people on the crew, then you hire somebody else at 5 x 2.67 = 13.35 hours a week.

                Of course you can point to situations where that won't work. No policy, old or new, is going to be optimum for every situation. The question is whether the gains outweigh the losses.

                "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                by HeyMikey on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:27:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  No health insurance. (4+ / 0-)

      Then they'd limit hours to 29 and get out of having to provide health insurance. I guess they can hope for good subsidies on the ACA exchanges, but I wouldn't count on it. $15/hr even with subsidies doesn't buy much. Hope those workers don't get sick.

    •  That is not going to work. (8+ / 0-)

      It relies on the lump of labor fallacy, where there is a fixed amount of labor to be distributed throughout the economy. It was tried in France once (35-hour week) and it failed miserably - the unemployment rate stood at 9.5% even before the current crisis, and now it has increased to 11%. This fallacy is also the cornerstone of anti-immigrant sentiment (illegals are stealing our jobs!) as well as the prevalent view in the 1950s that machines will destroy jobs.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      •  Think it through... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar

        (1) I am not an economist, though I read a fair amount of economics. So there could be something I'm missing, and I would be glad for you to point that out to me. But...

        (2) The lump-of-labour idea is indeed a fallacy when employing more workers for fewer hours per worker results in increased overhead costs, resulting in lower profits, meaning wages have to be reduced. Historically that is the usual situation. But that is not our current situation. Our current situation is this:

        FRED profits

        Thus even assuming hiring more workers results in increased overhead to employers, employers do NOT have to reduce wages. The increased overhead can come out of their ample--fulsome--copious--profits.

        If the profit/wages ratio ever gets back down to a reasonable level, we could revisit the 30-hour rule.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:30:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Huh?? Machines/Robotics Have NOT Eliminated (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, bananapouch1

        hundreds of thousands of jobs??

        You're wrong.

        Obviously you've never worked in a factory-- I have, the same factory my father worked in, the same factory several of my good friends' fathers worked in.

        Then, two of my friend's fathers were welders, or more specifically spot welders. they welded pieces of metal together for farm implements, tractors.

        Ford and GM used to employ welders, too.. Hundreds of them, but not any more. Precision, spot welding is all done by robot welders. those jobs are long gone, and have been gone for years.

        Ever watch the TV show "How It's Made"?? there you can readily see thousands of hot dogs, Ding Dongs, pumpkin pies, bags of potato chips, etc., etc. manufactured (mostly by highly efficient machines) and packaged for sale per day,

        ALL if this is done with a mere handful of workers. and these factories run 24/7.

        The plain fact is the uber capitalists have achieved their decades long wet dream: the manufacture and sales of crucial consumer goods (FOOD) with almost ZERO human labor.

        Please, do some legwork prior to nonsensical statements like "machines have not eliminated jobs".

        "It is essential that there should be organization of Labor. Capital organizes & therefore Labor must organize" Theodore Roosevelt

        by Superpole on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 04:37:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  NO! (6+ / 0-)

      Just NO. How about getting a decent wage and then work on overtime. Would prefer to get everyone paid a decent wage before we cut everyone's hours to starvation limits!
      Peace and Blessings!

      United we the people stand, divided we the people fall.

      by Penny GC on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:32:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And in related news... (5+ / 0-)

    ...outgoing mayor Mike McGinn continued to passive-aggressively whine about the downtown tunnel.

  •  donation website is insecure? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar

    I was going to donate but...

  •  Oh,Washington..why aren't you like the rest of US? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    radarlady, bananapouch1, jpmassar

    You know, the racist, corporate-dominated, RWNJ-ruled, anti-pot, war imperialist, starvation-wage-paying, fracking-ridden, social safety net-busting good ol' U S of A? What the fuck do you think you're doing, making the rest of the country look like ignorant, Bible and gun clinging toadies of the Wall Street bankers? Better watch out, or the US will kick your ass out!!!

    Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizam!

    by fourthcornerman on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:54:56 PM PST

  •  This is wonderful news. (7+ / 0-)

    Go Seattle!

    "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

    by Reepicheep on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:05:27 PM PST

  •  Fascinating experiment. (9+ / 0-)

    This should lead us to see whether it is at all possible to pass a $15 minimum wage. It will require careful planning, but if it works in one city, why can't it work elsewhere? Finally it could turn the tide on the discussions about poverty wages and whether a living wage is better than a minimum wage that's enough to keep someone just above the poverty line.

    Australia has a minimum around $15, and it works just fine, with an unemployment rate of around 5%: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  •  Socialist Kshama Sawant (7+ / 0-)

    Apparently there is a law that requires all media to note that Sawant is a socialist in every story in which she is mentioned.  It's a non-partisan position and none of the other members are attached to a political party, but for some reason let us not forget that Sawant is a socialist.

  •  concern about executive orders? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar

    I'm all for a higher minimum wage. But as I understand it, all the mayor has ordered is a strategy plan/study. I don't see how a mayor could order a pay increase for city workers, without any process for budget appropriations, tax increases, etc. etc.

    Out of sheer frustration, we are encouraging the use of executive powers at the expense of legislative ones (representative government) -- not at all a good precedent, and as is clear in WI and elsewhere, outright dangerous when the right-wing crazies get control of the executive office.

  •  Re (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, coffeetalk
    It's beyond time the CEO's and the one percent owners of corporations that pay so little their employees are forced to rely on government (that is we the people) subsidies to stay fed, housed and healthy, transfer just a bit of their wealth back to the ninety-nine percent.  And it looks like it's going to happen.
    But, that's not actually what is happening here.

    These are city workers that the mayor can (apparently) declare by fiat will make more money, and property/sales/income taxpayers have to pay for it. Rich fatcats aren't going to be affected a lot. Ordinary people are going to pay most of the freight for these increased wages.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:10:40 PM PST

    •  I was referring to the city-wide proposed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk

      ordinance to raise the minimum wage for all, and more generally to the Fight For 15 to raise the minimum wage to a living wage across the entire country.

      While it is true that fat cats won't be affected a lot by raising the minimum wage for City workers in one city, you can bet they will be shaking in their $2000 a pair boots realizing what this could portend.

    •  Taxpayer footing the bill (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar

      Hi,

      Real, live Seattle resident here. I have no problem paying a little more to increase the min wage. I'm pretty sure increasing the disposable income will help stimulate the economy. Less is more works for creative writing, not so much for income.

      Oh, and an anecdotal poll of coworkers had 3/3 supporting a 15/hr min wage. Equally anecdotal polling at my local pub had 4/6 supporting. So my man on the street sampling of Seattle people has 7/9 supporting. If we don't mind any potential rate increases why should you?

      Oh, and the Mayor (I voted for McGinn BTW) doesn't "declare by fiat." He/she makes decisions within the purview of the elected position...if voters don't like it they have the option to vote the bum out.

      •  Re (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thestructureguy, MrAnon
        Real, live Seattle resident here. I have no problem paying a little more to increase the min wage. I'm pretty sure increasing the disposable income will help stimulate the economy. Less is more works for creative writing, not so much for income.
        I think one of these reasons is valid, one isn't.

        If you think $15/hr is a morally just wage and do not mind paying higher taxes for it, sure, go ahead.

        But the idea that it will stimulate the economy is nonsense.

        Export economic activity stimulates the economy, that's pretty much it. Public workers subsist off export oriented private ones. If you want to stimulate Seattle's economy, get Boeing to add another jet assembly line, or get some hi tech or genetics businesses to open up shop, or do something to increase tourism. Those things stimulate local economies. Paying support workers more doesn't (though it is good for the support workers).

