Pacific Northwest Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pacific Northwest Thread

800peepee51doodoo: Mar 1, 2001; Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune

Not sure where else to put this so since it happened at PSU I guess this gift is for you, PNW thread!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7cwWegXCU

Its a video of anarchists/leftists shouting down another anarchist/leftist for writing a paper saying "Uh, maybe we shouldn't shout down our fellow radicals?"

Bonus irony: this was filmed by some local right winger who shows up to events to document "crazy liberals". The talk being given was about informants in radical circles. I just...I don't even...*shakes head*

# ? May 12, 2014 21:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 09:17

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

800peepee51doodoo posted:

Not sure where else to put this so since it happened at PSU I guess this gift is for you, PNW thread!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7cwWegXCU

Its a video of anarchists/leftists shouting down another anarchist/leftist for writing a paper saying "Uh, maybe we shouldn't shout down our fellow radicals?"

Bonus irony: this was filmed by some local right winger who shows up to events to document "crazy liberals". The talk being given was about informants in radical circles. I just...I don't even...*shakes head*

Yeah...I had to go find the article in question and I'm still not sure what even.

From what I can tell it's just another chapter in a stupid little slapfight between the author/friends and people who disagree with them on some relatively minor organizational issues (or...not maybe?), with your usual "herp-derp stupid SJWs" types thrown in as the shitcream frosting on this sadass cupcake-cake.

Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

# ? May 12, 2014 22:07

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

Ernie Muppari posted:

Yeah...I had to go find the article in question and I'm still not sure what even.

From what I can tell it's just another chapter in a stupid little slapfight between the author/friends and people who disagree with them on some relatively minor organizational issues (or...not maybe?), with your usual "herp-derp stupid SJWs" types thrown in as the shitcream frosting on this sadass cupcake-cake.

Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

In leftist organizing, LGBT communities, and even in the 'smart' hobbies such as rational skeptics, there are still a lot of the same lovely attitudes towards sexual predation, unwanted sexual advances and abuse between subordinates.

So what happened here is basically the people that thought that they were the ones on the "right side of history" and believed that all they had to do was stand still and drag the rest of the world to them are being confronted with the reality that the healing and cultural change necessary to reach what they believe in is going to be a dramatic change from what they were comfortable with.

To domestic violence in the LGBT community specifically, there is a silent horror between the abused and the larger community because everyone involved is afraid to ask for help from the 'straight' authorities. Because when the culture at large has been under assault for 'unclean living', there is a pressure to present a strong image to the wider world- even if this means sheltering lovely people doing lovely things to their victims and targets because they are strong leaders or members of the community.

The PSU panel would have worked a lot better if they'd not, y'know, lacked empathy and a solid anti-rape and anti-abuse procedure within the movement. The only person that writes "Under this theory, the survivor, and the survivor alone, has the right to make demands, while the rest of us are duty-bound to enact sanctions without question." is someone that is utterly loving clueless about sexual predation within unequal power dynamics.

# ? May 12, 2014 22:38

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

Gerund posted:

In leftist organizing, LGBT communities, and even in the 'smart' hobbies such as rational skeptics, there are still a lot of the same lovely attitudes towards sexual predation, unwanted sexual advances and abuse between subordinates.

So what happened here is basically the people that thought that they were the ones on the "right side of history" and believed that all they had to do was stand still and drag the rest of the world to them are being confronted with the reality that the healing and cultural change necessary to reach what they believe in is going to be a dramatic change from what they were comfortable with.

To domestic violence in the LGBT community specifically, there is a silent horror between the abused and the larger community because everyone involved is afraid to ask for help from the 'straight' authorities. Because when the culture at large has been under assault for 'unclean living', there is a pressure to present a strong image to the wider world- even if this means sheltering lovely people doing lovely things to their victims and targets because they are strong leaders or members of the community.

The PSU panel would have worked a lot better if they'd not, y'know, lacked empathy and a solid anti-rape and anti-abuse procedure within the movement. The only person that writes "Under this theory, the survivor, and the survivor alone, has the right to make demands, while the rest of us are duty-bound to enact sanctions without question." is someone that is utterly loving clueless about sexual predation within unequal power dynamics.

