Gregoire vs. Rossi on budget cuts

edited October 2008 in Everything Else
Over on the blog, commenter Yesler Hill wrote:
I sure don't want Rossi hacking back minimum wage and other social safety net mechanisms as the economy drops away in to the ditch. *sigh*
masaba also expressed a similar concern:
Masaba wrote:
However, stating that we should lower the minimum wage by $1.50 when the economy is turning south and executives at AIG are taking $400,000 vacations does seem a little dumbfounding.
I found these statements to be rather curious, since as far as I am aware, Rossi has not stated any interest in reducing the minimum wage. I've seen this political ad that claims he supports lowering the minimum wage across the board, but when you look at the question he was actually answering, that ad is a pretty heavy distortion of what he actually said:
When asked, Rossi said he was open to the idea of creating a stair-stepped training wage, which would begin $1.50 below the minimum wage.

He said the minimum wage was meant to be an entry-level salary, not a family wage.

"Think of how many young people are being cheated out of their first job," he said. "The idea of going to work, fulfilling a task and being paid for it. That's a very good thing. The work ethic is something very good to instill in our youth. But when the minimum wage gets so high that that job isn't worth that much to the employer, you don't get that first job."
I guess I don't see what's so unreasonable about having a "stair-stepped training wage" for under-18 employees just entering the workforce to earn a few bucks while in school. Also, I'm interested to know if anyone has any actual statistics on how many people over age 18 are working at minimum wage in Washington.

Would someone care to enlighten me on this, and also what other "safety net mechanisms" Rossi intends to cut?

Comments

  • I'm not familiar with the ads, but I do have one "unintended consequence" to point out regarding a "starter wage" for those under 18. It encourages businesses to hire those under 18 at the exclusion of those over 18. Maybe a job at McDonald's is not your ideal, but if you are 19 and working your way through college on that job, it would sure be rough to get your hours cut just because the 16 year old is cheaper labor.

    Also, when's the last time you went into a minimum wage employeer who didn't have a "Help Wanted" sign posted? They almost always do.

    Well, that's my argument against. :D
  • Tim, 'stair-stepped training wage' is a euphamism. If I am an employer who is hiring for a job to stack books at the library, and I can hire a 16 year old to do it for $7 an hour or a 25 year old to do it for $8.50, then the minimum wage I can pay as an employer is $7. Therefore, Rossi has proposed to lower the minimum wage.

    Beyond the above simple fact, it's already been shown time and again that corporations are more than willing to accept forged documents or create them themselves to falsify the citizenship of their employees. I don't think many would hesitate to do the same for age. But even regardless of this, if Rossi is saying that he would allow people to work for less than minimum wage, then he has set a new minimum wage.
  • That sounds like wanting to lower minimum wage by putting a different name on it. Minimum wage is already an entry level wage. That's why it's the "minimum". If you lower that, then it's no longer the minimum wage.
  • I can kindof see what you guys are saying here, but I also think there's some weight to an argument that giving employers the ability to pay teens less might create new jobs. If an employer can't afford to hire someone at $8 an hour but could afford to at $6.50 an hour, a program like this could result in new jobs, not merely shifting jobs from adults to teens.

    Also, it seems like it should be noted that the only mention I can find of the minimum wage on Rossi's website is this this page, which says:
    While Rossi is supportive of a training wage, this is not part of his agenda and he is not advocating changing minimum wage laws out on the campaign trail.
    It doesn't sound like something he's really trying to push, and if I'm not mistaken, wouldn't this be something that the state legislature would have to pass first, making it a complete non-starter anyway?
  • No, I think that my conclusion, that many big companies would leverage a law like this to increase their profit margin, is pretty safe. If Rossi truly wants to help small businesses, then he should find a way to rid them of their health care burdens, which account for a much bigger burden on small businesses than the minimum wage.

    Beyond that, you're the one that said Gregoire's claims on the economy were dumbfounding. To me, Rossi's comments on lowering the minimum wage at a time when the gap between rich and poor in this country is increasing and we are heading towards a recession is much more dumbfounding than Gregoire taking claim for a budget surplus that was created while she was in office.

    If Rossi wants to attack how she spent the surplus, I am all for hearing it. But to say that any politician wouldn't be facing a projected deficit right now is a little far fetched.

    And, as many have said, I typically enjoy this blog because it offers sound analysis of the housing bubble. However, analyzing political spin is open to a lot more interpretation and usually incorporates biases of the analyzer.
  • I have a hard time believing that $1.50 an hour is a make it or break it proposition for job creation. For a teenager, who is likely only going to be working 20 hours a week or so, that's a savings of $30 a week, or a little over $120 a month.
  • "Think of how many young people are being cheated out of their first job," he said. "The idea of going to work, fulfilling a task and being paid for it. That's a very good thing. The work ethic is something very good to instill in our youth. But when the minimum wage gets so high that that job isn't worth that much to the employer, you don't get that first job."

