February 23, 2014
Minimum wage: Wise state spending? Gov. Inslee?

Gov. Jay Inslee stood outside the White House Friday and bragged that he is considering to unilaterally raise the minimum wage for state employees to whatever level he wants. Why can he be dictator over state pay? Because the Legislature allowed him to in 2002 and still does. HB 1268 allowed government employees to unionize and took away the Legislature's role in overseeing employee pay and benefits and gave it to the governor.

Is Inslee concerned about the state's costs? Is he concerned that taxpayers get maximum benefit for the spending of their tax dollars?

He is not acting like it. He is very generous with other people's money - yours. He can throw your money at entry-level state employees and receive their adulation. You? Heh...

Seattle Times

Washington Policy Center

Posted by Ron Hebron at February 23, 2014 07:56 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Well Obama is making unilateral, dictatorial extracongressional moves at the federal level. So it is no surprise one of his Bots like Inslee wants to play dictator at the state level.

Heck Obamabots, why not just make the minimum wage $100 an hour and then everything financial will be solved! And we can get everyone back to the important progressive behaviors of community organizing, smoking pot and aborting babies.

Posted by: Mike on February 23, 2014 08:52 PM
2. It was said that the constitution was created to protect the people against Presidents like Obama. Truth be told, Obama doesn't give a rats ass about our sovereignty, and he believes his legacy (besides Obamacare) would be for a transformational change to America so that a One World Government will be easier to make a reality. The statist progressives support (Much of Europe, Africa and Latin America are included here) this. Needless to say a one-world government would bring about a reincarnation of the Dark Ages (modernized for your sanitization like 400 - 1300 AD. Barbarians and rouge dictators at the top would rule through the guise of the UN. That's the end game of the transformational change from one Comrade Obama. Excuse you, troll gallery if I tainted your perverted leader - however, Ted Nugent's description of him last week was out of bounds and wrong for no matter who the President is or was or how polarizing they are !

The increased minimum wage looks good to many low information voters, but the left knows that a move such as this will force more unemployment and more opportunity for Government handouts to those have-nots. Yes, the left (Inslee, et.al.) find it fulfilling to spend other people's money to expand the left wing agenda, which usually make NO economic sense.

Posted by: KDS on February 23, 2014 10:00 PM
3. The biggest rape of the WA taxpayer is in the WMS and EMS system of legions of political cronie managers.

Also in the 30 year lease at $45.00 per square foot, of the new "data center" in Olympia.

Every penny the "minimum wage" is raised eliminates another entry level job.

Posted by: Independent Voter on February 24, 2014 05:24 AM
4. How many, if any, state employees are paid the minimum eage rate?

Posted by: Paddy on February 24, 2014 07:09 AM
5. How many, if any, state employees are paid the minimum eage rate?

Posted by: Paddy on February 24, 2014 07:09 AM
6. How many, if any, state employees are paid the minimum eage rate?

Posted by: Paddy on February 24, 2014 07:09 AM
7. The surreptitious goal of this movement is to raise all salaries, because you cannot very well let the experienced workers stay at or near the new minimum. The unions are counting on this wage inflation to boost their coffers, and Inslee is a stooge of the unions.

Posted by: Intended Consequences on February 24, 2014 12:29 PM
8. Every penny the "minimum wage" is raised eliminates another entry level job.

Well, since Washington State raised our minimum wage at the start of this year, as it does every year, as it was directed by a popular vote of the people to do, perhaps you can show us which "entry level jobs" at Boeing, Microsoft, Paccar, &c. have been so annually eliminated?

Posted by: tensor on February 24, 2014 02:12 PM
9. Maybe if Inslee gave EVERYONE a pony, he could be the most favoritous Governor in America.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 24, 2014 08:15 PM
10. At # 8,

What a brilliant point . . . maybe you are right there tensor.
Maybe the law of supply and demand is just a right wing conservative lie we meanies use to exploit people.
And if you want a "raise" we should just go print more money right?

Amazing . . . what a concept!!

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 24, 2014 08:22 PM
11. @8-10 -
One question, how would these additional entitlements be paid for ?

A - Borrow more from the Chinese or print more money ?
B - Pass additional costs on to the consumer ?
C - Increase taxes ?

Posted by: KDS on February 24, 2014 08:39 PM
12. At # 11,

Good question.

For the sake of tensor (my new buddy), I choose A, B, C, and D.
"D" is print more money.

