1. Dino's right, it's not meant to be a living wage.
I don't know if it's the same now but years ago in the agriculture business, they could pay below minimum wage. There was NOTHING that motivated us more than that wage to want to move up or on to earn more.
On a related note, the economy was going along quite well in spite of a war that threatened oil supplies, N Korean antics etc. Then the minimum wage gets bumped in spite of every economist warning about it, and down we start.
We can use that as an asterisk to the title "do nothing congress"

Posted by: PC on October 8, 2008 07:42 AM

2. This ad doesn't appear to be inaccurate. Even with Eric's analysis.

Would the 2009 legislature agree with Rossi and cut the minimum wage? No.

But would the 2009 legislature agree to the terms of Dino's transportation plan or dozens of other proposals Rossi offers up to solve the state's problems? No.

No agreement. No problems solved. Same old problems. No change.

Posted by: jan on October 8, 2008 07:47 AM

3. Jan points out the problem exactly. The weakness for Gregoire is that she has not got what it takes to address the spending of the legislature and the lobbying pressure of her special interest buddies. No problems solved. Same old problems. No Change. That is the most comprehensive analysis of the Gregoire tenure as Governor that any voter could ask for.

Posted by: Huh? on October 8, 2008 08:03 AM

4. I always wondered about the rationale behind the increase in minimum wage. It is inherently inflationary. If you want to give people a living income, then you have to control inflation and the cost of living, not increasing wages. If you artificially raise wages, then you artificially raise the cost of things. That's why it's so expensive to live in Washington.

Plus I don't agree teenagers are 'entitled' to a higher wage every year. They have to earn their pay like everyone else. I wouldn't trust most kids in Washington to do anything. I was a the local coffee shop the other day and the kid couldn't figure out how to make change. A few weeks ago, I overheard a shop owner talking about how the kids he hires are lazy and show up to work high. No wonder work is being outsourced or given to immigrants. All a higher minimum wage will do is create unemployment for unskilled workers because businesses will be hesitant to hire workers due to cost and liability exposure. Just look at Europe where it's hard for a young person to get a starter job and experience.

Oh by the way, the wage isn't the only cost to a business. It is multiplicative. Businesses have to pay for taxes, social security, medicare, and liability insurance (because an employee has no liability for wrongful acts, but a business does).

Posted by: Thomas B. on October 8, 2008 08:39 AM

5. Sorry to go off track. More ACORN/Obama mess

http://www.myfoxcleveland.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7599386&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 8, 2008 08:58 AM

6. The minimum wage issue is not about raising anyone's standard of living. It's about the "appearance" that Democrats "care" about people at the low end of the pay scale.
It works perfectly into Democrats' decades long "class warfare" agenda. They know, just like the Lenninists/Marxists in Russia knew, that all those poor people think the answer is to just go grab the rich people's money and stuff and then everyone will be rich. When actually the opposite is true.
But that's where Democrats get their votes, dredging up the bottom and making them think they are not there because of their own actions, but rather the actions of the evil rich people who are hoarding all the money.

Posted by: scott on October 8, 2008 09:06 AM

7. Minimum wage is supposed to be a starting wage. It is already the training wage.

While I understand the reasoning behind what the Fed has to say I think it is misguided. These are supposed to be smart people but I think they are too far removed from the average person to know what life is really like.

I can tell you that my kids that are working for minimum get very discouraged on payday. When they work all week and get a check that only leaves them about $50 after paying for fuel they get a bit discouraged. When I explain about starting at the bottom and working up they promptly explain that the managers make only slightly more than they do.

On the plus side it does make it easier to convince them to continue their schooling so they are not stuck in those jobs. I just hope those jobs are still around in the next few years.

Posted by: Vince on October 8, 2008 09:22 AM

8. Thomas.

What amount of money is a "living wage"

If you have no training to work for me, how much should you make?

You've never owned a biz have you!

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 8, 2008 09:44 AM

9. I have a niece who was in college. She dropped out and decided to start working. She got a job at McDonalds, then Target, then an electronics company, all at pretty close to minimum wage. Yes she got a good dose of reality. She's now back in college...

Posted by: scott on October 8, 2008 10:08 AM

10. As state senator in 2003, Dino Rossi VOTED FOR A LOWER MINIMUM WAGE -- one that ends the guaranteed annual inflationary increases voters in this state mandated (by a 2-to-1 margin).

There's no question that he doesn't support our current state minimum wage laws and that he would lower the minimum wage if he could. Absolutely no question.

Are you really arguing that Rossi's support for a lower minimum wage shouldn't really matter because he would be blocked from doing so by a Democratic-controlled Legislature? Really?

If so, we might as well ignore his positions on virtually every issue he's out there talking about.

Posted by: Union Goon on October 8, 2008 10:18 AM

11. Union Goon, I'll make the conclusion you work under a contract.
That contract puts the same wage on everybody regardless of output.
However, most every contract out there has a "break in" wage that's less than the full rate. Why can't employers use that practice for themselves before they're saddled with a lackluster employee?
Minimum wage is fascism, pure and simple and it's also used for employers to say " hey, that's all I have to pay you as well "
The same as your contract isn't it.

Posted by: PC on October 8, 2008 10:31 AM

12. The minimum wage issue is beyond silly - and really only exists to create the kind of class warfare arguments that are a Democratic party staple.

I believe only about 2% of full-time wage earners are earning the minimum wage in this state - according to a news report I read recently. The other 98 out of 100 are earning more than that. And there is no specific evidence that each and every one of those 2% are earning the minimum wage to support a family. This number includes many whose dependence on this income may not be complete - or even necessary.

Each and every time a Republican enters into a discussion of the minimum wage, he/she is willingly playing on Democrat turf. It is time for Republicans to simply point out that only 2 out of 100 full time wage earners are subject to the minimum wage - it is a functional non-issue.

Last I checked, there are lots of other, larger minorities being subjected to injustices - for instance, the 15% to 20% of voters in Seattle who identify as Republican. They have a city council, a mayor and Jim McDermott "representing" them.

Now there is an unfair burden on a large minority class...

Posted by: airfoil on October 8, 2008 10:37 AM

13. It's all well and good that teens make the minimum wage while learning to work at Wal Mart, McDonald's, etc... But what about middle-aged workers stuck in the min wage? What about economic justice for them?

Posted by: Crusader on October 8, 2008 10:43 AM

14. PC @ 11:
If Dino Rossi believes in the power of free markets to establish wages without government intervention and that the "fascist" minimum wage law should be abolished, he should say so. Either your candidate doesn't believe as you do, or he's afraid to say so.

Airpoil @ 12:
The minimum wage is a losing issue for those who oppose it (not just Republicans) because no one thinks that employers should be allowed to pay poverty wages. Real conservatives don't want their tax dollars to subsidize poverty-wage employers who pay such low wages that their full-time workers still qualify for public assistance for health care, housing and other basic needs.

It's a losing issue because Dino Rossi is WRONG on it. As smooth and elusive a politician as he is, he made the mistake of reiterating his opposition to our minimum wage law when he was in front of a friendly business lobbying group. He would never talk about "training" wages or other such nonsense in front of any other crowd because he knows his position is unpopular and a loser politically.

And if you agree with him on this issue, you are just as out of step with Washington voters as he is.

Posted by: Union Goon on October 8, 2008 10:51 AM

15. So Goon.

How much should the wage be?

20 per hour, heck 40. Is that a living wage?

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 8, 2008 11:21 AM

16. Army Medic/Vet @15:
It should be exactly what it is. Voters, in their wisdom, decided to take the politics out of the issue with the automatic inflationary adjustments. That way it will always retain its value. So, yes, eventually it will be $20 an hour. But it will still only buy the same amount of gasoline, food, housing and other basic needs that $8.07 an hour buys today.

Nobody is talking about a "living wage" except Dino Rossi (and some of you on this comment thread). The minimum wage is not a living wage. It is simply the lowest legal wage. Dino Rossi has no idea what it's like to try to "live" on less than $17,000 a year (which is what a full-time minimum wage earner makes).