OH! Okay, so that's actually what this is about and I wasn't just totally misreading things, yeah in that case I'm gonna' have to side with the people shutting down the panel. I've literally never in my life met someone arguing for "healthy skepticism" of accusations of abuse in leftist circles who wasn't just clueless at best.

# ? May 12, 2014 23:06

silicone thrills: Jan 9, 2008; I paint things

glowing-fish posted:

On the pro side, there are very few cockroaches in the Pacific Northwest. That might be a positive.

Because I want to keep this thread relevant to bigger issues, are you thinking of moving to the Pacific Northwest out of some type of social/political motivation? Do you want to live in a city that is a city and not just an endless suburb? Are you interested in a variety of artistic and cultural activities? Do you like to bicycle? And, are all of those things worth the fact that things might be more expensive and that jobs might be harder to come by?

I moved from Memphis TN to Seattle because it had an ok transportation system and was really liberal. I was leaving Memphis the day I turned 18 no matter what and Seattle seemed like a good choice given my hate for hot weather and conservative assholes.

# ? May 12, 2014 23:26

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

Tigntink posted:

I moved from Memphis TN to Seattle because it had an ok transportation system and was really liberal. I was leaving Memphis the day I turned 18 no matter what and Seattle seemed like a good choice given my hate for hot weather and conservative assholes.

I'm really sorry about Tim Eyman, Kemper Freeman, and Dino Rossi.

# ? May 12, 2014 23:39

silicone thrills: Jan 9, 2008; I paint things

Thanatosian posted:

I'm really sorry about Tim Eyman, Kemper Freeman, and Dino Rossi.

Nothing compared to what exists in the south.

# ? May 12, 2014 23:43

Senor P.: Mar 27, 2006; I MUST TELL YOU HOW PEOPLE CARE ABOUT STUFF I DONT AND BE A COMPLETE CUNT ABOUT IT

oxbrain posted:

Where are you finding a decent 1 bedroom outside seattle for <$700? Either your definition of decent is wildly different from mine or you're off by a couple hundred bucks.

The east side, of the state. The dark lands. It is rather unfortunate Central/Eastern Washington and Oregon don't count as part of the Pacific Northwest...

# ? May 13, 2014 00:51

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

Senor P. posted:

The east side, of the state. The dark lands. It is rather unfortunate Central/Eastern Washington and Oregon don't count as part of the Pacific Northwest...

I think he assumed by "outside of Seattle" you meant "Shoreline" or "Bellevue," which most of us consider "outside of Seattle," when what you really meant was "outside of the greater Seattle/Tacoma metropolitan area."

# ? May 13, 2014 00:57

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

Thanatosian posted:

I think he assumed by "outside of Seattle" you meant "Shoreline" or "Bellevue," which most of us consider "outside of Seattle," when what you really meant was "outside of the greater Seattle/Tacoma metropolitan area."

I'd go with "not actually associated with Seattle whatsoever", personally.

I'm all for a wider term of PNW in this thread but if you're gonna talk about a city and its politics it helps to use examples that are actually related to said city.

# ? May 13, 2014 01:02

Senor P.: Mar 27, 2006; I MUST TELL YOU HOW PEOPLE CARE ABOUT STUFF I DONT AND BE A COMPLETE CUNT ABOUT IT

Thanatosian posted:

I think he assumed by "outside of Seattle" you meant "Shoreline" or "Bellevue," which most of us consider "outside of Seattle," when what you really meant was "outside of the greater Seattle/Tacoma metropolitan area."

Its been about 10 years since I've lived over there but in conversations "Outside of Seattle" means "Outside of Seattle".

# ? May 13, 2014 01:04

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

In Seattle transit news:

quote:

Murray Issues Statement On Transit Financing, Warns Of Possible �Balkanization Of Metro�

In the wake of Prop 1�s county-wide failure, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray wants to save Metro service in the city ... just not through an increase in property taxes. That much is becoming clear.

This afternoon, likely in response to the shellacking he�s taking for going on the offensive against Keep Seattle Moving leader Ben Schiendelman in an interview with The Stranger, Murray issued a statement in which he lays out his priorities and perspective for finding money for Metro. In the statement Murray says Seattle �has always worked best when it works with the region,� and that �transit is a regional issue that requires a regional solution.� He warns that �Seattle as the Lone Ranger on transit� - like through the property tax-hiking I-118 put forward by Keep Seattle Moving, one assumes - risks �the Balkanization of Metro and, to some extent, the isolation of our city from the surrounding region.�

Murray goes on to say that he�ll release his own plan for saving Metro next week. In the meantime, however, he offers three �key principles to keep in mind,� including declaring that �A solution to our immediate needs should support a solution to our long-term needs,� and �We have to get the funding source right.�

Here�s Murray�s full statement:

SEATTLE (May 8, 2014) � Mayor Ed Murray today provided the following statement regarding his plans to offer a temporary proposal for funding transit the wake of the failure of King County�s Proposition 1:

�Seattle has always worked best when it works with the region. While there is no question that the region has failed Seattle on transit funding in recent years, it is equally true that transit is a regional issue that requires a regional solution.

�We must be careful in our approach here: Seattle as the Lone Ranger on transit risks the Balkanization of Metro and, to some extent, the isolation of our city from the surrounding region.

�I appreciate the good efforts already under way in the community on this critical issue after the unfortunate failure of Prop 1. Next week I will offer my own proposal for how we can best keep transit funded, with the following key principles in mind:

1. A solution to our immediate needs should support a solution to our long-term needs: The failure of Prop 1 creates an urgent need to act, and Seattle must move forward now. We can and should offer a temporary financing plan while we remain committed to a conversation with the Legislature and King County about a long-term, solution to funding transit region-wide.

2. Regionalism must be an element of any transit plan: Any transit financing plan � either short-term or long-term � must reflect the reality that Seattle�s economy depends on people coming into the city from throughout the Puget Sound region.

3. We have to get the funding source right: A property tax is one financing tool, but it�s not the only one available. We must consider how our solution today affects our ability to finance other commitments using the property tax, including housing, libraries, parks, transportation infrastructure, preschool, education and other important city priorities. We should explore all options for how we best and most appropriately fund transit without overlooking the broader context.�

The Stranger interview in question:

quote:

Mayor Murray Says He'll Fight Any Attempt to Save Metro by Using Property Taxes; Slams Founder of "Plan C"

"I don't oppose people filing initiatives to support Metro," Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said in an interview with The Stranger this morning to talk about his lobbying against a Metro-saving initiative.
"But," Murray said, "I will fight the use of property tax." The mayor opposes Initiative 118�also known as Metro-saving "Plan C"�because it would use a Seattle property tax hike to save Seattle-only bus service. That approach, he believes, would have bad consequences for other social-justice priorities in Seattle.

"I'm concerned that we�re using the property tax and unwittingly pitting universal pre-K against parks and transit," Murray said. "I don�t think we want to do that." He called universal pre-K the most important thing he can achieve as mayor, citing the high rates of poverty for local African-American and Latino children in Seattle.

He conceded that it would be theoretically possible to do all three�universal pre-K, parks, and transit�via property tax hikes in the very near term. "This year, technically, do we have capacity?" Murray asked. "Yes.� But, he continued, �In reality, we are quickly going to run out of levy capacity in the next few years if we do everything on the property tax.�

To buy back Seattle's Metro service, Murray is considering cuts to Seattle's Department of Transportation. He's also considering the same funding methods floated by Proposition 1, which failed across King County but was overwhelmingly supported by Seattle voters. Those methods included raising sales taxes and car tab fees.

As we've reported, Murray has told at least two state lawmakers not to support any initiative that would save Metro by using property taxes. That prompted one legislator, State Senator Adam Kline, to recently withdraw his endorsement for "Plan C," and Murray said he saw nothing wrong with lobbying local politicians for his preferred bus-saving alternatives. He said if he'd had more time (he's been busy interviewing prospective police chiefs), he would have called more of them.

But, Murray continued, it's disingenuous to question his transit bona fides, as some have been doing during this debate. "If people want to go and replay the 2013 campaign and say Ed�s anti-transit and he wants to pave the city, then go ahead," Murray said. We asked him whether the role of former Mayor Mike McGinn in the campaign for Plan C plays any part in Murray's hostility towards the initiative. Murray said it doesn't. "If Mike McGinn didn�t exist, I would still be saying that," Murray said. But, he also complained that during the mayoral transition period McGinn didn't meet with him, violating a longstanding tradition, and said that normally new ex-mayors don't work so publicly against the interests of a sitting mayor.