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 08:15:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Have to disagree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar

          Everything you mentioned has already been done. Aerospace, biotech, hi tech all have a firm footing in Seattle. Incidentally all have grown out of initial public sector investment. The Public & private sectors depend on each other--the public sector provides the platform for private industry. For example you cited biotech. The research done at the UW Medical Center ($1b in NIH grants) is the starting point for a lot of private biotech companies.

          Funny that you mention tourism. That is another significant segment of the local economy, lots of cruise ships, conventions, etc. But tourism is a service industry, many of those jobs don't pay well and the people doing that work would benefit from an increased minimum wage.

          Putting more money in the local economy stimulates growth. When people have money to spend that creates jobs.

          •  Re (0+ / 0-)
            Putting more money in the local economy stimulates growth. When people have money to spend that creates jobs.
            The only place "more money in the local economy" can come from is somewhere else, which implies export activity.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 08:09:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  WA is most eport dependant state in the USA (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jpmassar

              All the components you mentioned in previous comments are already part of the Seattle/King County/Western WA economy.

              I'm sure you know that Australia has a minimum wage ~16/hr (with exemptions for apprentices, etc). Last time I checked their unemployment rate was lower than ours. I'm also sure that you know that if the min wage in the USA had increased in pace with productivity gains it would be somewhere around 18/hr.

              I don't want to live in a society structured like Medieval Europe. I want a return to when a growing, vibrant middle class was seen as the key to our mutual prosperity and success as a nation. If that means the prices and taxes I pay are a little more that is fine by me. I think the 1930s showed us that the "beggar thy neighbor" concept ends up screwing everyone.

              •  Re (0+ / 0-)
                I'm also sure that you know that if the min wage in the USA had increased in pace with productivity gains it would be somewhere around 18/hr.
                And if it kept pace with the skill set required by minimum wage it would have stagnated the same. It's not like minimum wage workers are doing any more to attain this productivity. Virtually all of those productivity gains are due to the efforts of high tech workers and capital investments.

                Again, not sure I think I know what wage is appropriate, just not sure the productivity argument makes sense.

                I don't want to live in a society structured like Medieval Europe. I want a return to when a growing, vibrant middle class was seen as the key to our mutual prosperity and success as a nation.
                I suspect the Leave It To Beaver 1950/60s single earner middle class family is due to predominant economic conditions at the time rather than political will.

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 02:15:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Um, no... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, coffeetalk, mconvente

    I suspect I'll get flamed for this, but here goes, anyway:

    Of course there is no mystery on how to wage the minimum wage: the City Council passes an ordinance saying the minimum wage is $15/hr, with adjustments for inflation annually, effective in some small number of months into the future.  Like, duh.
    There's no "duh" about it -- it really isn't simple or straightforward.  Versus the current Washington state minimum wage of $9.32, $15 is a 60% increase.  So far as I'm aware, no one has ever increased the minimum wage by 60% in a single step, so your suggestion that they just make the new minimum wage of $15 take affect on a date a few months in the future is unlikely at best, and bad policy at worst.

    More realistically, an increase of that magnitude needs to be phased in over multiple years -- which leads into the question of how large of steps to institute each year, and how many years to get to the full new minimum wage.  

    So why not just increase it all at once?  Ignoring the politics of doing so, simply because we don't know what would happen.  We have lots of past experience with what happens when the minimum wage is increased in relatively modest steps, but none whatsoever with a step increase of 60%.  So while it would make an interesting experiment to see what would happen, the truth is that we don't know that it would turn out well.  On the one hand, it might give a nice boost to Seattle's minimum wage workers -- but on the other hand, we might also see a bunch of jobs migrate to adjacent suburbs.

    Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

    by TexasTom on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:16:26 PM PST

    •  These are "city jobs" not "jobs in the city" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar

      So migrating to suburbs is not really pertinent. City employees is all we're talking about here. The City of Seattle employs people; now those jobs will have a floor wage of $15/hr.

      There is legitimate room for discussion as to how the estimated $700,000 (from a comment above) will be found in the City budget. I'm curious about this part, as I work in Seattle and extra fees etc. could easily impact me. But overall I think that the increase is awesome, and can only improve things around here.

    •  Minimum Wage Jobs Don't Migrate (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar, Tonedevil, Odysseus, NXNW

      First, as above, these are city employees, of which only the tiniest percentage make minimum wage. I'm guessing the total count for Seattle is in the mere dozens.

      But the other factor is that most minimum wage jobs are service jobs that can't be moved. These are folks who work in shops, restaurants and hotels, or perform janitorial/maintenance work.

      "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

      by bink on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:50:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They can't be moved (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk, mconvente, TexasTom

        But they can be automated / consolidated.

        If minimum wage is doubled, you are going to be reading a lot of stories about large numbers of workers being laid off or replaced by automation, even in jobs that you might not think are susceptible now.

        Just like Obamacare causing some unpleasant insurance situations and cutting workers down to part time.

        I'm sort of agnostic about the whole thing, but if you are advocating this policy you have to be ready for these types of outcomes. Your response to me might be "they won't", but what if they do? It's not like business owners are going to be shamed out of automating/consolidating these jobs.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:32:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Automation/Consolidation is happening (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, VClib, TexasTom

          already to some extent.  A huge increase is an incentive to do it more.  

          Just for starters, I've seen some fast food outlets (especially in theme parks) where ordering is done by the customer, by touch screen. You don't come face to face with a live person until you pay your money and pick up your food -- although even there, I can see an option on a touch screen ordering where you opt to pay by credit card and you just slide it or insert it and you don't even have to see a real person.  

          I think that if a few places increase to $15 that's a useful experiment for the rest of the country.  The studies that people rely on to say that minimum wage increases don't hurt employment all talk about modest increases.  See for example PDF here. If you look at page 15, all the increases were under 15%.

          There's a general belief that a huge minimum wage increase will result in significantly fewer minimum wage jobs (as a matter of economics and common sense), but since we don't have a lot of experience with huge increases, if a few areas do it, it will provide information for the rest of the country.

      •  Not city employees (0+ / 0-)

        There were two separate issues raised in Seattle -- one was raising the minimum wage for city employees, and the second was raising it for everyone.  I was specifically responding to the second item.

        And while some minimum wage jobs can't migrate (for example, a restaurant in downtown can't easily move to the suburbs), other jobs can -- sometimes, it is just a matter of a couple blocks that determines whether a restaurant is just inside or outside city limits.  And Seattle isn't really all that big of a city.  In addition, there's a lot of choice about where something like, say, a new warehouse gets built.  $15 minimum wage could be the difference between a warehouse going into Burien versus West Seattle.

        Breaking it down, I think it is pretty straightforward for the city to raise the minimum wage for its own workers, and for contract workers doing work for the city.  Hopefully, that exerts upward pressure on wages both in Seattle and in surrounding areas.  Regarding the broader minimum wage, the ideal situation would be for Seattle to do a large increase in the minimum wage, but space it out over several years -- and, better yet, to get surrounding cities to commit to do the same.  If most of the Puget Sound region were to commit to raising the minimum wage over the course of several years, the risk of jobs migrating could be minimized.  It would also serve as a great experiment showing the viability of the much higher minimum wage for the rest of the country.

        Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

        by TexasTom on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:19:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Economic fairness should be the Democrats rallying (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, mconvente

    cry.

    The minimum wage, and return of the 50% marginal tax rate plus treating unearned income the same as earned income - if the Dems adopted these policies they would take control of the whole Congress and win the White House for another 8 years.  

