TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross
AP: 0eb483e5-7791-4bde-bf71-32659ca4cafe
In this Feb. 13, 2013 photo, President Barack Obama speaks to workers and guests at the Linamar Corporation plant in Arden, N.C. Obama says raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour and tying future increases to inflation will raise the incomes of millions living in poverty and spur job growth. Business groups are not so sure. They complain that boosting the federal rate from $7.25 an hour would discourage employers from hiring new workers, hurting the very people Obama aims to help. (AP Photo/Chuck Burton)

Raise the federal minimum wage to $9!?

BY Dave Ross  on February 14, 2013 @ 5:58 am (Updated: 6:11 am - 2/14/13 )

President Obama is pushing for a $9 federal minimum wage. That worries small business owners - like this restaurant owner in Aubrey Texas, "I have actually a couple choices, close down. The other choice is to increase prices."

One side argues the minimum wage pushes unemployment up, by making workers more expensive. The other side argues it pushes unemployment down by giving workers more to spend. It depends on whether you're looking at people as employees or customers.

But we all need to pause, reach for a bottle of water, take a sip, and relax for a moment.

Because all of us are both employees AND customers.

In Washington State the minimum wage has been indexed to inflation for years, and just hit $9.19. And yes unemployment in Washington State is at about 7.6 percent. Nothing to brag about. But that's the same as the unemployment rate in West Virginia, where the minimum is almost $2 less, it's the same as Tennessee which has no minimum wage, and it's lower than in Georgia where the state minimum wage is only $5.15, but unemployment is about 8.6 percent.

And I think the reason the $9 wage hasn't crippled Washington State is that the $9 ends up being spent pretty quickly at other businesses.

The way I look at it, we all need a place to live, we all gotta eat. And if we can't get it by working, we'll get it from the government, or by moving in with relatives. Which means when wages shrink - government grows, and you're gonna have company in the spare bedroom.

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Dave Ross

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (132)


  • Add A Comment

  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Every mini-wage job results in tax payers subsidizing private profits
    February 14, 2013 7:30 am
    The guy or gal earning minimum wage is probably working as hard, or harder, than some people who earn several times as much.

    They tend to work in industries where the model revolves around bringing in large numbers of low cost, disposable people that will turn over fairly rapidly, rather than trying to identify fewer people who will be so productive and efficient that a smaller workforce is possible. There's often little or no interest in developing a career for anybody, just filling the slots with low-cost grunts.

    Problem is, when the guy grossing $1500 per month ($9 per hour) sets out into the world with his $1100 take-home pay he faces the same costs of living as the rest of us. Not for living extravagantly, just getting by at all. If he rents a studio apartment in the worst neighborhood in town, he might get by for $700 per month when utilities are factored in. Now he's got $100 per week for groceries, transportation (a car is out of the question, he rides the bus), clothing, medical care (of course he gets no benefits at his mini-wage job), etc. Worse yet, he has to have a cell phone because his mini-wage employer shifts his hours all over the clock and calendar, and he never knows what shift he will be working next.

    Sad fact is, you can't get by on the $100 a week remaining after you pay rent on a squalid dump.

    The taxpayers step up to subsidize the housing for such a worker. The taxpayers step up to provide food stamps so such a worker can afford to work so cheaply and still eat. Should the mini-wage worker get sick, he or she will show up at the emergency room of the hospital, broke, and the exorbitant cost will be passed along to everybody else who *does* pay for medical care or health insurance.

    If your business model depends upon the taxpayers subsidizing your employees so they can afford to work at starvation wages, by what moral right are you in business to start with? Your business (indirectly) creates a larger need for welfare dollars than any crack addicted mama with a dozen kids.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Bremerton Voice wrote...
    Buck up!
    February 14, 2013 7:35 am
    If you can't run your business you go out of business. I'm all for it. And all the people on here against it just want another thing to complain about Obama, why do I say that? If you actually read the article, WA is already above $9 you have nothing to cry about, if businesses here were going to go out of business because of this they already would have. Also are you saying people don't have an expectation of life working their tail off to provide you with a service? Get off it you don't have a job and the economy sucks because of the policies of Bush...enjoy.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Bush?
    February 14, 2013 8:53 am
    For gods sake man, really? You can't really be that stupid can you? www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WiIliam Lawn wrote...
    wow
    February 14, 2013 9:56 pm
    Bush again? This guy's an idiot. Just because WA state is a lost cause doesn't mean we give up on the rest of our country.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hnuh wrote...
    02-14-2013
    February 14, 2013 7:46 am
    There is no reason in the left and there is no reasoning with a leftist.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • AtheisticallyYours wrote...
    Attached raises!
    February 14, 2013 7:51 am
    How about attaching the minimum wage to Congressional pay raises? That way, when they raise THEIR "minimum wage", ALL WORKERS GET A RAISE! By the same per centage of an increase too!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    The job market has changed
    February 14, 2013 7:59 am
    I vaguely remember my first jobs in 1975 and 1976, and I thought they were somewhere near minimum wage. With my wife's income we were able to rent an apartment, pay for food and gas, and actually put some money aside. So I checked, and discovered that for the jobs we had that were very close to entry level, we made about a dollar an hour over minimum wage. But minimum wage then was 2.00 - 2.30 an hour. So the reality was that we were making almost 50% more than minimum wage, and we started these jobs without any experience. You can say that minimum wage jobs were not meant for people to live on, but there are just too many people trying to do exactly that. Look at the kind of jobs we now have in the U.S., and it is clear that there are way more service sector and retail jobs than ever before. And these industries cannot offer enough opportunities to advance to a middle income job. This is the biggest factor in the change of the distribution of wages from a normal bell curve. Perhaps we need to change the argument from minimum wage to entry level.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    It's not a good fix unfortunately...
    February 14, 2013 8:09 am
    The problem with raising the minimum wage is... when you increase the minimum wage the money always ends up going down the line and we all end up paying a little more... so.. yeh the minimum wage worker will get a little more money, but the cost of living will increase for everybody and after a year you won't even notice that it's risen because that raise will be eaten up by the grocery store, the things you buy, the services you use... any store that has minimum wage workers will raise their prices... it's just the facts... Companies aren't stupid.. many are evil and greedy but they aren't stupid.. they simply figure out what it will cost to offset the minimum wage hike and raise their prices accordingly...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Cbrew
    February 14, 2013 8:17 am

    You argument fails because all the resources have already gone up the the wages has been the same for years?

    Every time I go to winco (twice a month) for groceries, the price always goes up and the packaging seems smaller, there was no wage increase when these prices have gone up?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gimmer wrote...
    It's Called Market Adjustment...
    February 14, 2013 9:15 am
    ...and the manufacturers of your groceries have had their costs increased, too (for a variety of reasons as AJ mentioned). Let's hear it for gov't and crony capitalism!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Lonestar wrote...
    The minimum wage should be $ 100 per hour
    February 14, 2013 8:12 am
    This seems to working pretty well in Zimbabwe.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BigBlackGuy wrote...
    "$9!?"
    February 14, 2013 8:24 am
    Who in the heck can live in Seattle off of $9 dollars an hours? Besides the Neanderthals on MYNorthwest.com that live in Whiskey bottles, and gun filled Bunkers.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Well big black guy
    February 14, 2013 8:55 am
    Then maybe they should move to a less expensive city?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Racist fool!
    February 14, 2013 11:03 am
    How does Lakewood sound to you?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    The Real problem with the economy is.....
    February 14, 2013 8:29 am
    Is that the very wealthy in this nation, have a disproportionate amount of wealth compared to what it has had historically and that money isn't being used.. The middle class has shrunk, they have become poorer, and the wealthiest class in this country have become immensely more wealthy. A recent study showed that the average middle class family lost 40% of it's net worth through the recession, mostly due to home value loss, 401k's decreasing in value in the stock market, jobs lost etc. and the wealthiest class in this country actually made money through the recession, they saw a gain in their net worth... There's no issue debating that, the wealthy did what they do, take advantage of a crisis but unfortunately, now they refuse to spend... they refuse to invest... Republicans say it's because the Wealthy should pay even less in taxes so they're enticed into spending, Democrats say we should tax them more so that money does move back into the economy... I'm not going to claim i know who's right but i can say, if you want honesty, the blame can go straight on the Wealthiest Class in this country, they are what's slowing the recovery and stifling growth... well, growth for us, they are still doing great.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    But Cbrew
    February 14, 2013 9:00 am
    It is a fact that the wealthiest 1% actually do pay the most in taxes. Why is it that you Democrats refuse to acknowledge that? Taxing the rich is not the answer. All the tax increases Obama got at the start of 2013 were spent immediately...we could tax all the people who make over a million a year and it wouldn't Mae any difference....that is a FACT.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Maplefish
    February 14, 2013 9:13 am
    I do not identify as a Democrat, I'm an independent, I support some things Democrats propose and some things Republicans propose, I.E. i have and always will support our second amendment rights and oppose a gun ban. As for your comment, The wealthiest 1% pay more in taxes in some cases, in many cases they find loopholes to avoid paying even what you or I pay in taxes. I'm talking by percentage of course, 10% of my earnings is much less than 10% of a billionaires earnings obviously, but does it not affect me the same? Anyways, In some respects i agree with the Democrat's sentiment that the Rich should pay more, consider, they utilize the nation's services more than you or I do, I.E. Since when have you needed the FAA to ensure safe operation of your business? Since when have you needed the US Navy to protect your shipping lanes? us normal citizens don't need that, therefor there is a benefit for them that we don't get... It's a benefit they enjoy that businesses around the world do not necessarily... So yeh i feel they should shoulder some of the burden too. I'm just not sure why they are paying some of the lowest tax rates in history for the wealthy... especially when our country is going into debt every year...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Cbrew
    February 14, 2013 11:51 am
    I agree. Well Put. And Yes, there are loopholes, but home owners in this country get tax deductions which are looholes, there are all kinds of deductions and as long as people arent breaking the law, well??? but the fact is the wealthy do pay the majority of taxes in the country.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gimmer wrote...
    Home values...
    February 14, 2013 9:21 am
    ...that were gained between 2002 and 2008 were largely not sustainable. This is why my family chose not to play that game. We encouraged friends who were looking in 2005 and 2007 to wait because the writing was clearly on the wall. We bought our 1st home in early 2002 and, as a result, we are not underwater. And our friends have now gotten into homes that fit their budgets and needs. Eat the rich? Let me know how that goes. The investor class will play again when the political ruling class recuses themselves from the market.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Gimmer
    February 14, 2013 9:29 am
    I'm not proposing "eating the rich"... heck i'm not proposing anything, i'm not even sure if either the Dem or Rep plan to fix the economy will work. I'm just looking at the facts that the wealthiest Americans are wealthier now than they have ever been in proportion to the middle class. I know that the middle class suffered more than any other group during the recession and I really don't know what it's going to take for the Wealthy to start spending and investing again, perhaps they are simply waiting for a more positive economic sign who knows...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Saltchucker wrote...
    Washington a model for the US?
    February 14, 2013 8:34 am
    So, we tied our minimum wage to inflation.....and then , what, 2 years ago inflation was down and we raised the wage anyway! Great model. No family or person will EVER be able to live on minimum wage because the poverty line goes up every time the wage does. All the landlords know when their tenants got a raise, as do the grocers, PUD's and whoever. Those folks have no intent of letting that extra money slip through thier fingers...and why should they?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }