Appeals court says SeaTac voters can decide on $15 minimum wage

Seattle... Ahem... Excuse me? You want to unilaterally raise city min. wage by nearly $6.00 an hour, in one vote? What, are you guys completely insane out there? I have to ask...as the economy, as one might have noticed, is having some minor technical difficulty. This seems the worst time to become exceptionally expensive as a place to have an employee....if every other location in the state isn't following suit?

SeaTac voters will get the chance to decide whether the city should increase its minimum wage to a nation-leading $15 per hour, after a state appeals court today reversed a judge’s ruling from August that disqualified signatures needed to place the measure on November’s ballot.

Today’s order, issued by a three-judge panel of the Washington Court of Appeals, has yet to elaborate as to why King County Superior Court Judge Andrea Darvas erred in her Aug. 26 ruling, which disqualified 61 signatures of registered SeaTac voters who signed more than one petition.

Source

Now on the ruling? I'm not unhappy about that. I'm about sick enough of nit picking signatures on measures a state wants to vanish to fill a waste bucket with dinner. I just wish it hadn't been this particular issue on the ballot making the case here.

I will say this Seattle. You'll be the city to single-handedly prove or disprove the theories surrounding harm vs. good to minimum wage hikes. There is nothing quite like an astronomic leap, done in isolation of the immediate area, to put a theory to the acid test. If it works like some hope? Seattle will be a prosperous town, no doubt.

Which way do you think it will go, ATS? I'm thinking they DO vote this in. It's almost a no brainer. Who would vote no to the immediate promise of a raise? Voter turnout should be landslide for all time numbers in that area, I predict.

It's the buyers remorse 2 - 4 - 6 months down the road I think will be unbearable.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Yea it will go because as you said, its a no brainer. Employees outweigh employers. How did this even get on the ballot? Who was so careless. Small businesses will close their doors and prices will be so high no one will be able to visit or move into the area unless already wealthy. Wrong idea for economy. Have to lower the cost of things. Raising pay only encourages inflation.

Trying to remember the specifics of SeaTac. Basically it's a sprawling semi-city burb between the cities of Seattle and Tacoma. It's big claim to fame is the SeaTac airport. I don't think it will make any difference as far as either Seattle or Tacoma goes except they may soon get an influx of the small more mobile businesses. The hotels and motels are going to be pissed though.

I should be more up on this considering I live in King County.

That article has me a little confused. Saying SeaTac voters is like saying Seattle-Tacoma voters... It's a weird way to put it considering it's King County voters (unless I'm having a massive brain fart). Is this really going to affect only those jobs within Seattle city limits? King County is pretty big and small businesses are already struggling. I can see a mass exodus of small businesses if this passes.

I really want everyone to make enough to live comfortably on, but I don't see this as the way to bring about that change. I don't think people get that businesses can't just absorb a major new cost without raising prices or cutting employees. I did some shady math and this could wind up costing each business over $10,000 a year per employee.

So essentially everything is going to become more expensive to offset the cost. Meaning that the people that have just gotten a ridiculous raise aren't going to really enjoy it because they'll be spending more on goods and services. Not to mention all the businesses that close down/move location and fire employees. I imagine there will be a lot of people that cut out things they don't really need like restaurant's and fast food if they're paying way more, which in turn will require additional people to lose their jobs so businesses stay solvent.

Not a great idea. I think there is a 50/50 chance it will pass too. Money doesn't pop out of nowhere, you can't just say people should earn more and expect it not to gum up the works.

reply to post by Domo1


I heard the story on the radio this afternoon, for the first time. If I recall correctly, it is Sea-Tac(Airport) specific. I don't believe it extends out into the rest of the County. It's a really sticky situation with an untold number of potentially negative consequences. I thought the first comment on this article was pretty astute.

"Goldy(author) - you should describe the initiative correctly - it provides a $15 per hour minimum wage only for non-union workers. Workers who are in a union get no guarantees of a minimum wage. Just like Seattle's sick day ordinance only guarantees sick days for non-union members. This initiative isn't about a working wage. It's about unions legislating membership by having laws making non unionized employees more expensive than unionized employees. This is because employees themselves have been leaving unions. When Seattle does it's analysis of Sick Days, you'll see the same story - many workers aren't getting them because they are in a union, and the union negotiated them away in collective bargaining agreements. So those grocery store workers you were so worried about handling your food, or the single mother working a construction job with sick kids, they aren't getting sick days. Likewise, if this SeaTac initiative passes, many employees will be paying union dues but not be paid more wages, because that minimum wage won't apply to them. Be honest about what these laws are - they are legislating union membership, not protecting workers. Union leaders' jobs aren't to protect all workers, they are to grow membership, and membership dues, so they and their bosses can justify their bloated salaries."

I see a major problem as far as the wage argument goes is that a lot of people look at burger flipping, making a cup of coffee,cashier, etc. as a "skilled" position.

