Lon
Well-known member
I don't think it was over wage hikes though.
Seattle businesses are busy. It is the hub of the NW with Portland. Those are the two cities where people want to live and where business is drawn.
City of Seattle to raise minimum wage to $15/hr
- Thread starter The Berean
- Start date
It seems to me that you and Anna and I have an outstanding agreement to talk over the health of our state, at some point, in a comprehensive way, but I'll respond here briefly. There has been a high-profile attempt by Rick Perry to recruit California businesses to move to his highly-explosive state, but it hasn't made a dent in our economic growth, or the tax revenue, or the population of the state. And California was one of the fastest improving states for unemployment as well. So this is more bravado than anything.
There are lots of businesses that should not be in California. It's not a cheap place to do business. But it's a bustling, vibrant economy that is in pretty good shape right now.
Nimrod
Member
economy is growing -> How do you define growing economy? Do you use GDP?
jobs are growing -> If we lose 50,000 high paying tech jobs and create 100,000 fast food jobs, you can make that claim and be right.
and unemployment is falling -> Did you count the ones who stopped looking for work?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/10/unemployment-labor-force_n_4575024.html
My point is, which type of an economist are you will depend how you look at things. To a person who is pro-government, more government intervention is always the solution.
We could discuss it I am sure but, I doubt you would agree with me with the downturn of California.
I wouldn't say 22 billion in lost tax revenue is not a dent and that is exactly what was reported as the loss as of April 15, 2013.
| All across the nation, leaders are taking notice of tax migration. No one wants to be the next California ($22 billion lost), New York ($58.6 billion lost) or Illinois ($26.1 billion lost), with wealth and talent streaming out of the state. |
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/04/15/high-tax-states-are-losing-taxpayers
More wealthy taxpayers are leaving the state and it seems the population stays the same by births and a constant influx of immigrants (legal & illegal). I really don't see how you can say that California is not affected by the loss of big business' such as Toyota and Intel, they are blue chip companies supplying good jobs not retail jobs. Rick Perry has done what any good governor should do and make his state a hub for business & good jobs allowing his citizens to thrive and actually attain the American dream which is more than you can say for the two time loser Jerry Brown or his pathetic mob in Sacramento who think raising taxes & increasing regulation is going to somehow net them a gain in the end...it doesn't work, and it isn't working.
Maybe so but, I would be interested in reading what kinds of jobs, is it just more retail? or are they career jobs? I haven't read what jobs they are but, I do know that businesses that are departing are career type jobs probably never to return.
For the moment yes, I will agree that things are looking O.K. but, if California continues to operate this state through high taxation, over-regulation, and running the state in a debt condition it will crash and that is what is happening right now. This state just like the feds are spending more than they take in and as I write this every Californian is on the hook for $11,057 of that debt. Something has to change Rex, the state is bleeding just like the country and if it doesn't get fixed it will crash again...count on it.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html
:up:
No, not really.
I don't really buy it. I've listened to that guy, and I've looked at his website (http://www.howmoneywalks.com/), but it isn't clear to me how he's reaching the conclusion that there's this huge tax migration.
How do you know that wealthy taxpayers are leaving the state? Where is the data coming from?
Intel has 12 campuses in California, in 10 different cities. It is a California-based company. Compare that to three campuses in Texas. In fact, one thing you'll notice about their list of campuses is that they actually have campuses in a lot of high-tax areas. I'm not sure where we're supposed to be losing here.
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/location/usa.html
Toyota is certainly a loss for the state, but probably an unavoidable one. Even if you took away the tax issue, California is an expensive place to live, which means that if you are hiring people in the state, you have to pay them higher wages.
It's no doubt that Perry has done a good job marketing his state. But I don't agree that the goal of any good governor should be to serve business ends exclusively. For instance, I, for one, prefer to live where fertilizer plants are less likely to explode.
I don't know. I don't really know where to get the information, either.
California puts a premium on different things than Texas. And it certainly hasn't scared away the most innovative businesses. I don't know that you could have a Google, or an Apple, or an Intel start in a state like Texas.
But, unlike a couple of years ago, the budget deficit isn't a yawning chasm either.
I would say that we need to invest more in the country and in the state to gain the infrastructure that can keep us prosperous.