KDS,
You are not one of those right wing conservative meanies who exploit people
by providing them jobs at wages less than whatever they would like . . . are you?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 24, 2014 08:48 PM
13. @12 - Just seeking the truth that these leftist knuckleheads are unable to express due to their sickness called leftism.

Printing more money is the easy, but only the Fed can do it, until the rest of the world dumps the dollar - then they/we will be in deep do-do.

Posted by: KDS on February 24, 2014 08:53 PM
14. At # 13,

I think you would get an argument from ole genius tensor about the theory that "only the fed can do print money" and if we just print dough we will be in deep do-do.
This brilliant tensor guy seems to have "an inside straight" on how economics works that my professors, colleagues, and I have been missing.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 24, 2014 09:15 PM
15. If you don't have any evidence to support the claim, Every penny the "minimum wage" is raised eliminates another entry level job, just say so. (Don't worry; it's not like I was expecting the original claimant, or any of the peanut gallery here, to provide any evidence for that claim -- or for any other claim made here, for that matter.)

Meanwhile, in the same vein, I'm sure you self-appointed economic and constitutional geniuses can come up with some way for the State of Washington to "print more money", because that is your claim, not mine.

Posted by: tensor on February 25, 2014 05:15 AM
16. tensor: You just don't understand how economics works!

I'm sure amused will be happy to explain it. He knows some professors who have told him.

Posted by: scottd on February 25, 2014 06:27 AM
17. Jobs lost when the minimum wage is increased?

1. Public jobs: Ask Gov. Jay Inslee what anallysis he did before his statement outside the White House. No one has yet found that he did any.

2. Private jobs: Kshama Sawant says jobs will be lost, regarding SeaTac:

"There may be a few jobs lost here and there, but the fact is, if we don't fight for this, then the race to the bottom will continue," Sawant said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/30/highest-in-nation-15-minimum-wage-stirs-concern-from-local-businesses/

Posted by: Ron on February 25, 2014 07:03 AM
18. Ron -- the original claim I quoted was quantitative, specific, and not conditional. Your sources fail on all three counts.

While I'm touched by all of the tender concern shown for poor little Seattle and our unrealistic ideals, I will here make a bold prediction. If we pass the $15/hour minimum wage, with attendant prophecies of doom from the posters and peanut gallery here, none of you will leave our always-dominated-by-liberals state for some conservative paradise like Mississippi or Alabama or wherever, and none of your predictions will be referenced.the next time you give us liberals a fact-free lecture on how wrong we obviously are.

Posted by: tensor on February 25, 2014 07:39 AM
19. At # 15, 16,

I'm going to have to go along with tensor and scott on this one.

After all, providing no "evidence" to support the claim that "Every penny the 'minimum wage' is raised eliminates another entry level job" certainly (of course) proves that raising the minimum wage will not eliminate entry level jobs. I'm taking your word for it as "just a given" fact.

And thanks for straightening me out on that "print more money", thing there tensor; lesson learned.
Scott has me over a barrel there too; I'm going to take my economic lessons from you guys from now on.

So guys, how does the law of supply and demand figure in here?
Is it just a right wing conservative lie made up to exploit people by providing them jobs at wages less than what they would like?

Gee this is exciting . . . I get to learn the real stuff from the real source.
I'm all ears guys.
Teach me how this works.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 25, 2014 08:09 AM
20. "After all, providing no "evidence" to support the claim that "Every penny the 'minimum wage' is raised eliminates another entry level job" certainly (of course) proves that raising the minimum wage will not eliminate entry level jobs."

No, it only proves that you can't back up the claim that "Every penny the "minimum wage" is raised eliminates another entry level job".

Tensor simply requests back up for the claim of loss jobs and what does he get? Amused and KDS's tired Klown act.

"So guys, how does the law of supply and demand figure in here?"

Sorry, not much demand for right-wing Klowns, so you and KDS are SOL.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 25, 2014 10:14 AM
21. No, it only proves that you can't back up the claim that "Every penny the "minimum wage" is raised eliminates another entry level job".

Yep, it's called COMMON SENSE.

IF you were a business owner, you would know, Obama government to the contrary, your operating capitol at any given time is FINITE. If you can afford to pay 3 guys $10/per hour - how many do you suppose you can afford to pay at $15/hour? If you can afford to pay 100 guys $10/hour - - how many do you suppose you can afford to pay at $15/hour?

Since you proudly announced you can't nor need to actually compute math problems, get your calculator tensor.

Oh wait. I get it. Pay what you cannot afford, run your business to bankruptcy, take a government bailout and call it good. Hello General Motors. Hello Detroit, Stockton ... USA

1060 days

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 25, 2014 11:02 AM
22. "Yep, it's called COMMON SENSE."

"Common sense" also tells us the earth is flat, the heavens wheel around it once per day, and that the sun and moon are the same size. Hard scientific data proves otherwise. Don't worry - we haven't seen any yet on the wages vs. jobs issue, and we're not expecting any. Rather, we expect more of this:

"Since you proudly announced you can't nor [sic] need to actually compute math problems, get your calculator tensor."

Uh, when did I "proudly announce" anything of the kind? (And, no, random examples you just made up do not equal actual data on jobs and wages. You're welcome.)

"1060 days"

Oh, I think you'll be babbling nonsense on this blog for long after that. Or is that the "statute of limitations" on anything you "proudly announce" here, after which time quoting you becomes stalking?

Posted by: tensor on February 25, 2014 11:29 AM
23. Nice straw dog you have there - what do you feed him?

Oh wait.
I know.


KOOLAID!

1060 days

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 25, 2014 11:32 AM
24. Uh oh. ... 2 hours ago:

Swiss government warns a minimum wage threatens economy

A minimum wage of 4,000 francs could lead to job cuts and even threaten the existence of smaller companies, notably in retail, catering, agriculture and housekeeping, Schneider-Ammann. "If jobs are being cut, the weakest suffer most," he said

Kinda screws your straw-pooch, eh?

1060 days

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 25, 2014 11:36 AM
25. Dear calculator dependent - what percentage of American workers make minimum wage?

1.6%

What is the average age of minimum age workers?

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 23 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over

What age group has highest unemployment under the incompetent king-wannabe?

16 to 19 years: 20.7
16 to 17 years: 21.9
18 to 19 years: 19.8
20 to 24 years: 11.9

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 25, 2014 11:45 AM
26. "Since you proudly announced you can't nor need to actually compute math problems, get your calculator tensor."

You're just making shit up again as he announced nothing of the sort. And the inability to use a calculator or do a little math appears to be your problem, not Tensor's. Let's see, a job lost per penny raise. So if we raise the hourly wage of 30 million Americans by three dollars that's what, 300 jobs lost? Or is it 30 million Americans getting a $3/hr raise, 300 pennies each for 30,000,000 Americans, will result in 900,000,000 lost jobs?

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 25, 2014 11:49 AM
27. Thank you for confirming that, just as with every government tit you champion sucking, you also need machine welfare.

Yes, computers and calculators are all very convenient. They were not meant to be but have become depended upon. You depend upon them and scorn learning the principle behind the actions they perform ignoring the predictable fallibilty of those inputting information. Who's the dummy?
Who's raising dummy kids? You know, those very same kids who depend upon the spell-check that cannot discern: to/two,too, they're/their/there, who's/whose - those very same kids who don't care that they don't know.

Your defense of depending on machines is the perfect example of liberalism - anything BUT self-reliance. I (still) pity you.

1060 days

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 25, 2014 12:18 PM
28. Oh, that old piece of garbage -- it's when Rags quoted from a nineteenth-century test given to children in Kansas, and then yammered on endlessly afterwards how the need to calculate, by hand, the number of bushels which can fit in the back of a horse-drawn wagon is totally relevant to everyone today. Anyone who dared dispute this "fact" she castigated as "calculator-dependent."

For your stalking records, Rags, I can use an abacus, a slide rule, the scientific calculator in my iPhone, and various dedicated software applications for my engineering work. While my employer REQUIRES me to use the latter in my work, I could perform all of the necessary calculations by hand -- assuming the imminent burn-out of the sun did not happen first. (Modern engineering tends to require a few million calculations per job.) There's a huge difference between knowing the principles behind the equations, and grinding out the numbers -- any idiot savant can do the latter, after all.

Oh, and I asked for hard data to support a specific and non-conditional statement. You gave me a conditional opinion.

"Kinda screws your straw-pooch, eh?"

No.

And, asking for hard evidence is not "straw" anything. It's neither my fault nor my problem you can't ever provide it.

Posted by: tensor on February 25, 2014 12:42 PM
29. I wrote of wingnut "inability to use a calculator or do a little math". Obviously, "do a little math" didn't fit with Rags' alternate reality so we get another one of her "your defense of depending on machines" rants.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 25, 2014 01:05 PM
31. From Rags' link:

"Swiss voters will decide in a popular vote on May 18 if they want to introduce a minimum wage of 22 Swiss francs (14.81 pounds) an hour, or 4,000 francs a month, much higher than in other countries."

According to today's Bloomberg News, the US$/CHF exchange rate is 0.89, or 1 Swiss Franc trades for $1.13.

Doing a little math (OMG WITH A CALCULATOR WE ARE ALL DOOMED) reveals that 22 CHF / hr x $1.13 / CHF = $24.86 / hour.

So, why all the fuss over a measly $15? Rags?

Posted by: tensor on February 25, 2014 01:16 PM
32. Dear tensor - again, being a loud lefty you manipulate the story to fit your needs. The story is not the AMOUNT of the minimum wage increase but on the EFFECT of the increase. How far you've fallen/will stoop.

I can use an abacus, a slide rule, the scientific calculator in my iPhone, and various dedicated software applications for my engineering work.

And yet, you are incapable of figuring out that when you can afford to hire 3 people at $10 how many you can afford to hire at $15/hour.
I'm so unimpressed with your claim... the one I noticed does not include knowing the principle that would give you the ability to get the answer without your iphone. The claim you should be ashamed to make but, alas, you're a loud lefty - no lie to big to promote your cause.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 25, 2014 01:30 PM
33. Dear tensor, do you know what the true minimum wage is?

ZERO.

The artificial minimum wage whine about which loud lefty's whine is not a reflection of WORTH OF an employee vs VALUE TO an employer - it's a reflection of emotion manipulation. It should make you wonder what, if anything, you are worth in the market place. That goes double for union dummies unwilling or incapable of recognizing their own individual worth vs the collective.

How little value you loud lefty's place on your own worth and that of others.

1060 days

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 25, 2014 01:45 PM
34. I can use an abacus, a slide rule, the scientific calculator in my iPhone, and various dedicated software applications for my engineering work. While my employer REQUIRES me to use the latter in my work

Is that before or after you spend your day blogging?

Posted by tensor at February 24, 2014 02:12 PM
Posted by tensor at February 24, 2014 02:12 PM
Posted by tensor at February 25, 2014 07:39 AM
Posted by tensor at February 25, 2014 11:29 AM
Posted by tensor at February 25, 2014 12:42 PM
Posted by tensor at February 25, 2014 01:16 PM
Posted by tensor at February 21, 2014 07:37 AM
Posted by tensor at February 21, 2014 09:23 AM
Posted by tensor at February 21, 2014 10:45 AM
Posted by tensor at February 21, 2014 12:32 PM
Posted by tensor at February 21, 2014 01:22 PM
Posted by tensor at February 21, 2014 02:45 PM
Posted by tensor at February 21, 2014 03:24 PM
Posted by tensor at February 21, 2014 07:37 PM
Posted by: tensor on February 17, 2014 10:26 PM
Posted by: tensor on February 18, 2014 08:10 AM
Posted by: tensor on February 18, 2014 06:12 PM
Posted by: tensor on February 18, 2014 07:41 PM

1060 days

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 25, 2014 02:06 PM
35. " The story is not the AMOUNT of the minimum wage increase but on the EFFECT of the increase."

Yeah, those two are totally unrelated, right?

"I'm so unimpressed with your claim..."

The feeling is mutual. I'm totally unimpressed with an example you just made up out of nothing, and keep waving around like it means something. (I was, however, much impressed with how quickly your Swiss example magically became irrelevant the moment I ran the numbers.)

Now, Washington State has, by a law enacted by the voters, raised our minimum wage repeatedly for many years. Washington borders two states which have lower minimum wages. If any of your claims against raising the minimum wage have any merit, it should be easy to show the economic damage Washibgton state has suffered, lo these many years. Put up real numbers, or spare us your blather.

Posted by: tensor on February 25, 2014 02:16 PM
36. Just as soon as you answer the facts at @25.

Are you stealing your employers time?

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 25, 2014 02:21 PM
37. Rags@21 wonders, "If you can afford to pay 3 guys $10/per hour - how many do you suppose you can afford to pay at $15/hour?"

It depends. But the answer is unlikely to be what you imply (2). A business -- at least a well-run business -- doesn't think of employees as a way of using up a fixed amount of cash. Rather, it hires employees when they will be profitable -- i.e., bring in more money than they cost.

So... if the employees brought in $15 an hour or more in revenue (after adjustments for other operating costs, taxes, benefits, etc.), then I would still hire 3. If the employees brought in under $15 an hour, then I would hire 0. If, say, 2 employees brought in more than $15 and 1 brought in less than $15, then I would hire just those 2 more productive people.

So you are partly right: raising the minimum wage does cause some marginal employees to lose their jobs. At the same time, there are other effects such as increased purchasing power that increase employment. The consensus of economists and empirical data is that the effect on employment is minimal, though you can find an economist or a study to support any extreme point of view. Or, you can ignore the experts and data entirely and just make stuff up...

Posted by: Bruce on February 25, 2014 02:24 PM
38. when Rags quoted from a nineteenth-century test given to children in Kansas,

You couldn't answer the questions, could you?

How about this one?

Or any of these?

Pity.

1060 days

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 25, 2014 02:37 PM
39. Rags,
I must say, your analysis @21 has to be one of the most idiotic comments I have seen lately. No business persons says I have X dollars to spend on salaries and will hire whatever workers fits to X dollars. It shows me that you do not run a business, manage people, or have even been remotely involved with personnel budgeting.

Here is what actually goes on. I, business owner, have a fixed amount of work that needs to get done. This work may be per product produced, or it may be fixed per service. My payroll is based on the amount of workers I need to get X number of products out the door or provide X level of service. Therefore, the total payroll is X times cost of that labor. This payroll cost must be factored into price of product and profit made. What raising the base cost of labor does is either: (a) raise the cost of goods sold (base cost of product prior to profit), or (b) eat into profit, which can hurt long term investment.

If a business can get buy with less workers, as you suggest, then raising of minimum wage wouldn't spur them to cut those workers. They would already be cut because they could (a) gain more profit, or (b) reduce the price of the product. Although (b) may in turn spur demand, which means they would need more workforce to turn out more product at the lower price to capture demand.

Rags, methinks you need a basic course in business before making statements like you did. Business aren't there to employee people. They are there to make a return on investment.

Posted by: tc on February 25, 2014 04:07 PM
40. tc: I think you need to keep it simple for Ragnar.

Rags, If I run a burger joint and I need 20 workers at $10/hr to meet customer demand, how many will I need if the wage rises to $15/hr?

Posted by: scottd on February 25, 2014 04:21 PM
41. @40 scottd on February 25, 2014 04:21 PM,

None, because you're going to close down your business and move to a gulch, just as so many Washington based businesses left WA and moved to Idaho because Idaho has a lower minimum wage.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 25, 2014 04:26 PM
42. No, Rags, you extremely perceptive person, I was not at work on February 17, 2014 @ 10:26 PM, and then again on February 18, 2014 @ 08:10 AM. In fact, I have assignments where my employer would not allow an employee to work with such little rest between shifts. Thanks for your classy accusation, though, and don't forget to report yourself for stalking!

MikeBoyScout -- isn't it just amazing? According to them, they have an easy, easy way of showing how failed liberal policies have impoverished Washington state, and allowed rock-ribbed conservatives in Idaho to build a freer, more robust economy. Yet they never, ever quote the economic data -- data the federal government collects and posts for public use! -- which would destroy all arguments made in favor of liberal policies. It is a conundrum, wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma, hidden under bullshit.


Posted by: tensor on February 25, 2014 04:38 PM
43. .
The 2014 Washington minimum wage is $9.32/hr.
The 2014 Idaho minimum wage is $7.25./hr, and Idaho has the highest percentage of minimum wage workers in the nation at 7.7%.

Clearly any (un)SP peanut gallery member who doggedly remains in WA is a closeted librul, no?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 25, 2014 04:58 PM
44. "Is that before or after you spend your day blogging?"

Hmm, I see that Rags is stalking someone again.

"failed liberal policies have impoverished Washington state, and allowed rock-ribbed conservatives in Idaho to build a freer, more robust economy. Yet they never, ever quote the economic data"

I'd be happy enough if the likes of Amused, KDS and Rags would just show us the courage of their convictions and move to Idaho themselves, but for some strange reason, all of our wingnut friends would rather live and do business here in our commie-fascist utopia where statists, Hindu-socialists and the Muslim Brotherhood call all the shots. Go figure.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 25, 2014 05:15 PM
45. Piers Morgan's show is being cancelled over at CNN. Somebody should tell his viewer.

Posted by: Ten Years After - Roger Rabbit is just a liberal progressive troll. THERE, FIXED! on February 25, 2014 06:31 PM
46. A question that should be answered:

What is a suitable minimum wage? What should it be set to?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 25, 2014 06:46 PM
47. @46 Shanghai Dan on February 25, 2014 06:46 PM,

I'll tell you what I'm working for; $15/hr now.

You? What, in your opinion, should the minimum wage be in your home state of California?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 25, 2014 07:09 PM
48. At # 40,

O.K. for us simple people, "If I run a burger joint and I need 20 workers at $10/hr to meet customer demand, how many will I need if the wage rises to $15/hr?

What is your answer?
Are you saying the amount you pay workers does or doesn't matter, and why or why not?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 25, 2014 08:15 PM
49. At # 45,

Thanks!!! LOL
He'll probably shoot himself . . .

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 25, 2014 08:28 PM
50. @48 Amused by Liberals on February 25, 2014 08:15 PM,
How many answers does your amused mind think can there be to that very specific question?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 25, 2014 08:43 PM
51. At # 50,

Exactly.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 25, 2014 08:49 PM
52. @51 Amused by Liberals on February 25, 2014 08:49 PM,

What 'exactly' does your answer mean?
The expected answer to both questions is a numerical value. Care to try again?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 25, 2014 08:54 PM
53. The "expected" answer to the question, "Are you saying the amount you pay workers does or doesn't matter, and why or why not?" is a numerical value?

What (if you have any idea) 'exactly' does your answer mean?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 25, 2014 09:07 PM
54. @53 {sigh} you are one dense rock

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 25, 2014 09:09 PM
55. amused@48: I knew that question would be too hard for you.

Try asking your professors and colleagues. I hear they know how economics works!

Posted by: scottd on February 25, 2014 09:23 PM
56. Because they have no legitimate argument to make, no one on the left is willing to discuss the realities involved with minimum wage theory;
all they have is contrived pilpul and meaningless smoke screen tactics.

Price fixing (minimum wage) only causes more problems for everyone by ignoring and tampering with basic laws of economics without understanding economics or the consequences of such manipulations.

Liberals like Inslee intend to arbitrarily manipulate our economy to give their constituents a "pony," and they don't care what it might mean if they actually got one. When prices increase and/or unemployment increases, they will simply blame something else they don't understand (or care to).
When Inslee promises things to his moron base, he does so because (like him) they are selfish and dumb enough to believe it will help them.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 25, 2014 09:30 PM
57. @40: Rags, If I run a burger joint and I need 20 workers at $10/hr to meet customer demand, how many will I need if the wage rises to $15/hr?

Or if the minimum wage dropped to $2 per hour tomorrow, should the burger joint keep a staff of 100?

Posted by: demo kid on February 25, 2014 09:31 PM
58. See # 57,

Yeah Rags, and if the minimum wage dropped to 2 cents per hour tomorrow, should the burger joint keep a staff of 1000?

By golly lets really look at this here question eh?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 25, 2014 09:44 PM
59. Amused@56- Yes, some liberals are willing to discuss minimum wage realities. See @37. Also see Better Pay Now.

Amused@58- You're off by a decimal point (20*10 = 10,000*.02, not 1000*.02).

Posted by: Bruce on February 25, 2014 09:56 PM
60. Amused@58- You're off by a decimal point (20*10 = 10,000*.02, not 1000*.02).

Bruce: You also don't understand how economics works. But amused does!

Posted by: scottd on February 25, 2014 10:04 PM
61. "What is a suitable minimum wage? What should it be set to?"

Here is the answer we gave: "Initiative 688, approved by Washington voters in 1998, requires L&I to make a cost-of-living adjustment to the minimum wage each year based on the federal Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers ."

Do try to keep up.

Posted by: tensor on February 25, 2014 10:06 PM
62. None of the trolls addressed my quote this morning of Kshama Sawant that jobs will be lost due to her increased minimum wage. Don't they consider her to be a good source?

Posted by: Ron on February 25, 2014 10:18 PM