Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ECONOMY: State’s higher minimum wage no job-killer

Letter by Paul A. Schonberger, University Place on Oct. 22, 2010 at 12:58 pm with 25 Comments »
October 22, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: “Minimum wage decision runs counter to improving state’s economy” (Richard S. Davis column, 10-20).

Davis’ rant against Washington’s minimum wage indicates a mindset typical of cheap-labor conservatives: Why does the average worker insist on being paid a decent salary?

As of October 2010, Washington unemployment is 8.9 percent, while the national average 9.6 percent – which means Davis is incorrect that a minimum wage contributes to unemployment, even with a recession.

And as for his alleged economic research (which lists no sources) that minimum wage hikes reduce employment, a New York Times story by Jim Egan (1-11-07) demolishes this falsehood. When Egan compared wages along the border between Washington and Idaho 10 years after I-688, the economic calamity predicted by Washington businesses did not happen.

Professor David Holland confirmed this in a 2006 Washington State University study: “Minimum wage increases are absorbed by the Washington economy with very little overall damage . . . on balance such increases are beneficial to minimum wage workers.”

But I guess that’s the point. By Davis’ logic, anything that benefits workers is bad.

Leave a comment Comments → 25
  1. Paul you make some good points and as a moderate Repubilcan I think the min wage is too low. But comparing our minimum to Idaho is also a little unfair. If you compare say the sales tax, ours is 3.3% higher and gas prices again ours are about $.20 higher I’m not sure the difference in the minimum means much. Just a side comment our minimum for 14 &a5 year olds is $7.27 hr.

  2. aislander says:

    Coincidence does not indicate causation and lack of coincidence does not indicate its absence. We have a high percentage of skilled workers who are not directly affected by the minimum wage, but those workers who lack skills and are trying to get a foot on the first rung ARE adversely affected. The minimum wage is a tool used by unions and their political shills to increase wages farther up the ladder, but if you want jobs for teens and low-skilled workers, get rid of it altogether.

    Beyond those factors, the minimum wage is another indication of the infantilization of the American populace by those on the left. Adults should be able to enter into agreements of what they will work for and what they will pay without nanny government entering into the negotiation…

  3. The number of people without work is hovering around the 15%. The numbers the letter writer uses don’t portray the true situation. It merely relays the governments best face on a disgraceful economic policy.

    While this information several months old nothing outstanding has changed.

  4. JungleBoy says:

    “Typical of cheap-labor Conservatives” – please explain to me why the Democrats are against enforcement of laws pertaining to illegal immigration. Is it because they, too, are in favor of cheap labor? Or is it that they’re trying to garner votes?

  5. There is reported to be roughly 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, JungleBoy. That’s the total population of New York City and Los Angeles combined. How do you suggest we enforce laws pertaining to illegal immigration? Do we round them all up and export 12 million people?

    Maybe enforcing labor laws, hiring practices, would be a better way.

  6. There you go again Polage, messing up a perfectly good right wing rant with facts and logic.

    PS: Keep up the good work.

  7. JungleBoy says:

    Have you ever heard of “snag fishing?” That’s what I just did by tossing out an idea about illegal immigration.

    Unfortunately, my comment didn’t snag much – other than a few back slapping Liberals.

  8. It was a strawman, JungleBoy.

    You stated an un-truth, “Democrats are against enforcement of laws pertaining to illegal immigration,” then proceeded to rationalize that (non) behavior.

    Fortunately, we were there to straighten you out.

  9. aislander says:

    Sanctuary cities? Democrat. Stalling on border fence? Democrat. Drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens? Democrat. Motor voter? Democrat. I could go on, but I’m SURE you get the idea. JB didn’t say anything about the 12 million who are already here, but, as long as we’re talking about that, here’s some more: anchor babies? Democrat. Chain migration? Democrat. It IS all about future voters AND more clients for government…

  10. Islander – ancohor baby = U.S. Constitution, XIV Admindment = all persons born is US are citizens. And yes the US is one of few, if not the only, major nation to do so.

  11. aislander says:

    The amendment was written to ensure that the offspring of freed slaves had citizenship. It had NOTHING to do with illegal aliens…

  12. Nope, it says “ALL PEOPLE”, no restrictions, reservations, or limitations.

    Maybe we can get it changed to modify that and to exclude corporations and other organizations form having people hood and citizenship rights as well.

  13. aislander says:

    I KNOW what it say, but I also know the history of it. The framers of the amendment did not anticipate the loss of control of our borders, the lack of scruples of ideologically-motivated judges, and the appetite of progressives for changing the character of the nation…

  14. aislander says:

    That should have read: “…what it says…”

  15. aislander says:

    And you KNOW that Democrats are poised to demagogue any attempt to change the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment to reflect its original intent, so JB’s and my original point still stands: Democrats support illegal immigration…

  16. Jungleboy said “Is it because they, too, are in favor of cheap labor?”

    The word “too” says it all. Those who are in favor of cheap labor, capitalists, not Democrats, encourage illegal immigration, aislander.

    The problem is that you want the Democrats to fix the problem. With 12 million illegal immigrants in the US, how do you propose accomplishing that task, besides changing the Constitution?

    Remember the one about closing the barn door, too late to do any good?

  17. Oh I don’t know. You might be surprised. A compromise along the lines I suggested just might be possible.

    On the other hand it might just be the GOP who will demagogue the compromise.

    And if the Dems support illegal immigration, how come the current administration has already deported more illegals that Bush did in 8 years?

  18. “the current administration has already deported more illegals that Bush did in 8 years?”

    Really? I’ll answer, NO. Here’s thw quote that seems to have taken on a life of it’s own.

    “President Barack Obama has deported more people in his first year in office than George W. Bush in his last year in office.”

    In fiscal year 2008 (which ran from Oct. 1, 2007, through Sept. 30, 2008), there were 369,221 deportations. GW’s last of 8 years in office.

    During fiiscal year 2009 (which ran from Oct. 1, 2008, through Sept. 30, 2009) there were 387,790 deportations. BHO’s first year in office.

    18,569 from one year to the next.

    Stay with me.

    • The fiscal years do not square precisely with presidential years. Fiscal year 2008 was entirely under Bush, while fiscal year 2009 consisted of four months under Bush and eight under Obama. So using the raw fiscal-year figures doesn’t quite prove the Bush-Obama comparison.

    • It’s not clear that Obama policies deserve credit (or blame, depending on your perspective) for any increase in deportations, as Ramos implies. Michelle Mittelstadt, a spokesman for the Migration Policy Institute, said that “deportation numbers have been on a steadily upward trajectory” since 2002, due to a number of policy changes initially undertaken during the Bush administration. Indeed, between 2002 and 2008, deportations rose by 117 percent.

  19. I stand by my statement.

  20. aislander says:

    Then, thanks to the good work of thewho, it appears you’re standing on quicksand…

  21. Compared to what the right wing house of lies is base on I’m standing on solid ground.

  22. Originalists like to propose that they understand the original intent of the framers (and/or the reason why later Amendments were added) when it suits their purposes yet are more than happy to look the other way when Supreme Court rulings suit their purposes.

    This is how aislander (and the “originalists” on the Court) have absolutely no problem with the absurd notion of corporate personhood that was created by language inserted by a clerk to a S.C. ruling.

  23. aislander says:

    I seem to be living rent-free in bB’s head…

  24. You know that Dems are working on the problem because so many Repb are running anti-immigration ads.

  25. It appears he’s getting a bit obsessive there with following you around and trying to counter what you write.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0