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

  • anotherfencewalker wrote...
    Incredible..
    February 14, 2013 8:36 am
    Min wage jobs are almost always entry level jobs. Transitional. They are not meant to be careers nor do the owners of these businesses expect these employees to be lifers. These employees are usually on their way to someplace else. They are just just stopping by your business for a bit to pick up some spare change and walking around money.. Livable Wage? No way. Mom and pop shops, especially in Washington state have NO wiggle room for overhead. Go work two jobs if that's the case or force yourself to stay at mom and dads until your 30 and things start popping for you.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    Anotherfence
    February 14, 2013 8:58 am
    Just not true anymore. It was true 40 years ago, but with the growth of the service sector, and the loss of manufacturing, the historical distribution of living wage jobs to minimum wage jobs has changed. There are a lot of people trying to survive on these jobs. Many companies don't see minimum wage jobs as transitional for the newest employees, but instead these jobs represent the bulk of their workforce.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    anotherfencewalker: They typically can't "go work two jobs"
    February 14, 2013 9:16 am
    Many of the mini-wage employers schedule their workers 29 hours a week. That allows them to classify the entire work force as "part time", and avoid paying some of the benefits (like paid holidays) legally due full time workers.

    OK, so 29 + 29 only equals 58. If you've made any serious money if life, you have probably gone through a decade or so where you worked at least that many hours per week (but not a mini-wage)...so work two jobs. What's that problem?

    Problem is that the mini-wage jobs come with unpredictable hours. You might be working 8 AM to 1 PM 5 days a week this month, and then be switched to 2 PM to 7 PM next month. How do you find a second job that allows you to keep the first? Before long the two schedules will conflict, and you will be back to just one job again.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    wait, you mean if we pay lower income people more, they will spend more?
    February 14, 2013 8:47 am
    and not need federal and/or State assistance?

    Sounds like a good idea to me. I wonder why the GOP would oppose it?

    Because they represent the 1% who want to eliminate the middle class and pay everyone middle class so they can buy a private island or two.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Calapete
    February 14, 2013 9:03 am
    Dude, you are clueless....www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Angry Monkey wrote...
    Minimum wage at a glance
    February 14, 2013 9:47 am

    Let's take a look at WA, OR, NC, FL and NJ. All five states have minimum wages above the federal minimum wage law, and all five have unemployment at 7% or higher. By comparison, SC, GA, TN, AR, and MS (among others) have either no minimum wage laws or have minimum wages below the federal standard, and again all five states have unemployment at 7% or higher.

    Now, let's look at opposite ends of the spectrum. ND, NE, and SD have the least unemployment, at 3.2, 3.7, and 4.4 percent respectively, in the country whereas CA, NV, and RI, have the highest unemployment in the country, at 9.8, 10.2, and 10.2% respectively. The thing that all six states have in common, is that they all have minimum wage laws at or above the federal minimum wage.

    My conclusion, I don't think raising the minimum wage will affect unemployment one way or another.

    Sources: http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm#content

    http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Angry... That's cherry picking....
    February 14, 2013 10:02 am
    You're talking about 3 states with the lowest population density in America vs states with some of the highest population density in the US... It's really not a fair comparison, smaller population = less competition for jobs.. I think the original post was a more accurate assessment, the bottom line is, Minimum wage rates appear to have little affect on unemployment... I think it's a pointless tactic because regionally it will only serve to drive up prices.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Angry Monkey wrote...
    Cbrew
    February 14, 2013 10:57 am
    True, I did not take population density into account, because neither does the original argument that the host makes. The argument is, states with higher unemployment have either, no minimum wage laws, or laws that are below the national level.

    For the record, NV ranks 44th in the nation for population density at 24.6 people per sq mile of land, which is right above NE at #43 with 23.8 ppl/sq mi.