    This is a very misleading statement. Any 16-20 year old who desires a job and is willing to put forth even a small amount of effort will have no troubles finding a job that pays more than minimum wage. Most big box retail stores and fast food restaurants have permanent "help wanted" signs. Most kids think a fast food job is 'beneath' them.

    So the issue is not the minimum wage deterring opportunity, it's the total lack of work ethic and/or sense of entitlement to a "good" job. Changing the minimum wage in this manner will simply enable employers to reduce the wages paid to 16-17 year olds.
  • Masaba wrote:
    To me, Rossi's comments on lowering the minimum wage at a time when the gap between rich and poor in this country is increasing and we are heading towards a recession is much more dumbfounding than Gregoire taking claim for a budget surplus that was created while she was in office.
    A strong argument can be made by intelligent, educated people on either side of the minimum wage issue. I refer you to Wikipedia for a few examples of economists' arguments against a minimum wage. Debating the minimum wage seems like it would be an exercise in futility.

    Mainly I was interested in why people believed that cutting the minimum wage was a top priority of Rossi.
    Masaba wrote:
    If Rossi wants to attack how she spent the surplus, I am all for hearing it. But to say that any politician wouldn't be facing a projected deficit right now is a little far fetched.
    Who is saying that? I certainly said nothing of the sort, since I have no specific data to back up such a claim.
    Masaba wrote:
    And, as many have said, I typically enjoy this blog because it offers sound analysis of the housing bubble. However, analyzing political spin is open to a lot more interpretation and usually incorporates biases of the analyzer.
    Fair enough. As I said on the blog though, having watched this all unfold since 2005, I was just too frustrated by the claims to let it slide.

    The state budget is directly related to the housing market, and has been a subject of numerous posts since the very beginning of this site. The funny thing to me about comments like yours is that in my experience, there is just as much emotion and gray area in real estate as there is in politics.
  • Who is saying that? I certainly said nothing of the sort, since I have no specific data to back up such a claim.

    You said that you are dumbfounded by the fact that Gregoire is claiming that she had a budget surplus, which is a true statement. Therefore, I inferred that you were dumbfounded that she made that statement given the fact that there is a projected budget deficit.

    It is more than reasonable for her to take claim for what she has done, since Rossi was the one who started this line of attack by creating an add that stated (incorrectly) that Gregoire has a budget deficit (the correct add would have stated that there is a projected budget deficit).
  • Masaba wrote:
    You said that you are dumbfounded by the fact that Gregoire is claiming that she had a budget surplus.
    No, I said I was dumbfounded by her claims that (1) she was responsible in any meaningful way for balancing the budget, and that (2) she is in no way responsible for the projected deficit, that it's all the fault of "Washington DC."
    Masaba wrote:
    It is more than reasonable for her to take claim for what she has done, since Rossi was the one who started this line of attack by creating an add that stated (incorrectly) that Gregoire has a budget deficit (the correct add would have stated that there is a projected budget deficit).
    Now we're playing semantic games, which frankly I'm not interested in.
  • To answer your real question, Tim, I had not heard any reports that Rossi planned to cut minimum wages. In arguing the benefits or risks, I'll stand by my previous post regarding the value of a starter wage.
  • Funny thing. I was at my office late last night and noticed the mandatory minimum wage posting there. And actually the minimum wage for people aged 14 and 15 is 6.58. $1.50 less than the state's $8.07.
  • The work restrictions on 14-15 year olds are pretty drastic from what I remember.
  • They definitely are.
  • I'm not familiar with the ads, but I do have one "unintended consequence" to point out regarding a "starter wage" for those under 18. It encourages businesses to hire those under 18 at the exclusion of those over 18. Maybe a job at McDonald's is not your ideal, but if you are 19 and working your way through college on that job, it would sure be rough to get your hours cut just because the 16 year old is cheaper labor.

    Also, when's the last time you went into a minimum wage employeer who didn't have a "Help Wanted" sign posted? They almost always do.

    Well, that's my argument against. :D
    Having raised six kids who are now all over 21, I can tell you that your post is exactly what I would say, and is my argument FOR. That is, it ensures there is plenty of opportunity for young people to have the opportunity for work, eliminating the excuses. And there are only so many of them.
  • I think they should just stop all the bs and increase the minimum wage to $70 an hour! Presto! No more poor!

    I admit I haven't thought it all the way through. Gee, I hope there are not any unintended consequences! :mrgreen:
  • Robroy wrote:
    I'm not familiar with the ads, but I do have one "unintended consequence" to point out regarding a "starter wage" for those under 18. It encourages businesses to hire those under 18 at the exclusion of those over 18. Maybe a job at McDonald's is not your ideal, but if you are 19 and working your way through college on that job, it would sure be rough to get your hours cut just because the 16 year old is cheaper labor.

    Also, when's the last time you went into a minimum wage employeer who didn't have a "Help Wanted" sign posted? They almost always do.

    Well, that's my argument against. :D
    Having raised six kids who are now all over 21, I can tell you that your post is exactly what I would say, and is my argument FOR. That is, it ensures there is plenty of opportunity for young people to have the opportunity for work, eliminating the excuses. And there are only so many of them.

    Wait...your six children, when ages 16 and 17 (since that's all we're talking about here) used the excuse that they couldn't find a job because the 18-25 year old contingent had taken all the crappy fast food jobs?

    I'm going to have to call you out on that. The jobs are out there either way, and they'd be just as crappy at $6 an hour as at $7.50. Starter wages won't encourage high schoolers to work, they will discourage it. They will, however encourage employers to hire a 17 year old over an 18 year old if each applies for the same job.
  • Robroy wrote:
    I'm not familiar with the ads, but I do have one "unintended consequence" to point out regarding a "starter wage" for those under 18. It encourages businesses to hire those under 18 at the exclusion of those over 18. Maybe a job at McDonald's is not your ideal, but if you are 19 and working your way through college on that job, it would sure be rough to get your hours cut just because the 16 year old is cheaper labor.

    Also, when's the last time you went into a minimum wage employeer who didn't have a "Help Wanted" sign posted? They almost always do.

    Well, that's my argument against. :D
    Having raised six kids who are now all over 21, I can tell you that your post is exactly what I would say, and is my argument FOR. That is, it ensures there is plenty of opportunity for young people to have the opportunity for work, eliminating the excuses. And there are only so many of them.

    Wait...your six children, when ages 16 and 17 (since that's all we're talking about here) used the excuse that they couldn't find a job because the 18-25 year old contingent had taken all the crappy fast food jobs?

    I'm going to have to call you out on that. The jobs are out there either way, and they'd be just as crappy at $6 an hour as at $7.50. Starter wages won't encourage high schoolers to work, they will discourage it. They will, however encourage employers to hire a 17 year old over an 18 year old if each applies for the same job.
    The kernel of my point is in your last sentence. If I have kids under 18 that I want to get experience working, a system that incents employers to hire them will more ensure that they have a positive job search experience and can actually enter the job market. Then, this experience will prepare them for the time when they are over 18. And they will be applying for better jobs and be more employable becuase they have that pillar in their foundation.

    When I was 15 (1969), I picked radishes and green onions (Auburn valley). I was paid by the number of "twisties" I went through, not even by the hour. Later I was hired by the hour to drive the tractor and wash the veggies before shipping.

    When I was sixteen I drove the flatbed truck full of veggies to the Safeway, Associated and other food distribution centers. That work would have gone to a low paid adult had they been forced to pay me the same. And low paid adults would have brought cultural "complexities" to the farm.

    Some jobs are for kids. Adults need to get adult jobs.
  • Robroy wrote:
    The kernel of my point is in your last sentence. If I have kids under 18 that I want to get experience working, a system that incents employers to hire them will more ensure that they have a positive job search experience and can actually enter the job market. Then, this experience will prepare them for the time when they are over 18. And they will be applying for better jobs and be more employable becuase they have that pillar in their foundation.

    And when I was 16, I went into a fast-food chain, filled out an application, and was hired almost immediately. 16 year olds have plenty of jobs to choose from. If they don't get a job, it's because they don't want it. I can't even believe we are arguing about this. I bet I could find 30 businesses within 2 miles of my residence who would hire the next 16/17 year old who walked through the door at the current minimum wage. Let's talk about it again if unemployment is ever above 7% and work is truly getting harder to find.
  • Robroy wrote:
    The kernel of my point is in your last sentence. If I have kids under 18 that I want to get experience working, a system that incents employers to hire them will more ensure that they have a positive job search experience and can actually enter the job market. Then, this experience will prepare them for the time when they are over 18. And they will be applying for better jobs and be more employable becuase they have that pillar in their foundation.

    And when I was 16, I went into a fast-food chain, filled out an application, and was hired almost immediately. 16 year olds have plenty of jobs to choose from. If they don't get a job, it's because they don't want it. I can't even believe we are arguing about this. I bet I could find 30 businesses within 2 miles of my residence who would hire the next 16/17 year old who walked through the door at the current minimum wage. Let's talk about it again if unemployment is ever above 7% and work is truly getting harder to find.

    Well, to be blunt, I agree it is funny we are even arguing it. I am so against the entire concept that my blood pressure goes up every time someone even mentions it. For me to even argue nuances tends to violate my core values. It's like arguing if women should have 80% of the rights of men vs 70%. The whole argument is based on a false premise, that it should be anything less or more than 100%.

    The government should not be involved in what price is mutually agreed upon between an employer and an employee, other than making indentured slavery illegal.
Sign In or Register to comment.