These jobs were always supposed to be used as stepping stones or supplemental income. Granted the inflation and stagnant wages are awful as well, but people don't try to live within their means in the first place.

If you work and McDonalds or Wal-Mart you should not be wearing, jordans, accessorizing with coach bags, and wearing designer glasses and such.

These jobs are what you keep yourself busy with in between the skilled positions or during further education.


As far as the OP anyone even considering this bill has no idea about the economy or have any business sense whatsoever.

"Mega Corps. make huge profits therefore every business must be able to afford higher wages." This is the ill informed battle cry as of late.

The"McDonald's pays their employees in Australia $15 an hour so they we demand it here!" is ill informed as well.

Nobody spouting this drivel is even considering the fact that the cost of living in Australia is 40% higher than it is currently in the U.S.

This again reflects the we demand something for nothing attitude that is so prevalent in today's society.

You deserve more IF and only if you are trying to better yourself through actions and motivation.

They are called dead end jobs for a reason. There is no McCareer !

reply to post by slowisfast

BINGO -- this particular vote has nothing to do with improving the minimum wage, specifically. it's all about the unions, membership and excluding anyone who is NOT a union member.
sad, sad, sad.

businesses who want to stay afloat will be forced to use union labor or pay exhoribitantly for their freedom to choose.
and, this is yet another reason why unions are bad for the economy.

For general thread reference, I picked up a couple links to add for everyone. The first is a Vicinity map of the south Seattle Vicinity, centered on the little city of SeaTac.

SeaTac Vicinity/Perspective Map

and here is a SeaTac POI/Points of Interest Map

It's basically a little city of schools built around transcontinental airport. Must be a quiet, charming place. For all the times I've been in and out of that general area for trucking, I never noticed SeaTac as an entity in it's own right. Then again, I stayed as far away from airport loads of any kind as I could get. Blah... but this sounds like it'll be quite a thump.

So what happens, I wonder, to those people who are making $15 now, up from the $9 something base it's at now? Will they get bumped to $21 to maintain the differential of whatever set them apart from entry level to start with? Somehow....I'm really doubting that is going to happen.

I did find another story to expand on this a bit more, too.

On Tuesday night, the SeaTac City Council unanimously voted to place the so-called Good Jobs Initiative up for a public vote, which would bring the new minimum wage to more than $30,000 a year.

The pay raise, if approved by city voters in November, would apply to many hospitality and transportation workers in the city that is home to Sea-Tac International Airport.

Along with the minimum $15-an-hour wage, it would give certain workers paid sick leave and provide job security when companies change contractors.

Source

If minimum wage goes up to fifteen bucks an hour, it seems to me that an experienced worker that makes sixteen bucks an hour working a hard or dirty job would also want a raise of six bucks an hour. The people that are pushing this are a little nuts, inflation in the area will either put businesses out of business or make it so noone can do anything, leading to a collapse of the local economy. This should be left to the experts on economy, but not the idiots that led our country into this consumer based economy that will never work.

reply to post by wrabbit2000

Dear wrabbit2000,

As long as you're adding links, I might as well throw in one myself.
seattletimes.com...

Apparently, if you sign a petition twice, both of your signatures are to be thrown out. Some years ago, a local court called that unfair, and that a double signature should be counted once. Apparently the court has decided to count them once, while the first judge threw them out completely. Sixty-one people "double signed," so it was that close.

With respect,
Charles 1952

Both San Jose, CA and San Francisco, CA have minimum wages at or above $10/hour. Neither city has suffered a tremendous amount of unemployment as a result. Unemployment rates for both cities have matched the state and regional downward trend overall.

Not sure if this link will work properly but Google has all the public data available; Unemployment rates

reply to post by wrabbit2000


SeaTac region has a very, very high cost of living. People make damn good money there, house prices are crazy, everything from food to water costs more.

$15/hr in Seattle has the approx equivilent of $10.75-11.00/hr in the rest of the country.

Also the economic flaw in your post:

Raising minimum wage in a service based economy will lead to more hires as more expendable income is flushed back into the economy leading to higher pricing and larger revenue.

It is however detrimental to the Middle Class, but in a place like King County where income disparity is crazy high, it doesn't matter much.

I hope somebody in SeaTac goes directly to a grocery store and find out what it currently cost for a gallon of milk , dinner for one at a local restaurant, and the average cost of a home or rent.

In a couple years after this bill is passed and implemented then do the same thing again, so we can compare the costs.

reply to post by Rockpuck

Would you do me the favor of expanding on your theory a bit?

Raising minimum wage in a service based economy will lead to more hires as more expendable income is flushed back into the economy leading to higher pricing and larger revenue.

I would have thought that raising the wage would mean the business would have less money after expenses. Whatever the workers gain, the business loses, so there would be the same amount of income running around. The only difference is that employees are spending more, business are spending less in a zero-sum game.