    But, if you really want to argue about "cherry picking", look at the populations of the first ten states I mentioned. Population wise, none except for FL are in the top ten, but neither are they in the bottom ten. They all kind of float around in the middle.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Angry, i'll admit i haven't researched the pop density
    February 14, 2013 11:07 am
    of all these states, however, as we know and has been repeated a million times during the election cycle, Nevada's population is booming, it's one of if not the fastest growing state right now... I do know that like most states in the west/midwest they are generally largely populated in specific areas then not much else anywhere, Las Vegas is obviously huge, but in between Vegas and anywhere else, it's just vast tracts of desert for the most part.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    I have no doubt....
    February 14, 2013 9:58 am
    that the wealthy only intend to get wealthier, but so do we, the bottom line is, our better paying jobs are going away, in fact the bottom line is, eventually most of our good jobs will go away, as crazy and futuristic as it sounds, machines are replacing the human worker... automation will cost us more and more jobs as we go along... manufacturing will be the hardest hit but lets look at even smaller tasks like receptionists, who we all saw decline because of advances in technology both online and because of automated messages... entertainment, you got thousands of blockbusters and hollywood video stores out of business because of technological advances... the further we go along, there will be less and less jobs for people... I think we will hit a point in the next 100 years where this will be a critical issue, if it costs a business 50k to buy a machine to do the job of 3 workers, why would you hire 3 workers at 50k a year? Obviously some professions will need human workers no matter what, but there's honestly not much a machine can't do these days, expect that trend to continue, we may soon find that our own tools will put us out of work, what then? How will we manage our society when there simply AREN'T enough jobs for people to do?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soccernut wrote...
    comparing W Virginia and Georgia to Washington inaccurate
    February 14, 2013 10:04 am
    I'm pretty sure that the median income, coswt of living, etc. are much different. The reason $9.19 minimum has not affected unmeployment in WA. is because the market has already established a minimum wage higher than that. The federal requirement will have little/no effect on our region. It will cripple regions like W. Virginia and Georgia. Also, your argument suggests that raising minimum wage can only help the economy. Taking the minimum wage argument to the logical extreme, we should set it at $30 and unemployment will disappear and everyone will be buying all kinds of stuff. Of course, we will be paying $25 for a big mac and $5000k/month for a 1 bedroom apartment in buckley. But that's OK, right?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hnuh wrote...
    Cbrew
    February 14, 2013 10:11 am
    Per your 8:29 am post... The essence of what you are stating is reasonably true. Using the last 40 years as our timeline, review the political party in power through that time, that is, at the federal level the makeup of congress and the presidency. What is clear from a review is this: The problems we have in the United States that derive from federal policies are almost exclusively the responsibility of one party. The more repressive the regulation the greater the advantage the rich have. The larger the government the greater the advantage the rich have. The more corrupt the government the greater the advantage the rich have. All these advantages are hallmarks of the policies of one party in particular.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    "The more repressive the regulation the greater the advantage the rich have. The larger the government the greater the advantage the rich have. The more corrupt the government the greater the advantage the rich have."
    February 14, 2013 10:18 am
    Of course you present not a single shred of evidence to back any of those claims up.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.
    February 14, 2013 10:35 am
    wo wo wo big boy. Ignorant statements are my department!! How much do you pay your people starting 2 working 4 U ?, ? and ?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    Cbrew are U a
    February 14, 2013 10:37 am
    cherry picker?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Lol no I'm not a cherry picker...
    February 14, 2013 10:50 am
    I work in I.T. An industry that is more and more driving the economy.. And I make a fair living and I got here through hard work and sacrifice... Without any assistance from my parents or use of government programs... Unless you count joining the Army as assistance
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Cbrew
    February 14, 2013 4:49 pm
    The more I read your posts, the more respect I have for you....I take back my pre-election insults....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bmaddy wrote...
    LOL
    February 14, 2013 10:55 am
    This is the stupidest thing ever. Success story seriously? $1440 before taxes is know Success story to me.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TTTCOTTH wrote...
    Business Experience
    February 14, 2013 11:07 am
    Dave. You have the same business experience as Obama. Dick.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }