Will Mallahan Put His Money Where His Mouth Is on Living Wage Pledge?

The interesting thing here is that Mallahan has touted no poll results of late and made antiseptic appearances in South Seattle over the weekend. No one knows what is going to happen but I think his insiders show him trending down.

The interesting thing here is that Mallahan has touted no poll results of late and made antiseptic appearances in South Seattle over the weekend. No one knows what is going to happen but I think his insiders show him trending down.

I don’t think the issue is just a living hourly wage, but making sure that people have jobs in the first place. In case you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of unemployed people in Seattle who still can’t find suitable work.

If Mallaspam has some sort of plan for bringing in jobs, I would find that worthwhile. If it’s just some proposed bill to make the required hourly wage a certain amount, not only is that not really going to help low-end workers, it could also cost many of them their jobs, as budgets will strain to the point where workers would have to get laid off for many companies to afford paying the mandated ‘living wage’ to whoever is left.

I don’t think the issue is just a living hourly wage, but making sure that people have jobs in the first place. In case you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of unemployed people in Seattle who still can’t find suitable work.

If Mallaspam has some sort of plan for bringing in jobs, I would find that worthwhile. If it’s just some proposed bill to make the required hourly wage a certain amount, not only is that not really going to help low-end workers, it could also cost many of them their jobs, as budgets will strain to the point where workers would have to get laid off for many companies to afford paying the mandated ‘living wage’ to whoever is left.

A telling story. Mallahan’s mouthpiece didn’t know where he was on the issue but she thought it was a good answer. Mallahan of course wasn’t around to comment. McGinn–the actual candidate, not a mouthpiece and who apparently answered his phone himself–says he’s for it.

Maybe someone can look into Mallahan’s business background and see if he actually provided a living wage for the people he employed at T Mobile?

Maybe someone can look into Mallahan’s business background and see if he actually provided a living wage for the people he employed at T Mobile?

@2,

I agree Gomez. And Neuman did say she didn’ know if Joe would go the ordinance or some sort of job creation program.

@2,

I agree Gomez. And Neuman did say she didn’ know if Joe would go the ordinance or some sort of job creation program.

Another issue, another communication contrast. Once again Mallahan can’t be found for immediate comment, whereas when McGinn sees a reporter’s number incoming he hangs up on grandma to take it, then sends his freegan youth brigade to follow up on the blogs.

Another issue, another communication contrast. Once again Mallahan can’t be found for immediate comment, whereas when McGinn sees a reporter’s number incoming he hangs up on grandma to take it, then sends his freegan youth brigade to follow up on the blogs.

The idea that high wages for the poor necessarily contribute to unemployment is not based in economics, which requires empirical claims and a knowledge of history, but in partisan political ideology.

Firms very often pocket reduced labor costs or reduced taxes as profit instead of hiring more workers. Union busting and tax breaks generally don’t get us out of recessions as deep as the one we’re in. Requiring higher wages for some jobs may result in higher unemployment in some industries. But in others it might instead reduce profits, reduce middle management, or result in costs being passed on to consumers– costs that might not actually be all that much.

What’s more, as opposed to landlords who let their units sit vacant hoping the market will turn around, or wealthy people who are sitting on their money til they feel more sure about investing it in the economy, poor people tend to their spend money and save very little. And that actually produces jobs. Which is why progressive taxation, deficit spending, unionization, and living wage jobs ordinances might be the best thing for our economy right now– because they take idle capital and give it to people who will get it circulating again.

@4 -

Everyone that I know that worked out of Factoria actually made pretty decent money (typically starting around $35-45/year), considering.

The idea that high wages for the poor necessarily contribute to unemployment is not based in economics, which requires empirical claims and a knowledge of history, but in partisan political ideology.

Firms very often pocket reduced labor costs or reduced taxes as profit instead of hiring more workers. Union busting and tax breaks generally don’t get us out of recessions as deep as the one we’re in. Requiring higher wages for some jobs may result in higher unemployment in some industries. But in others it might instead reduce profits, reduce middle management, or result in costs being passed on to consumers– costs that might not actually be all that much.

What’s more, as opposed to landlords who let their units sit vacant hoping the market will turn around, or wealthy people who are sitting on their money til they feel more sure about investing it in the economy, poor people tend to their spend money and save very little. And that actually produces jobs. Which is why progressive taxation, deficit spending, unionization, and living wage jobs ordinances might be the best thing for our economy right now– because they take idle capital and give it to people who will get it circulating again.

@4 -

Everyone that I know that worked out of Factoria actually made pretty decent money (typically starting around $35-45/year), considering.

@8

The economy must be worse than I thought if $35-45/year is a pretty decent starting wage these days.

@8

The economy must be worse than I thought if $35-45/year is a pretty decent starting wage these days.

