Friday, March 28, 2014

Seattle Socialist Sawant's Latest Goofy $15 Minimum Wage Plan

Seattle socialist city council member Kshama Sawant hates all businesses but she especially hates "big" business. This is most likely because her union supporters are more interested in unionizing workers at larger corporations rather than at small mom and pop shops.

At a speech at the March for $15 on March 15 rally in Seattle, she outlined her latest plan for increasing the minimum wage in Seattle.
$15/hr minimum wage for big business, starting on January 1, 2015
No tip penalty, no health care or pension penalty, no “total compensation”
Full cost of living adjustment (COLA) every year, as is currently the case in Washington State
Phase in small businesses and nonprofits over three years, starting with an increase in the minimum wage to $11 on January 1, 2015, and lifting them in three yearly steps to a cost-of-living-adjusted $15 on January 1, 2018 
On January 1, 2018, all Seattle workers would get the same inflation-adjusted $15/hr minimum regardless of the size of their employer, with no exemptions, loop-holes or carve-outs
Sawant has said she is discussing with labor, small businesses, and others about the exact definition of a small business
The fact, that she is only calling for an increase in the minimum wage for small businesses over three years, implies that she understands that the minimum wage hurts businesses and that they can't just afford to pay higher wages. It will lead to layoffs.

Why she doesn't think that these same economic laws apply to big business is baffling.

On another point, she doesn't differentiate between crony big business such as JPMorganChase and corporations like McDonald's that don't generally conduct crony activities and merely spend their efforts serving the consumer.

25 comments:

  1. A Nation of Takers?

    In the debate about poverty, critics argue that government assistance saps initiative and is unaffordable. After exploring the issue, I must concede that the critics have a point. Here are five public welfare programs that are wasteful and turning us into a nation of “takers.”

    You see where I’m going. We talk about the unsustainability of government benefit programs and the deleterious effects these can have on human behavior, and these are real issues. Well-meaning programs for supporting single moms can create perverse incentives not to marry, or aid meant for a needy child may be misused to buy drugs. Let’s acknowledge that helping people is a complex, uncertain and imperfect struggle.


    But, perhaps because we now have the wealthiest Congress in history, the first in which a majority of members are millionaires, we have a one-sided discussion demanding cuts only in public assistance to the poor, while ignoring public assistance to the rich. And a one-sided discussion leads to a one-sided and myopic policy.

    We’re cutting one kind of subsidized food — food stamps — at a time when Gallup finds that almost one-fifth of American families struggled in 2013 to afford food. Meanwhile, we ignore more than $12 billion annually in tax subsidies for corporate meals and entertainment.

    Sure, food stamps are occasionally misused, but anyone familiar with business knows that the abuse of food subsidies is far greater in the corporate suite. Every time an executive wines and dines a hot date on the corporate dime, the average taxpayer helps foot the bill.

    So let’s get real. To stem abuses, the first target shouldn’t be those avaricious infants in nutrition programs but tycoons in their subsidized Gulfstreams.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/opinion/kristof-a-nation-of-takers.html?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure what you mean about subsidizing Gulfsteams. As far as welfare to wealthy individuals most of that comes via fed and Keynesian economic policies that seek to inflate prices and keep asset prices from falling. I work with investment bankers and I would say most agree with both Fed and Keynesian policy largely for that reason. In many ways the genius behind the Progressive model of government is that you have to protect the wealthy to protect everyone else.

      Delete
    2. Government steals an astounding level of wealth for those running it, working for it, and close to it. One way to think about is that welfare programs are a sort of kick back to patch over the damage done and prevent revolution while increasing government's power.

      Delete
    3. I wonder how many people on food stamps have a $100+/month cable TV bill? Isn't that food stamp abuse as well? I'd say on this basis, food stamps are abused far more than anyone suspects.

      Delete
  2. One would think that the city of Detroit's downfall would serve as a lesson for someone like Sawant. Didn't unions rule the roost with the Big 3 automakers? Wasn't the city run by democrats for decades?

    And what happened as a result? Off-shoring, corporate bankruptcies, mass layoffs, economic decline, crumbling infrastructure, a thinning tax base, and finally the city itself declaring bankruptcy.

    Why would Seattle be any different? Will the extra rain prevent an economic implosion? Are we to believe Sawant somehow knows what the cost of labor should be across the city, regardless of business or individual circumstances?

    Evidently, no amount of reason or logic is going to persuade socialists from their futile attempts to legislate prosperity into existence.

    If the people of Seattle understood basic economics, Sawant would not have been elected. So I say, "You get what you deserve, Seattle!" Enjoy the unemployment. Revel in businesses closing up shop or moving to more friendly environments.

    Will the people of Seattle look back on their experiment with Soviet central planning and realize that this is the source of their problems, or are they simply too stupid to know any better?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess the lessons are statists never learn and history repeats. Cause-effect.

      Delete
  3. "Its cos big business has their HQ somewhere else and because there so many stores and stuff they are probably too busy to notice a slight decrease in revenue and because HR is somewhere else, nobody will notice the increased expense"

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Sawant has said she is discussing with labor, small businesses, and others about the exact definition of a small business"

    So she is not even sure about what exactly a small business is, but she claims she knows how best to run one and how much to force them to pay their employees.

    But, what exactly is a small business? She does not know.

    Awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This broad is mental. Can she be deported back where she came from? It'll be interesting to see what happens when all the businesses in Seattle either close or jack their prices up to compensate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why is it that these planners think phasing it in over a period of years will avoid the negative impact?

    How did they figure out exactly how much to increase over exactly how many years?

    If it is too big an increase to do it at once, why will it not be too big an increase in three years? In the end, isn't it the same thing?

    She has no answers, she's just auctioning off other peoples property for votes and fame.

    I would like to see her lead the way by example. Once she figures out what a small business is she should start one of her own and pay all of her employees $15 an hour no matter what their productivity and value is.

    To her, one guy making $15 is better than 3 guys making $8.50.

    She also totally avoids the money issue, why is the cost of living going up and real wages going down?

    Fix the money problem, and the argument over wages is moot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well the problem is two-fold 1) a regressive tax system that benefits large corporations and wealthy individuals and off-loads the tax-burden on the poor, workers and, yes, small business 2) Another "money problem" would be landlords continual rent hikes, pushing people out of the city is no problem for them as long as they can find people to take their place. Of course, to people like you, that is the way it should be, I mean as long as people can pay what's the problem if it punishes workers, poor and small business right?.Oh and if you were to get into a discussion of productivity it's not one you would like, because while productiviy has increased wages have stagnated or been falling, so if you were truely saying you want people to be paid according to their productivity (as opposed to say "as little as business owners can get away with, including violating their workers contracts and stealing wages") you would be looking at a much higher raise than just $15.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, Regarding the tax burden, your argument seems fallacious. There is no tax burden outside of the one imposed upon taxpayers by the political process. There is no reason why, if wealthy people pay less, that poor people would automatically have to pay more of this 'burden'. Framing it in this way is just a more subtle version of "everybody has to pay their fair share" of the total lump 'burden'. If revenues from wealthy taxpayers decreased, this decrease, could only be compensated by some other government mechanism, such as government borrowing, tax code changes, enforcement changes, etc., which might be directed at lower income people Presuming that a tax burden exists implies that the government could never choose to lower taxes for everybody and lower its revenues in absolute terms. It would be like saying that an absolutely existing "allowance burden" exists between a married couple toward their children. The presumption smuggles in a value judgment and a theory without acknowledging either.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,

      You write that "...a regressive tax system that benefits large corporations and wealthy individuals...off-loads the tax-burden on the poor, workers and, yes, small business"

      What do you think of eliminating the tax-burden altogether with a society based on voluntary exchange and respect for private property rights?