I would think that the business would have three choices. Raise prices, fire workers, or go out of business.

If they raise prices they are less competitive with surrounding areas, and sales would fall by some amount. Further, if the prices go up, workers have to pay more for the same products and services, so their wage increase is eaten up. Also the workers may now be in a higher tax bracket, or lose some means tested benefits.

If productivity went up I could see it, but there's no reason to think hamburgers will be flipped more efficiently all of a sudden.

Anyway, just asking for help understanding you.

reply to post by links234


Well Links, That's a mighty pretty chart Google has there. It's even kinda nifty for the controls down the left side. Not my cup of tea for a data gui but I digress....

I don't know or much care how they made use of whatever they took from the BLS. I see that is the source it's derived from, so lets look right at the direct source. It's what I've really come to do anymore, almost exclusively on data. Getting it elsewhere so often seems...Oh.. 'accidentally' fudged in one direction or another. Dunno how such things happen... eh?

You named a few spots specifically where you thought the unemployment wasn't too bad and the trend was downward...with the regional trend? Isn't that right? Let check that source data.

San Fransisco - Oakland - Fremont, CA: 6.9 % and Climbing

San Jose - Sunnyvale - Santa Clara, CA: 7.2% and Climbing

If we go out into the Central Valley? Oh, it's downright ugly.

Sacramento - Arden - Arcade - Roseville, CA: 8.9 % and Climbing

The overall state is sitting at 8.7% which is painful unemployment by anyone's measure but half the metropolitan areas holding the bottom 20 slots on the national worst unemployment rates belong to California. I'm amazed when folks use that state for anything in the way of success or positive economic outcome. It's just so profound in the numbers which show it isn't true.

The overall state is sitting at 8.7% which is painful unemployment by anyone's measure but half the metropolitan areas holding the bottom 20 slots on the national worst unemployment rates belong to California. I'm amazed when folks use that state for anything in the way of success or positive economic outcome. It's just so profound in the numbers which show it isn't true.

edit on 6-9-2013 by wrabbit2000 because: minor correction

Yeah, those bottom slots are Central California, mainly agricultural. Not much of anything else there besides a lot of Illegals picking vegetables and fruit.

El Centro is S.E. Calif, not far from Yuma AZ in the desert. Not much there either, a small Naval air station and a prison. Pretty much the only reason Yuma AZ exists is because of the USMC base there, along with a lot of retiree's.

reply to post by bg_socalif


Agreed to some degree. I think the produce sheds and fields of Yuma have a whole lot more to do with it's life and...currently..death than the USMC. At least, that was my impression for the years I spent in and out of Yuma, picking up groceries.

I deliberately left out Calexico, Brawley Coachella, Oxnard and the greater Salinas Valley among others because they are almost entirely tied and resulting from artificial manipulation of water supplies to the agricultural users across the state. Normally, that wouldn't matter as much, except California happens to...(or USED to anyway) be one of the top suppliers in the world, TO the world for everything green and edible. Politicians have 'dust bowled' a fair part of the Central Valley so badly, Google before/after Earth images are startling. (There are signs, you may have seen, along both Hwy 99 and I-5 from the Grapevine to damn near Stockton in places saying outright "Congress Created Dust Bowl" in fallow fields cracked by drought.)

Anyway... That's a man made calamity and human disaster so I didn't list those.

San Jose, San Fran and Sacto are definitely NOT from Produce alone or anything so simple....and they're among the areas leading the unemployment for the entire nation.

I don't want to ever come off like I have anything against the STATE of California. Heck. I grew up there and have most of my family still stuck on the wrong side of that border between the LA basin and Bay Area. The PEOPLE and the LAND is among the best in the world. The State Government? Well.......

We called it 'The People's Republic of California' and referred to it as having nothing positive but the state line for everything that came EAST of it....for good reasons. Sacramento took paradise and turned it into a tax and crime ridden hell.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


If you look at the past data though, you'll see a seasonal trend. In May of each year the unemployment rate ticks up until about August when it starts to drop again. Now granted it's well above the immediate years before 'The Great Recession' but it matchs the annual trends from those years.

The point is, a higher minimum wage in these areas doesn't equate to an automatic increase in unemployment. The unemployment data shows that. As others have mentioned though, it's terribly expensive to live in California, especially the coast. An increase in the minimum wage in San Jose only makes it slightly more easier to scratch by day to day.

reply to post by charles1952


The business would take a temporary hit in profit as more is spent on wages, however would raise prices that as a percentage would lead to a higher end profit margin. Basically when you do a across the board wage raise the economy takes a little time to get back on track, and it's business as usual. That's why there is absolutely no evidence raising minimum wage does anything but cause costs to rise (thus hurting only those earning above minimum wage, but technically lowering income disparity.)