  •  This can very pactically serve as a test tube for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar

    the rest of the nation.  To actually try it and see that Burger King remains profitable despite what the conservatives have been braying about.  To see real life evidence that working poor become less reliant on government handouts.  If only conservatives would not be immune to evidence, proof, fact and reality.  Norwegian penal system costs less per prisoner than the American one and has near zero recidivism.  Minnesota and Wisconsin are side-by-side examples of comparison: In Minnesota progressive policies run rampant and the place is thriving but in Wisconsin conservative policies run amok and the place is floundering.  Massachusetts has been using Obamacare for years now and all evidence points to far reaching benefits.  We need to point to these success stories.  This is not mere theory, progressivism works.

    Government works when you elect those who want it to. --askyron (2013)

    by Simul Iustus et Peccator on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:22:15 PM PST

  •  A Challenge To Seattle Business (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar

    Raise your minimum wages to $15 before the city makes it law.  Show Corporate America living wages can be paid and profits still made.

  •  Councilperson Sawant may be in for a surprise. . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, thestructureguy

    . . .Seattle is famous for taking hotbutton issues and studying them until they go away. They'll even make Sawant a committee chair -- They'll just make her foul off bad pitches for the next two years.

  •  2012: Legal Cannabis | 2014: #15Now (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, eyo, mconvente, NXNW

    WA State is looking more and more like a bastion of progressivism.

    Couldn't be more proud of my native home, The Evergreen State.

    Where our State Government works for The People, and not just the Corporations.


    "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

    by Angie in WA State on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:50:54 PM PST

  •  Seattle has had a series of mediocrities or even (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar

    utter fools as "mayor" for the past 16 years, after five terms of great mayors in Royer and Rice.  Maybe this Murray guy is a step in the right direction.

  •  See what can happen when 3rd parties (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar

    get some power.  You get a fresh perspective.  i know that is heresy to say on DKOS but there is alot of truth to it.

    Okay good step.  Keep it going.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

    by noofsh on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 04:43:59 PM PST

  •  I wonder how Seattle is going to handle the huge (0+ / 0-)

    influx of people flocking to the City for the work that won't be there?

    If I comply with non-compliance am I complying?

    by thestructureguy on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:24:22 PM PST

    •  I wonder (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar

      How the areas experiencing brain drain will cope when all the talented go-getter types decamp for regions that offer good wages? :)

      Joking aside what you are talking about is the after effects of a gold rush. There can be good and there can be bad but we've been through that before. One local example is a fellow named Nordstrom who came out for the gold rush, ended up selling shoes...

  •  NOPE, "It's Not Happening" (0+ / 0-)

    does the City Council have anything to say about this?

    How will this increase in pay be funded, I wonder?

    It's great if this is real, but it's city workers.. has nothing to do with what private business does in the city. the notion this will "snowball" and lead to restaurant workers getting $15.00 per hour is nonsense.

    "It is essential that there should be organization of Labor. Capital organizes & therefore Labor must organize" Theodore Roosevelt

    by Superpole on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 03:31:27 AM PST

    •  Always nice to know people comment in a diary (0+ / 0-)

      without reading it... or at least without comprehending it.

      •  Don't Need to Read the Whole Thing (0+ / 0-)

        there's a pattern here; grasping at straws, celebrating the smallest bit of positive economic news.. lofty predictions about other states doing what needs to be done.

        I'm wayyy off, eh?

        "It is essential that there should be organization of Labor. Capital organizes & therefore Labor must organize" Theodore Roosevelt

        by Superpole on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 07:21:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is the kind of horror that occurs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar

    when blood-thirsty atheistic communist socialists get into office.

    God-fearing patriots should take notice, and start by refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written by a socialist. It's nothing but a clarion call for big government socialism disguised as true blue patriotism. /snark

    We cannot win a war crime - Dancewater, July 27, 2008

    by unclejohn on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 06:36:32 AM PST

  •  I lived in Seattle and ... (0+ / 0-)

    I don't think the Seattle Mayor will do anything to help Seattle's poor. He will simply raise taxes to pay for increased $ for city employees and deliver no new benefits for the citizens of Seattle. Seattle folks who support are just spending money for no benefits, no helping of the poor and very probably increased benefits for city employees' retirement benefits. I'm thinking my Seattle friends are not thinking.

    Advice is judged by results, not by intentions. Cicero

    by egbegb on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 09:09:45 PM PST

  •  It is about time! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar

    Next we need to address retirement.  We need to remove the cap on Social Security, and lower the retirement age.  Let's work on getting a younger workforce.  My dad had to work until he was 77 years old.  There has to be some time in your life to enjoy the fruits of your labor.  

  •  Finally a person doing their job! (0+ / 0-)

    This is almost a real wage. Much better than the joke of wage of 10 dollars an hour that the Democrats are "fighting" for. I think politicians have forgotten that their job is to fight for us not to lube us up for corporate.

    “Go to where the silence is and say something.” ― Amy Goodman

    by theblackandtanshow on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 08:52:29 PM PST

  •  DEtroit # 2 (0+ / 0-)

    Can you say BANKRUPTCY in Seattle's Future!!

  •  A little steep? (0+ / 0-)

    If the Minimum Wage of 1968 had a COLA elevator, Today's Minimum Wage would be about $10.65.

    While this sounds like grand news, it seems to me that shooting for $10-11 with a COLA elevator would be more pragmatic. I am afraid that a call for $15 will create a firestorm of opposition - even on the Best Coast.

    What would be even better is establishing a CEO to average worker pay ratio, which would either raise workers' wages, or bring down CEO wages - and product prices. Either result would benefit the Country.

  •  minimum wage of $15 protects capitalism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    belinda ridgewood

    Workers who earn this wage can buy a sandwich or a scarf from a local business, on their lunch hour.  It's not rocket science.

    As described by Bloomberg News today in an op-ed--it's good for the economy to have a $15/mimimum.  The new Democrat elect in Seattle, knows this.  e.g. Henry Ford, who wrote for the facist papers new how to sell cars, pay the workers enough to buy his cars and not sabotage them at work-- it could be their car!

    Most importantly now, is the impact that the $15 minimum has on all wage workers ( that us--the 99%).

    MG

  •  Minimum Wage (0+ / 0-)

    THE TAIL OF THE DOG IS WAGGING THE DOG IN THE U.S.A.  AS MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE BECOMING AWARE OF HOW THE INEQUALITY BETWEEN THE HAVES AND HAVE NOTS, THE MORE THAT ARE SUPPORTING INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE.  AS MORE AND MORE CITIES AND THEN AS MORE AND MORE STATES INCREASE THE MINIMUM WAGE THEY WILL EVENTUALLY FORCE THE CORRUPT CONGRESS TO INCREASE THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE.  THAT WILL BE THE BEGINING OF THE END OF INEQAULITY IN THE U.S.A.  THE INCREASING OF THE MINIMUM WAGE IS NOT ENOUGH IT MUST ALSO INCLUDE A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT BE INCLUDED TO KEEP THE MINIMUM WAGE EQUITABLE AT ALL TIMES.

  •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

    Nobody, anywhere has complained that government workers suffer from low pay. As a matter of fact it's quite the opposite.

    This seems like it will only enrage the private industry that pays low wages giving them ammunition that taxes are too high.

  •  It's hard to believe, (0+ / 0-)

    That a mayor in this country has the courage,and conviction of this man.The whole city deserves credit,and I hope it spreads to the whole state.If something like this catches on ,and spreads as fast as the  republican 1%ers lies,we may actually have a chance to narrow the the inequality in this country a little.  Obama could pass an executive order for the same thing for federal employees if he had the courage,but he thinks small.Somehow he thinks $10.10 an hr is a living wage. Go Seattle,the rest of the country is watching.

  •  There's going to be an exodus, (0+ / 0-)

    Watch as people start moving out of those red states that insist on paying $7.25 an hr.Also, those states that are turning down Obamacare. Why would you stay in a state that dose "n't care about whether you live or die,or your kids starve? The Koch brothers are telling young people not to sign up for healthcare,how dumb is that?If that state refuses to look out for me,I would simply move as soon as I could afford to catch anything smoking.

  •  Okay, but ... (0+ / 0-)

    While I tend to agree with a $15 an hour minimum wage, that may be a big "sudden" jump. Two or three steps to that end might work better.

    If you do a search on the history of the minimum wage you will find that even $15 an hour falls short of where it would be had it kept pace with the times (COLA). One thing is certain - America's wealth is - as Reagan and his contemporaries put in place - trickle-down economics and a capitalist market place are working ... but not for the 98%.

    If you really study up  on how all this happened, you will find it's roots in all the efforts that America's wealthy Oligarchs and power-brokers put in to destroy FDR's reforms ... the most notable being the destruction of the Glass-Steagall Act - which, for the most part - is now gone.

    S u m m a r y - investment houses are now BANKS - very big - wealthy - powerful - and all controlling BANKS. The SOLUTION: break the up. But remember, they are very  powerful, and that alone should scare the H3!! out of you.

SME in Seattle, fly, bink, paradox, Angie in WA State, Mimikatz, Terri, coral, Odysseus, dfarrah, PeterHug, DebtorsPrison, Shockwave, LynChi, phenry, exNYinTX, jancw, Creosote, Heart of the Rockies, JLFinch, afox, smugbug, wonkydonkey, whenwego, ask, boadicea, chuckvw, roses, oceanview, navajo, crankypatriot, HeyMikey, Brian82, JayBat, econlibVA, WisVoter, rickeagle, bloomer 101, radarlady, Tinfoil Hat, ichibon, LarisaW, unclejohn, chimene, irate, snacksandpop, Brooke In Seattle, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, bleeding blue, Sun Tzu, where4art, Burned, markdd, kaliope, LucyandByron, Tool, brentut5, peacestpete, poco, Kingsmeg, cardboardurinal, koNko, AoT, blueoasis, 4Freedom, gooderservice, middleagedhousewife, doingbusinessas, Tom Anderson, bstotts, sea note, Little, PatConnors, BentLiberal, tegrat, wa ma, tgypsy, offgrid, Positronicus, puakev, yoduuuh do or do not, wildweasels, HeartlandLiberal, noofsh, Dave in Northridge, deepeco, bnasley, letsgetreal, millwood, carpunder, Librarianmom, leonard145b, eyesoars, Assaf, JDWolverton, MKinTN, rogerdaddy, mconvente, misterwade, kimoconnor, juancito, amyzex, Involuntary Exile, petulans, elpacifico66, JamieG from Md, Satya1, divineorder, janmtairy, JesseCW, dRefractor, kevinpdx, stevenwag, astral66, angel d, Words In Action, Railfan, secret38b, LOrion, Polly Syllabic, Lost and Found, ItsSimpleSimon, DiegoUK, melfunction, Johnny Q, nirbama, ericlewis0, txcatlin, zooecium, Susipsych, Seitanist, page394, ten canvassers, trumpeter, thomask, akmk, BarackStarObama, tardis10, MuskokaGord, Square Knot, PhilJD, stevie avebury, Joe Jackson, cailloux, caryltoo, Laurel in CA, Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom, jacey, anodnhajo, We Won, IndieGuy, ahumbleopinion, FloridaSNMOM, JGibson, Mr Robert, jan4insight, BusyinCA, MartyM, stvnjon, Spirit of Life, George3, Kayjay, allensl, MarkW53, Lily O Lady, Chaddiwicker, Late Again, eyo, HedwigKos, northerntier, solarbay, marcr22, ChristineM, Kombema, RUNDOWN, Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees, Banach MacAmbrais, Penny GC, jrand, rcbouch, gmbi007, SmallTownGirl, Seanryan, SoCalSocialist, theblackandtanshow

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site