      Also, you say "another 'money problem' would be landlords continual rent hikes, pushing people out of the city is no problem for them as long as they can find people to take their place."

      If the owner of the property does not have the right to set the price for rent, who does?

      Finally, you say "...while productiviy (sic) has increased wages have stagnated or been falling, so if you were truely (sic) saying you want people to be paid according to their productivity (as opposed to say 'as little as business owners can get away with, including violating their workers contracts and stealing wages') you would be looking at a much higher raise than just $15."

      If a person can only provide $10/hr of productivity, they will not be hired when the minimum wage is set at $15/hr. An argument for $15/hr minimum wage (or any other arbitrary hourly wage rate) is simply an argument against employment for those who fall below that level of productivity. Do you think those who fall in that category are benefited by prohibiting them from contracting at a wage lower than the minimum allowable amount, ensuring their unemployment?

      Delete
  7. The idea that corporate meals and entertainment are "subsidized" because they're deductible is problematic

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It stems from the basic fact that most Leftists(and a good number of Rightists) see your money as governments first and that anything you keep is based on their good graces.

      I'm serious.

      Delete
  8. This chick is one of those busybody types who wants to mommy everyone yet without the slightest understanding of economics whatsoever. If she wants to play mommy then fine, do it, but do it with your own kids at home and not a ton of adult strangers. And for fucks sake go STUDY economics!

    This broad is operating on sheer emotion. "Feeeeeeeeelings" (which is all socialism is) won't fix the economy sweetheart. You need a knowledge of economics for that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh absolutely. That's why she has PhD in Economics and has worked as an economics instructor. Of course your ad hominem that it's all "feeeeeeeelings" trumps that. Truely shows off your deep understanding of economics.

      Delete
    2. Oh yes, because socialists have proven in history to be such astounding thinkers in economics, right? Just like at all those examples of prosperous socialist paradises.
      She has a PhD. Methinks that says a lot about the worth of a PhD. I'm sure she's got all the detailed babble right, and knows how to read a lot of fancy graphs, but does she understand the consequences of bad economics, or does she care?

      Since her argument for raising minimal wages aren't based on sound economics but one what's "right", Mike is entirely correct that she is operating on "Feeeeeeeelings".
      Or are you suggesting she is operating on the idea that raising the minimum wage will produce more profit, increase overall prosperity, will make employers more eager to hire and less eager to fire, will draw more business to Seattle, etc?
      Pray tell, how does her knowledge of "economics" drive her desire to raise the minimum wage to $15?

      Her feelings of "what is right" or "social justice" or any other of that socialist crap at the expense of basic economic logic clearly show that she is an ideologue and not at all an economic thinker.

      So you can whine about ad hominem all you want. But you'd be an absolute idiot to suggest that her feelings about "social justice" aren't the prime, and perhaps ONLY motive behind her thinking.

      Delete
    3. "That's why she has PhD in Economics and has worked as an economics instructor. Of course your ad hominem that it's all "feeeeeeeelings" trumps that."

      I'm not impressed. It just makes her all the more pathetic. And heh, my grasp of economics is infinitely superior to hers. And hey, that's not saying much.

      Delete
    4. No--She is not that smart.
      http://watchdog.org/131235/minimum-wage-seattle-2/

      Delete
  9. 3 years for small business is just a slow death. Maybe we should make it $100 and a lot more people would get a raise.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "This chick is one of those busybody types who wants to mommy everyone yet without the slightest understanding of economics whatsoever"

    She has a flippin' PhD in Economics from NC State!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "She has a flippin' PhD in Economics from NC State!"

      Like I said, she doesn't have the slightest understanding of economics whatsoever.

      Delete
    2. "She has a flippin' PhD in Economics from NC State!"

      Sawant's policy recommendations speak volumes for the quality of the NC State economics department...

      Delete
    3. "She has a flippin' PhD in Economics from NC State!"

      And yet she is still a socialist.
      Enough said.

      Delete