Murray's rap against McGinn during last year's mayoral race was that McGinn couldn't play nice with others and refused to collaborate. So why isn't Murray collaborating with the backers of Plan C? "We are being collaborative," Murray said. He is currently working with King County, Transportation Choices, FUSE Washington, and "a half-dozen other organizations" that he said he couldn't recall off the top of his head. Their plan just isn't ready yet.

He cited his recent success in getting a minimum wage agreement (after a few decision deadline extensions) as proof that if given some time, he can deliver. And he pointed out that the coming Metro service cuts, while horrifying, don't begin until September, so there's time. "I'm working on a plan, Murray said. "And I�m sorry if folks believe I should pop a plan out. It�s easy to pop a plan on the ballot... If people believe I should have popped out the morning after the election with a fully-cooked plan, I disagree.�

That said, Murray added: "I'm totally willing to be pounded if people want to re-fight the 2013 campaign."

And what, exactly, does Mayor Murray know about Keep Seattle Moving, the ballot initiative that was popped out right after the election?

"I only know them to be a single person who has never written a positive thing about me," Murray said, referring to the initiative's filer, Ben Schiendelman. "I've gotten a lot of advice that there will be no positive outcome if I reach out to that individual...I don't remember when Ben Schiendelman became the czar of transit advocates in Seattle."

Meanwhile, Schiendelman's Keep Seattle Moving announced new endorsements today from the local chapter of the Sierra Club and the Transit Riders Union. "We need progressive action immediately," said the union's assistant secretary, Beau Morton. "We've waited for the state, we've tried at the county, and the city can't afford to wait any longer and lose the transit service that we need now."

Murray, however, bristled at the idea that he's been part of a series of failures at the state and county level that led to this current mess. �Transportation�that�s my first love in government," he said. "Unlike the people who are proposing this, I�ve actually gotten funding for transit." He thinks it's a false choice to say that Seattle can either go it alone now or wait months for the state legislature to�maybe�help save Metro in 2015. "I'm in both camps," he said. "Moving this year for revenue, and continuing to fight in Olympia for a package that will give us more revenue, including for our streets and sidewalks.�

Sometime in the coming weeks�the mayor wouldn't say when�he'll unveil his own plan to save Metro. (Call it Plan E, for "Ed doesn't like Plan C.") Until its details become more clear, this much is certain: It will not rely on revenue from property taxes.

In case you're getting rhetorical whiplash, both articles are "from the desk of" the same person, but the former is a pre-written statement by a speechwriter and the latter is a directly quoted interview. Strange, that the actual voice is dually equivocative and bristly while the written statement is a soft-as-cotton-candy claims and the promise of a real solution to be proposed sometime next week!

(to give time for the think tanks to develop legislation to their handler's benefit, obviously)

Gerund fucked around with this message at 01:23 on May 13, 2014

# ? May 13, 2014 01:21

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Senor P. posted:

The east side, of the state. The dark lands. It is rather unfortunate Central/Eastern Washington and Oregon don't count as part of the Pacific Northwest...

I took it to mean commuting distance to Seattle. Saying outside of Seattle and meaning somewhere far away is silly. Might as well say you're just outside of Tokyo.

# ? May 13, 2014 01:24

SyHopeful: Jun 24, 2007; May an IDF soldier mistakenly gun down my own parents and face no repercussions i'd totally be cool with it cuz accidents are unavoidable in a low-intensity conflict, man

Senor P. posted:

The east side, of the state. The dark lands. It is rather unfortunate Central/Eastern Washington and Oregon don't count as part of the Pacific Northwest...

It's unfortunate that they're a sea of red, because WA/OR are really drat pretty east of the Cascades.

# ? May 13, 2014 01:49

Senor P.: Mar 27, 2006; I MUST TELL YOU HOW PEOPLE CARE ABOUT STUFF I DONT AND BE A COMPLETE CUNT ABOUT IT

SyHopeful posted:

It's unfortunate that they're a sea of red, because WA/OR are really drat pretty east of the Cascades.

It is, however a lack of jobs (Unless you like picking crops!), lack of investing state taxes into into local infrastructure (outside of Seattle) contributes towards an easy attitude of "Those city fuckers!"

Don't get me wrong there is a power plant here, a paper mill there, a manufacturing plant over there but investments are spread out and there is nothing like the job pull of Seattle. (And to a lesser extent Spokane.)

# ? May 13, 2014 02:00

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Senor P. posted:

It is, however a lack of jobs (Unless you like picking crops!), lack of investing state taxes into into local infrastructure (outside of Seattle) contributes towards an easy attitude of "Those city fuckers!"

Don't get me wrong there is a power plant here, a paper mill there, a manufacturing plant over there but investments are spread out and there is nothing like the job pull of Seattle. (And to a lesser extent Spokane.)

If you do like picking crops, good news! There's about to be a whole lot of new job openings!

The "Not Seattle" parts of the state get a massive amount of spending from the Seattle area.

This one is my favorite. Why spend any money at all on education when the state has a constitutional requirement to cover the bill?

# ? May 13, 2014 02:56

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

oxbrain posted:

If you do like picking crops, good news! There's about to be a whole lot of new job openings!

The "Not Seattle" parts of the state get a massive amount of spending from the Seattle area.

This one is my favorite. Why spend any money at all on education when the state has a constitutional requirement to cover the bill?

tldr

rural areas really are not efficient from a tax base perspective and end up being money sinks due to things such as requiring constant infrastructure repair/education spending by out of county dollars.

etalian fucked around with this message at 03:24 on May 13, 2014

# ? May 13, 2014 03:13

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

etalian posted:

tldr

rural areas really are efficient from a tax base perspective and end up being money sinks due to things such as requiring constant infrastructure repair/education spending by out of county dollars.

Rural counties are where the jails are, which are kinda different budget-wise than the universal school fire dept water utilities infrastructure.

# ? May 13, 2014 03:27

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

Is anyone tired of Murray announcing that hes going to announce a plan some time in the future?

# ? May 13, 2014 04:03

gohuskies: Oct 23, 2010; I spend a lot of time making posts to justify why I'm not a self centered shithead that just wants to act like COVID isn't a thing.

Reason posted:

Is anyone tired of Murray announcing that hes going to announce a plan some time in the future?

Honestly I think Murray has been doing a pretty good job on everything except police. I'm amazed that he was able to get the labor unions and (what will likely be upon rollout) a majority of the city council on board with a $15 plan that business is not stridently objecting to (yet) in the hosed molasses-slow politics of this town. I think universal pre-K will pass and I think Murray is correct to preserve property tax space for it. I think he's legitimately committed to transit, and while you can argue whether his regional vision for transit is appropriate versus a Seattle-focused vision given how the rest of the region just voted, I don't think you can question that he does sincerely want that regional transit funding. And frankly, in a perfect world, transit shouldn't be city-only, it should be regional - he's right about the policy, the only question is whether his vision is politically feasible.

Police is another matter for Murray. I hope the firing of Tina Podlodowski will help, he really needs to improve there. But all in all, I think I got a pretty decent Mayor.

# ? May 13, 2014 04:14

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Gerund posted:

Rural counties are where the jails are, which are kinda different budget-wise than the universal school fire dept water utilities infrastructure.

Not really, and their locations don't correspond with higher spending:tax dollars. http://www.doc.wa.gov/facilities/docs/allfacilitiesmap.pdf

# ? May 13, 2014 04:28

gohuskies: Oct 23, 2010; I spend a lot of time making posts to justify why I'm not a self centered shithead that just wants to act like COVID isn't a thing.

EMC Research released a fascinating poll about the minimum wage this evening, conducted May 4-8th. Seems like a pretty fair sample and questions. Some highlights:

quote:

This memo is based on a telephone survey of 550 likely November 2014 voters in Seattle conducted May 4th � 8th, 2014. The margin of error for the overall results is �4.2 percentage points at a 95% confidence interval.

...

Optimism continues to rise and is at a new five year high, with two thirds (69%) of likely voters saying things in Seattle are going in the right direction.

The right direction number for the City is at its highest point since 2009 and has improved six points since January of 2014.

...

Voters overwhelmingly support (74% Support) a $15 minimum wage and support has increased 6 points since January as voters have heard more about the debate.

Support for a $15 minimum wage is very strong among men and women, across all age groups, among strong and weak voters, among union and non-union households, among Democrats and Independents and in all areas of the city. Republicans are the only group where a majority is opposed.

...

The Mayor�s IIAC measure has significantly stronger support than the other two proposals tested and is the only measure with majority support. Voters heard the following brief descriptions of all three measures in random order before being asked about each measure individually:

�There may be three separate minimum wage measures on the ballot this November. First I�m going to read you all three measures and then I will ask you about each one individually.
(RANDOMIZE � MEASURES ARE INTRODUCED IN RANDOM ORDER)

[0/3 Measure] A $15 minimum wage starting immediately for large businesses and with a 3 year phase in for small businesses.

[3/7 Measure] A $15 minimum wage with a 3 year phase in for large businesses and 7 year phase in for small businesses. Employee tips, health care and other benefits would temporarily count as part of the minimum wage, but this credit would be phased out over time.

[8/8 Measure] A $15 minimum wage with an 8 year phase in for small and large businesses. Employee tips, health care and other benefits would permanently count towards the minimum wage. This measure also includes a lower training wage for new workers in some jobs.�

A strong majority (57% Yes) of likely voters support the IIAC 3/7 Measure while a majority oppose the 0/3 Measure (55% No) and the 8/8 Measure (58% No).

...

After hearing basic information about each measure including the backers, support for the Mayor�s IIAC proposal reaches two-thirds of likely voters. Support for the Sawant/15 Now 0/3 Measure reaches 50%, while support for the OneSeattle 8/8 Measure is stuck in the low 40�s (44%).

Voters heard the following descriptions of each measure:
�Now I�d like to tell you more about each of the three proposals:
(RANDOMIZE IN SAME ORDER AS ABOVE)

[0/3 Measure] The proposal for an immediate increase for large businesses and a 3 year phase in for small businesses is being put forward Socialist Alternative Party Councilmember Kshama Sawant and 15 Now, a coalition of low wage workers, and a number of unions. Supporters say this proposal is simple and fair and that workers have waited long enough for a decent wage. They say businesses shouldn�t get special exemptions and workers who earn tips or get health care shouldn�t be penalized by being paid a lower wage.

[3/7 Measure] The proposal for a 3 year phase in for large businesses and a 7 year phase in for small businesses with a temporary credit for tips and other benefits is supported by a coalition of labor, non-profits, and large and small businesses that were part of the Mayor�s Income Inequality Advisory Committee. Supporters say this proposal is broadly supported and balances the interests of workers and employers so that everyone gets to a $15 minimum wage while making sure businesses and non-profits have time to adjust.

[8/8 Measure] The proposal for an 8 year phase in for small and large businesses with a permanent credit for tips and other benefits and a lower training wage is being put forward by One Seattle, a coalition of local Seattle businesses and some non-profits. Supporters say this proposal will ensure that low wage workers get a raise, while maintaining jobs and opportunities for young people and new workers through a training wage. This measure will increase workers� income while helping small businesses so they can continue to offer health care and other benefits.�

...

Most (72%) voters support a phase in for small businesses and 35% support a phase in for large businesses. Only 14% say the new minimum wage should start immediately for all businesses.

Two thirds (64%) of likely voters think that tips and benefits should only be counted temporarily (26%) or not at all (38%). Only 23% think tips/benefits should be permanently counted against the minimum wage.

...

I personally support the Mayor's compromise. I think it's a good compromise, endorsed by the labor unions, and it can actually pass. I think the businesses could demonize Sawant's proposal to the point where it could fail at the ballot.

gohuskies fucked around with this message at 05:02 on May 14, 2014

# ? May 14, 2014 04:58

A Bag of Milk: Jul 3, 2007; I don't see any American dream; I see an American nightmare.

gohuskies posted:

EMC Research released a fascinating poll about the minimum wage this evening, conducted May 4-8th. Seems like a pretty fair sample and questions. Some highlights:

I personally support the Mayor's compromise. I think it's a good compromise, endorsed by the labor unions, and it can actually pass. I think the businesses could demonize Sawant's proposal to the point where it could fail at the ballot.