Posted by: Labor Goon on October 8, 2008 11:29 AM

17. YOU out right LIAR.

You dem's always use living wage! First of all paying some one say 18.50 per hour when you must spend bucks to train them it's a lost for your company.
If the person doesn't work out, you've lost that money. Or they work like a snail. I can see you've never run your own biz.
But your a typical union goon you expects someone to give up their cash for your lazy butt!
You wonder why union support is falling.
Stalin would so love you. Or take a trip to the EU and wonder why they have so many who have no work. We cry at 6.5%. EU would love it.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 8, 2008 11:42 AM

18. even if you pay someone min wage double the cost to the employer by the time all the required elements are added to the bill.
increase the cost to the employer and you will see fewer jobs.
decrease the cost too much and people won't work for the wage offered. min wage jobs are supposed to be starter jobs not something you stay on forever. you get in, get the skills, and either get paid more or move on to a better opportunity.

hey duff, nice pic of Joanie in action. glad to see she is sober and able to hold down a job. little victories.

Posted by: Puget Sound on October 8, 2008 12:15 PM

19. You can't legislate value. There is a reason why minimum wage employees get very little. They don't have much value to offer in the way of skills, knowledge, etc.

As companies get forced by government to pay more for jobs that are not worth more, they outsource to other countries. Minimum wage only hurts those it is designed to protect. And it's not enough of a wage to survive on. Minimum wage, like every other lefty cause, is simply a bone thrown out to the uneducated or indoctrinated to further class warfare.

People that are serious about surviving in the US, must become skilled to some valuable degree.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 8, 2008 12:43 PM

20. Mr. Army Medic/Vet @ 17:
Please take a deep breath. We are talking about politics and government policies. Calm down. Geez.

I am not a "Dem," however, you are right that I do talk about "living wages" from time to time. But I never do so in the context of the minimum wage, which is far below what I would consider a living wage. But for some reason, you and Dino like to equate the two. My point is that neither of you could make ends meet on full-time wages of less than $17,000 a year and still call that a living wage.

You are wrong. I have run and still run a business, pay the Social Security and the L&I and Employment Security taxes. I know what labor costs are. So go ahead and toss that talking point.

You and many of your compatriots here seem to think that the minimum wage should be set according to what employers say they can afford. That is not the point of the law. The Fair Labor Standards Act sets out to assure "the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of WORKERS."

And again, as a real conservative, I don't want my tax dollars going to prop up businesses that pay poverty wages so that their employees require public assistance to achieve that "minimum standard of living."

Puget Sound @ 18:
That simplistic idea that if you raise wages/costs then you necessarily wind up with fewer jobs -- that you must've learned in your Economics 101 class -- is not true. It certainly hasn't proven true in this state with regard to the minimum wage. None of the sky-will-be-falling predictions of mass job losses and inflation made by business lobbyists before our minimum wage law passed have come true. None of them. Even the WA-Idaho border restaurants/businesses once held up to be poster children of the doomed Washington employers have thrived under the law.

One possible reason: Because minimum-wage industries tend to be service-sector jobs. When working-class people make more money, they spend it in their communities on services and other necessities. Those dollars get circulated and re-circulated in local economies.

Posted by: Union Goon on October 8, 2008 12:52 PM

21. @13 "But what about middle-aged workers stuck in the min wage? What about economic justice for them?"

Economic justice? I'm trying not to laugh at you.

Let me get this straight, just because a person is older than a teenager they deserve to make more money for doing the same work as a teenager?

Isn't one of Obama's pillars of policy the "equal pay for equal work" thing? I know he's talking about women who voluntarily leave their careers for a few years to have children, thus falling behind in years of experience, not making the same amount of money as a man their age. But still, if you believe in equal pay for equal work, then you believe it should apply to the minimum wage too.

You see, there are other factors involved than just age and the amount and type of work. There is this subjective thing called "value to the company" that is based on any number of factors such as experience, customer service, education level, demeanor, and ability...yes I said it...ABILITY.

Democrats like to trumpet the "value" principle when saying shit like "where's the economic justice for older minimum wage workers" but then like to pretend it doesn't exist when they say, "but a woman makes 5% less than a man of the same age and position". Now that is hypocrisy.

The minimum wage reduces the number of available jobs. Period. All economic data from any source you choose to get it from confirms that. The minimum wage is also a major factor in inflation of the basis price for goods. You could raise minimum wage all you want, but the minimum wage workers will never be any richer. It is because everything else inflates to catch up in time.

You can never force a change in the relative economic value of a worker in a free market by adjusting external factors such as minimum wage. A minimum wage worker will always have the same relative economic value as a minimum wage worker, no matter what the minimum wage is. That is a lesson from econ 101, but I'm guessing that the pro-minimum-wage-increasing posters on this forum didn't go to college.