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
I think we as a society need to decide what we are trying to achieve with the minimum wage requirement. Are we trying to make certain that anyone working, regardless of job requirements, get's paid enough to live on? Or are we trying to drive businesses to hire on part-time workers? Or maybe we are trying to dry up the need for hiring part-time summer help, namely teenagers?
We know government tries to regulate and drive companies and individuals to perform certain types of behavior through the tax code. I believe local and federal government is trying to do the same thing with the minimum wage law. Is this for the good of the people or more political theatre?
I'm keenly interested to see how this plays out.
I knew that we are not in agreement with what I am reading, and what you are reading, along with the current budget shortfalls in my county along with the state not being because of a lack of taxation. I am not willing to give this state any more money to squander on so called "investment", in fact I am just doing my time until I retire, transfer to Cape Canaveral, FL, or get laid off to sell my house and leave crazyfornia. While I am here I vote against all bondmeasures, propositions, or politicians that will raise taxes in any way, for anything. The liberals in this state need to learn what are wants, and what are needs, along with learning to live within their means. If that requires that many state and county programs suffer or get the axe...so be it.
Minnesota is just as bad. I'm trying to get out of here.
Nimrod
Member
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-jobs-unemployment-economy-20140606-story.html
Mostly temp jobs were created in this economy.
Mostly temp jobs were created in this economy.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I love this state, it's home and I don't want to leave it. I care about it and its people and I used to follow that line of thinking that says don't vote for anything "that will raise taxes in any way, for anything."
But when you don't mind if "many state and county programs suffer or get the ax" then you don't mind if the people they serve are negatively affected by their closure. It distances you from the people they serve when you say the "state and country programs suffer" because those are inanimate and then you don't have to consider how their closure or cutbacks affect the people they serve.
Another way that raises of minimum wages create more poor (keep in mind that a minimum wage job to begin with wasnt designed to support a family)
Example:
Joe with a new wife and child makes 17 an hour, has worked 8 years as a skilled laborer and earned his wage increases.
All of a sudden his neighbors teenage son is making 15 an hour at mcdonalds.
Inflation and the wage increase to the minimum wage - has caused goods and services to increase 3 fold.
So basically Joe, has now suffered a loss in pay (since bottom wages have come up to nearly his earned pay) and goods and services have increased also- so his buying power with his wages has decreased along with his pay.
So now Joe has moved into the category of impoverished.
Is that the goal? To create MORE poor?
Example:
Joe with a new wife and child makes 17 an hour, has worked 8 years as a skilled laborer and earned his wage increases.
All of a sudden his neighbors teenage son is making 15 an hour at mcdonalds.
Inflation and the wage increase to the minimum wage - has caused goods and services to increase 3 fold.
So basically Joe, has now suffered a loss in pay (since bottom wages have come up to nearly his earned pay) and goods and services have increased also- so his buying power with his wages has decreased along with his pay.
So now Joe has moved into the category of impoverished.
Is that the goal? To create MORE poor?
I guess I am harsh but, that is my position. I could care less whether someone doesn't get their free stuff on the back of the taxpayer nor do I really care whether it forces them to move or relocate where free stuff is being given away say like San Diego county? If the lack of funds causes this state to tighten it's belt, live within a budget like most citizens do then I say good. There are a lot of things I want but, I cannot afford everything I want, that is where the state and counties need to be also, I am OK with that and any citizen that wants to raise the tax burden for anything at this point I oppose vehemently. We pay way more than our fair share in this state, and it is not my fault or yours, that the politicians do not know how to spend it properly, how to budget, or how to prioritize...if that means programs suffer it is no sweat off my back...literally.
There's a problem with that thinking. Comparing the historical inflation (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/) against the times when we've raised the minimum wages, you can only correlate inflation increases to wage hikes about eight out of twenty times. Many of the other times, wage increases coincide with notable drops in inflation that seem largely undisturbed.
Don't make me make another chart, Angel.
So, Joe is making well above minimum wage after many years of earning his raises. And he is earning a pre-tax gross wage the equivalent of $35,360. That's pretty meager, really. And in a place like Seattle, it would be tough to make it by on that. Housing alone for a family of four in Seattle would probably approach or exceed $1500/month if you assume that the kids would share a bedroom, which is around two-thirds of Joe's pre-tax wages. Bottom line, he's not even making the rent, even after years of earning his pay. You can bet that he's either going deep into debt to make that work, or he's collecting some sort of government assistance, or both.
What if, instead of making the paltry minimum of $9.32 that currently applies to Seattle, he started at something more like that $15. He would have likely been single at the time, or perhaps dating a young woman who would also likely have been working. By the time Joe reached the point in his career where he was supporting a family as you described, assuming wage increases in proportion to what he received in your scenario, around 82%, wage increases would have taken him to $27.36/hour, or a respectable $1,094.42/week at 40 hours, or $56,909.87 gross wages annually. If he's prudent and careful, he can afford to live in Seattle.
Ultimately, we've been failing the workers of this country for many years. We have allowed exploitation of the poor, and even the middle class, and the only way to fix it is to change things. If we follow your logic, not just Joe, but all subsequent generations will be stuck in a trap of perpetually low wages, with no way out. Making the minimum wage a living wage is a modest step on that path, and the sooner we take it, the fewer painful adjustments we'll have to make in the interim.
And to be very clear, it is only a first step. The minimum wage doesn't move major economic indicators much in any direction, because it mostly functions at the edge of the economy. I would like to see mandatory leave minimums for all workers, including part-time workers, including sick leave and enough vacation time for a few vacations a year. I don't believe that those things are extravagant, and they are things that other countries have been able to do without wrecking their economies. And I think that would help the middle class a lot more than hiking the minimum wage.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
That is a harsh position to take but it's a very familiar one, I've heard it for many years and the meme that conservatives care so little is unfortunately based in reality.
It's very easy to hold that position until someone needs something the state or county would ordinarily have helped with, whether it's addressing basic human welfare or education or infrastructure (the roads are horrible here) or inadequate firefighting resources, etc.
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
Why don't we work harder to eliminate wasteful spending in government? Why are we allowing cheap foreign made goods to destroy our manufacturing jobs? We've made it easier to raise taxes on the people than eliminate government waste. That's just wrong.
It is true to some extent, just as it is also true that I am responsible for the needs of my family alone, I don't work hard every day so some illegal can get an education, section 8 housing, welfare, food stamps, free health care, the list is ongoing from the ever benevolent taxpayer. I am numb to the so-called needs of others...I just see them as society's freeloaders anymore...people looking for a handout, not a hand up and out, nor do I see where the burden belongs upon society to provide such a lavish lifestyle of freebies on the taxpayers back.
Well there you go, wants and needs...Roads, Firefighting, Police, are needs, human welfare on the other hand is a very very broad term but, many things that come under this title are just wants and the needs should come first being that is what the working taxpayer pays for & expects. You bring up roads which is interesting because the roads in CA have been going to crap for some time yet there was a proposition years ago that dealt with it, prop 42 I believe, where did the funds go? gas tax and road use fees have all went up, where is it? probably in the state general fund to squander on other things. Does CA really need a high speed rail system? This is another wasted money boondoggle. You good liberals have voted yourself a super majority in Sacramento yet nothing has changed and they still want more money from the taxpayers to feed all their wants and to hell with the needs. Yes Anna, I could really care less anymore, the clowns in Sacramento are running this circus into the ground and all you good California liberals keep allowing them to run it and nothing changes so, you all deserve each other and the state can continue to suffer financially and "I Don't Care". I will never again vote for any prop, bondmeasure or politician that will raise my burden any higher than it is now (which is already too much) ever.
On another note...
Our county really needs a new jail, and have proposed numerous times to build one yet they cannot afford it, and refuse to tighten their belt in other areas to get it done. They do as all good liberals and expect the taxpayer to pony up more to foot the bill for this new multi million dollar facility... well, it has went down three times now, the taxpayers are sick and tired of being asked to give more & more & more. I say the county should buy a few hundred yards of chain link fence and concertina wire, a bunch of army surplus tents and set up a jail on the proposed facility's rural plot. In fact they can use these prisoners to do all the heavy labor jobs in this county, fix roads, whack weeds, paint, pick up trash by the roads...whatever. Feed them bologna sandwiches & water and make jail a place to pay society back for your crimes, while getting something in return. I know, I know, that is just cruel to make people in jail pay their own way but, if we in CA would be just a little pragmatic we could find ways to get things done while living within our means. The only thing that holds back pragmatism is liberalism.
Last edited:
I think that might be a good idea, although I do think it's relevant here. But...I'm kinda busy, so I'm not gonna do it right now.