Does anyone else find it disturbing that McGinn is SO accessible? Doesn’t the man have other things to do besides answer his own phone? Delegate, man. He’s not running for mayor of North Bend (a nice town, but not Seattle-sized). And when his answer is “I’d look into it” (count how many times that’s his response– it’s stunning), what’s the point?

During the debate, McGinn sounded like he hadn’t even considered that question. You could almost see the force of will it took him not to say “Sidewalks!”. Mallahan totally smoked him.

Does anyone else find it disturbing that McGinn is SO accessible? Doesn’t the man have other things to do besides answer his own phone? Delegate, man. He’s not running for mayor of North Bend (a nice town, but not Seattle-sized). And when his answer is “I’d look into it” (count how many times that’s his response– it’s stunning), what’s the point?

During the debate, McGinn sounded like he hadn’t even considered that question. You could almost see the force of will it took him not to say “Sidewalks!”. Mallahan totally smoked him.

@9 -

For someone who doesn’t have a graduate degree, or even a bachelor’s in a related field (or maybe none at all), that’s not bad. That’s $16.83/hr – $21.63/hr. For a single individual, that’s well above poverty, and right around median income (at the high end) for this county. So yes, that’s pretty decent.

@9 -

For someone who doesn’t have a graduate degree, or even a bachelor’s in a related field (or maybe none at all), that’s not bad. That’s $16.83/hr – $21.63/hr. For a single individual, that’s well above poverty, and right around median income (at the high end) for this county. So yes, that’s pretty decent.

Wouldn’t it be easier to point out the times when you DON’T do a bit of editorializing?

Wouldn’t it be easier to point out the times when you DON’T do a bit of editorializing?

@11: Yes, it’s above poverty. That’s the whole idea.

@11: Yes, it’s above poverty. That’s the whole idea.

@13

Jeff@9 indicated that 35-45/year is not that much, and it must be the economy that makes it a decent starting wage. I was just correcting that bit of misinformation

@13

Jeff@9 indicated that 35-45/year is not that much, and it must be the economy that makes it a decent starting wage. I was just correcting that bit of misinformation

Santa Fe

http://www.santafelivingwage.org/finalordinance.html

This is a pretty good case, and there is plenty of press on it to use for this type of story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/magazine/15wage.html

My guess is that the “living wage” discussion with our council would drift toward a slightly higher level of the min wage.

There is a pricepoint where people either have a job or not, you hire or you do not.

Most of this would have to follow federal, and then state reaction, to healthcare legislation.
Employer based compensation could change quite a bit.

Santa Fe

http://www.santafelivingwage.org/finalordinance.html

This is a pretty good case, and there is plenty of press on it to use for this type of story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/magazine/15wage.html

My guess is that the “living wage” discussion with our council would drift toward a slightly higher level of the min wage.

There is a pricepoint where people either have a job or not, you hire or you do not.

Most of this would have to follow federal, and then state reaction, to healthcare legislation.
Employer based compensation could change quite a bit.

7. Theory’s neat, Trevor, but a) large companies are still going to use the line and lay off workers anyway if the wage is raised to maintain their margins, and b) smaller companies have such tight profit margins that they genuinely can’t afford to pay the higher salaries and keep all their workers.

I’d say the typical rebuttal to the wage/jobs relationship argument is just as much a partisan political argument, one borne out of the same bloodlines of shallow-minded ignorance.

7. Theory’s neat, Trevor, but a) large companies are still going to use the line and lay off workers anyway if the wage is raised to maintain their margins, and b) smaller companies have such tight profit margins that they genuinely can’t afford to pay the higher salaries and keep all their workers.

I’d say the typical rebuttal to the wage/jobs relationship argument is just as much a partisan political argument, one borne out of the same bloodlines of shallow-minded ignorance.

I offered a further rebuttal in Josh’s COTD post. I will add that your comment was fairly thoughtful. It’s just that the idea of this being a political party line is itself ridiculous. It’s really more of a common sense matter of how business owners will respond, rather than how they should respond… and the trickle-down idea belies the fact that poor people spend a higher proportion of their income and save less because they make less, while their bills, rent, utilities, grocery needs etc don’t really change. Your idea looks at the situation at too macro a level.

I offered a further rebuttal in Josh’s COTD post. I will add that your comment was fairly thoughtful. It’s just that the idea of this being a political party line is itself ridiculous. It’s really more of a common sense matter of how business owners will respond, rather than how they should respond… and the trickle-down idea belies the fact that poor people spend a higher proportion of their income and save less because they make less, while their bills, rent, utilities, grocery needs etc don’t really change. Your idea looks at the situation at too macro a level.

A telling story. Mallahan's mouthpiece didn't know where he was on the issue but she thought it was a good answer. Mallahan of course wasn't around to comment. McGinn–the actual candidate, not a mouthpiece and who apparently answered his phone himself–says he's for it.