Posted by: blindman on October 8, 2008 12:57 PM

22. Blindman @ 21:
I went to college.

Posted by: Labor Goon on October 8, 2008 01:02 PM

23. "What about economic justice for them?"

Try 90 miles off of Key west,FL if you want "economic justice". A filthy Marxist phrase if there ever was one...Hasta Luego

Posted by: Rick D. on October 8, 2008 01:02 PM

24. @20 "That simplistic idea that if you raise wages/costs then you necessarily wind up with fewer jobs -- that you must've learned in your Economics 101 class -- is not true. It certainly hasn't proven true in this state with regard to the minimum wage. None of the sky-will-be-falling predictions of mass job losses and inflation made by business lobbyists before our minimum wage law passed have come true. None of them."

Um, unemployment is up. Inflation and prices are up.

Washington is now one or the more expensive places to live because when you artificially raise a basis costs of goods, you cause inflation. Raise the minimum wage and the food prepared, delivered and sold by minimum wage workers *has* to get more expensive or the business will cease to be profitable.

Posted by: blindman on October 8, 2008 01:11 PM

25. Goon.

I went to college too (UCSD)

Your point is? When you speak if any biz that pay junk wages, you need not worry. Not every one will and the dead beat ones will dry up or pay more. It's a fact of any company.

Far a calming down. Dude, I'm not mad, just tired of the BS on living wage that dem's talk about... and you too.
How odd that many of them work for gov and have never had to make payroll. We have even learned that Obama pays his women less. Where is the dem outrage. Typical dem's, do as I say. Not as I do.

So yes I agree with Rossi on this one. The gov should bugger off.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 8, 2008 01:17 PM

26. @20
"You and many of your compatriots here seem to think that the minimum wage should be set according to what employers say they can afford."

I want the minimum wage laws to be abolished so that the market can effectively set the wage for any given job.

"That is not the point of the law. The Fair Labor Standards Act sets out to assure 'the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of WORKERS.'"

Workers without a job have a much lower standard of living that if they were able to work. A minimum wage restricts the number of potential jobs.

This is all a moot point though. The free market is winning. There are many "employers" that only do work in cash and hire undocumented workers at below minimum-wage pay.

If you want to see what I mean, all you have to do is go to any one of the many McMansion developments and you won't see a single union carpenter and you won't understand what is going on because everybody is speaking Spanish. I would bet money that most, if not all of the laborers are illegal immigrants.

Posted by: blindman on October 8, 2008 01:22 PM

27. A final(?) thought:

Dino Rossi DOES NOT believe as most of you Sound Politics commenters apparently do: that the minimum wage should be abolished. If he does, he should say so. But he won't.

Because if he did... if he openly espoused the your anti-minimum wage philosophy... putting himself proudly alongside you, who reside on the extreme right edge of free-markets-solve-everything economic ideology... an ideology that has never been popular in this state (and is even less so these days)... he would have absolutely no chance of getting elected.

Posted by: Labor Goon on October 8, 2008 01:24 PM

28. @27 it's not most...it's probably just me that thinks it should be abolished.

and by the way, it isn't a "far right" idea. well, at least it wasn't in the past. but now that we've had a few generations go through the leftist re-education camps we call public schools, I guess it probably is.

Posted by: blindman on October 8, 2008 01:41 PM

29. Blindman.

Ever hang out at Home depot. Good wants to know where the living wage went to. Just stand in the parking lot.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 8, 2008 02:15 PM

30. Labor Goon - these wingnuts can't understand the common man's cry for justice...

Posted by: Crusader on October 8, 2008 02:34 PM

31. I'm voting for Gregoire, but I think the minimum wage increase needs to be suspended. After this hike to 8.50 or whatever, keep it where it's at. I think it will hurt small business if it keeps going up, especially during this economic downturn. We have the highest minimum wage in the country. I think workers will be ok with 8.50/hr. Hiking up the minimum wage like this just errodes the power of the skilled workers who make $12+/hr. Pretty soon someone flipping burgers at mcdonalds will be making the same as a hard laborer.

Posted by: Tyler on October 8, 2008 02:35 PM

32. Tyler - justice....

Posted by: Crusader on October 8, 2008 02:36 PM

33. So let's see where all this government telling us how to run a business ends. They tell you how much to pay at the bottom end. They now want to tell boards of companies how much they can pay CEOs. They are going to demand business pay health care to either an insurance policy or a government health care plan. They demand Social Security (which current employees will NEVER see), and they demand business pay L&I and Unemployement taxes. The only thing left they aren't telling businesses is how much they can charge for their services, oh, unless you happen to be a doctor or dentist, then they tell you how much the government has decided your services are worth.
No wonder businesses are leaving the country in masse. There may be less regulation in CHINA.

Posted by: scott on October 8, 2008 02:42 PM

34. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa106.html

A cursory study of demographic statistics suggests that this example does not accurately reflect the minimum-wage-earning population. According to the Census Bureau's "Current Population Survey," over 76 percent of all minimum-wage earners are not heads of households. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that only 2.2 percent of working adults are earning the minimum waqe.

Posted by: Crusader on October 8, 2008 02:47 PM

35. Summarizing:

* it makes horrible economic sense to raise the minimum wage, but it makes great political sense to agitate for it.

Posted by: Crusader on October 8, 2008 02:51 PM

36. Is that SP's own Cato?

Posted by: swatter on October 8, 2008 02:58 PM

37. Union Goon,

One question: please explain why a State-wide minimum wage is a "living" wage. Clearly the cost of living in Bellevue or Seattle is a LOT higher than in Colville or Ephrata.

Once you realize that you cannot explain how a State-wide minimum wage makes sense in the context of a "living" wage, you'll realize the complete fallacy that is the whole minimum wage concept.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 8, 2008 03:06 PM

38. Scott posted:

There may be less regulation in CHINA.

Scott, as you can probably guess from my handle I actually spend a lot of time in China. In fact, I am currently sitting in my apartment here in Shanghai, it's a beautiful sunny morning right now, probably going to hit 80 degrees...

Anyway, there is a LOT less regulation on businesses in China. And by that I mean all the little crap and make-work that holds back business. You walk in to a Government tax office here and they JUMP at the chance to help you. Taxation is direct and easy to comply with.

Regulations on worker's conditions? Voluntary, but understand if a worker is injured because you didn't take the recommended precautions, then the worker can sue you for all your worth and you have no defense.

Business and economy is highly regarded, and it's the dream of everyone here to one day run their own business. Capitalism is NOT a dirty word, and the wealthy - those who made it themselves - are held in high regard.

It's quite refreshing and invigorating, especially coming from the absolute backwards business environment in Washington (I ran a small manufacturing/engineering company in Lynnwood for 10 years before I moved over here).

Chile - same thing. Thailand. Malaysia. Indonesia. Argentina. Columbia. All those 2nd world countries that are exploding economically all have something in common - they do what they can to stimulate businesses and growth. And guess what - it works!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 8, 2008 03:13 PM

39. Shanhai Dan - until they get rich enough, and then the circle comes right around back to socialism. America needs a 40year gr8 depression and purging of all the thieves.

Posted by: Crusader on October 8, 2008 03:16 PM

40. I think we can all agree that if the government was scaled back and stopped regulating every last thing, we'd all be better off.

Posted by: blindman on October 8, 2008 03:41 PM

41. blindman - Obama disagrees with you. He said the problem has been deregulation.

Posted by: Crusader on October 8, 2008 04:11 PM

42. What the Goons and their ilk don't get is that it is the constantly increasing minimum wage that is sending jobs overseas and union complicity in making that happen. Years ago I made 40 cents over minimum wage at my job. Then the employees unionized. Guess what happened? The hourly wage went down and with the union dues I was making 25 cents less! I went a got another job. My wife just went through the same thing. She took a job that paid $6.00 more per hour than her other job but with the mandatory union dues (SEIU) she is actually making $1.75 less per hour. So how about NO UNIONS!!!

Posted by: formermoonbat on October 8, 2008 05:12 PM

43. Mr. David ( Labor Goon ) Groves, Publications Director for the Washington State Labor Council, nice of you to drop buy. Still ripping off the membership over in Tri-Cities I see. You know all of those minority meatcutters whose papers might be "in question" that your organization represents. The members who are making $10.00 an hour less than they should be, but are afraid to complain about your terrible services to them for fear of being escorted to the border by ICE. You get your cut, your six figure salaries and you don't do squat for them.

Posted by: Smokie on October 8, 2008 05:14 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?