Tell me about it. I think I'm one of the few Seattlites that hates this idea. The focus has been put on what it'll do to employment in the food service sector (e.g. this article). It might kill some jobs, it might not. Who knows. But the food service sector is only once piece of the proverbial pie (bad pun intended). Much less focus has been drawn towards what it'll do to non-profit jobs, esp. in the social services sector. Such as DESC. For the record, the director of the DESC has been vocal in his opposition. But not vocal enough, apparently. Anyhow, it's pretty clear that without the city providing greater subsidies for non-profit organizations, $15/hr. wages for workers at said organizations will require cutbacks across the board, severely curtailing the services they can provide, and the quality of the same. And then there are the other non-profit businesses. Like my second job at the local radio station, which doesn't pay great, but scratches so many of my creative itches in a way my higher-paying job doesn't. They can barely afford to give me hours as it stands. They're down to a skeleton production crew- they've already diverted pretty much every available resource into development staff. Pretty sure my job goes down the shitter once the $15/hr thing kicks into full effect. Not to mention that at this point it's goddamn near impossible to find affordable family housing at even a $15/hr level in Seattle. Low income folks will still be scrambling. So where do they place their $15/hr band aid? Where does city council expect them to spend the extra money? Will sound investments be made that help raise individuals past the local poverty level? Doubtful, given that it'll be a lot harder to find sound counsel and cheap services from social welfare organizations. So what, low-wagers spend more on disposables? The local economy rises as businesses bring in more customers? What about inflation? You know, from the absurd, arbitrary minimum wage hike? For a self-proclaimed socialist, Kshama Sawant is putting a lot of faith in free-market capitalism. If she were really serious, wouldn't she be lobbying for more taxes to bolster social services? Instead of placing the onus of equality and social welfare squarely on the shoulders of private business? And on more of a gut level- some jobs just aren't worth $15 an hour. Why should the guy at the fry-o-lator get as much as the guy managing a group home for folks with Autism? And where will the incentive go to move from the one job to the other? Won't we end up with a glut of minimally-trained workers in low-skill, low-impact jobs, and an even greater shortage of
workers in the dirty-but-desperately-necessary sector? The whole thing kind of grosses me out. Seattle minimum wage was already one of the highest in the country, and it was already chained to inflation. This $15/hr move is more politically popular than it is sensible, and I suspect not as risk-free as they're painting it. It's being touted as the most progressive possible move, but it actually feels regressive. Trading a strong social safety net in for a wage bump. It's like taking away the fishing pole and just giving everybody a couple more fish.
You raise some interesting points about non-profit jobs that I hadn't considered. You're right that the focus always goes to McDonald's when there is talk of a minimum wage hike. The funny thing is huge companies like McDonald's are probably well poised to raise their wages and add benefits but do not from a profit incentive as opposed to the non-profits which really are doing as much as possible with the resources they have.
Just to act as a counterpoint - not that I disagree with any of the points that you've raised - what should we as a society be doing for the people who simply can't afford to live on minimum wage? The minimum wage obviously isn't the only policy tool in the tool chest, but at the end of the day we have a whole swath of people working 1, 2, and sometimes 3 minimum wage jobs and failing to make an income capable of rendering them self-sufficient.
It's a legit question. I dunno. Speaking locally, we could start by taking every tax policy on Washington/Seattle's books right now and doing the exact opposite of what they're currently doing. WA doesn't have any income tax, just sales tax. Which is just about as regressive as it gets- hits people in the lower income brackets harder than it does the higher income brackets. Legislature requires a 2/3 supermajority to raise new taxes. And Seattle keeps putting their tax proposals on the ballot for direct popular vote, which means they invariably get voted down (EDIT you know, I'm not even sure if Seattle can levy taxes without putting them on the ballot, so this could just be tough shit). And it keeps hitting the low-wage/lower middle class residents where it hurts. Higher car title tax would have kept local bus lines from cutting service. That was shot down on the ballot. There were initiatives on last year's ballots that would have raised taxes for King Co. school systems. Those were shot down. Meanwhile, Boeing just got a multi-billion dollar tax break after they threatened to move production of one component of the new 787 to NC- a move that, given the cost of hiring and re-training inexperienced workers to a time-sensitive project, was far from definite. Anyhow. We're currently in the process of cutting back bus routes, and our public schools are so underfunded that the state supreme court has ruled the funding levels unconstitutionally low. Basically, if we're talking steps to curb inequality, what Seattle needs is an infusion of money into almost every public service it provides- transportation, education, social welfare, etc. And in order to get new money into those services, they need to raise existing taxes, levy new ones. But given the current mechanisms and processes in place to do that, we'll see new taxes approximately, well, never. Actually, that's not true. I'm pretty sure King Co. is allowed to raise property tax percentages on something like a yearly schedule. Which means even higher housing prices, which isn't so great for the lower-income folks, either. Minimum wage is one tool in the chest. And I'm not even really opposed to raising it in general. Especially on a national level, where it's currently so low as to mean nothing. But $15 is arbitrarily, un-necessarily high. While still not being enough to raise basic standard of living on anything other than a nominal level. And the move that Seattle city council pulled, it feels like a punt. If they cared about inequality, they'd find a way to sell new tax hikes to the public and then use those taxes on mechanisms that could help out those in need. How about housing subsidies? Basic education. Public transportation. Instead, these are the very programs that are languishing. So what does council do? Takes the politically expedient approach, imposes this new minimum wage on all Seattle businesses within a certain time frame, and doesn't speak at all to the idea of raising revenues to mitigate the hurt they're putting on smaller businesses and non-profits. So in this case, a min. wage hike is popular- who doesn't like free money? But way less progressive than raising revenues and revitalizing already downtrodden public services.
Thanks for the response. Not being from the Pacific NW I must admit that I'm pretty clueless in terms of local/regional politics. These are things that I never would've considered.