Rough numbers there for SA and Sawant. 7 years is laughable but looks like what we're going to be getting, so congrats minimum wage workers of 2021 I guess.

# ? May 14, 2014 06:04

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

A Bag of Milk posted:

Rough numbers there for SA and Sawant. 7 years is laughable but looks like what we're going to be getting, so congrats minimum wage workers of 2021 I guess.

The Stranger did a writeup which actually detailed the meat of the proposal, and it's much better than that. The Mayor's proposal is a three-year phase-in of the $15/hr wage for big businesses, with the minimum wage being pegged to inflation. The longer phase-ins will all be based on the $15/hr three-year plus inflation value. Essentially, ignore everything I said about the compromise before this post; I was working off of the articles in the Times an P-I, that didn't know what the gently caress they were talking about.

So you're right, that not everyone will have a $15/hr minimum wage until 2021; however, by 2025, everyone will have a minimum wage equal to $15/hr in 2017 dollars (the businesses with a longer phase-in will have a swifter increase to catch up to the shorter phase-in businesses after they hit $15/hr).

TL;DR It's complicated, but here's a graph:

And here's a table:

It's actually much better than I thought it was. Too slow, but as compromise positions go... it could be so much worse.

# ? May 14, 2014 07:40

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

SyHopeful posted:

It's unfortunate that they're a sea of red, because WA/OR are really drat pretty east of the Cascades.

They're really pretty east of the Cascades, just not trees-and-waterfalls pretty.

# ? May 14, 2014 19:11

Freakazoid_: Jul 5, 2013; Buglord

Did they define who counts as a big or small business? The chart suggests it's any business with less than 500 employees, which is much more than I consider "small" (should be more like 50). I'm not aware of any existing laws defining who is big or small, so I'm pretty suspicious they snuck in some wording that lets a few big businesses pretend they're small.

# ? May 15, 2014 03:13

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

A piece on KUOW suggests that surprisingly, franchises are counted by their national labor force, so of course there was an immigrant with a Subway freaking out at the last public meeting because he'll be counted as a "big business." I almost can't imagine that language would survive the process.

# ? May 15, 2014 03:33

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

SedanChair posted:

A piece on KUOW suggests that surprisingly, franchises are counted by their national labor force, so of course there was an immigrant with a Subway freaking out at the last public meeting because he'll be counted as a "big business." I almost can't imagine that language would survive the process.

The issues of a literal petite bourgeoisie aren't really to be considered on the same plane as small independent local shops. The former has a nation-wide logistics and marketing empire to draw from while leveraging the cost of lettuce per bread-foot for profit; crocodile tears compared to the latter's typical operation that specifically caters to the desires and cultures of its customer demographic and has far fewer avenues of market differentiation besides being a decent company with a good product.

# ? May 15, 2014 03:42

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Far be it from me to defend any business owner, but Subway franchise owners are some of the poorest business owners around. The bar for entry is super low. Honestly I'd consider Boutique Cupcake Dreamland or whatever to be way more bougie than a Subway owner.

# ? May 15, 2014 03:46

A Bag of Milk: Jul 3, 2007; I don't see any American dream; I see an American nightmare.

Thanatosian posted:

The Stranger did a writeup which actually detailed the meat of the proposal, and it's much better than that. The Mayor's proposal is a three-year phase-in of the $15/hr wage for big businesses, with the minimum wage being pegged to inflation. The longer phase-ins will all be based on the $15/hr three-year plus inflation value. Essentially, ignore everything I said about the compromise before this post; I was working off of the articles in the Times an P-I, that didn't know what the gently caress they were talking about.

So you're right, that not everyone will have a $15/hr minimum wage until 2021; however, by 2025, everyone will have a minimum wage equal to $15/hr in 2017 dollars (the businesses with a longer phase-in will have a swifter increase to catch up to the shorter phase-in businesses after they hit $15/hr).

TL;DR It's complicated, but here's a graph:

And here's a table:

It's actually much better than I thought it was. Too slow, but as compromise positions go... it could be so much worse.

Thanks for this post. Cleared some things up for me and made me feel better about the mayor's proposal. It's certainly better than it could have been.

# ? May 15, 2014 03:47

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Freakazoid_ posted:

Did they define who counts as a big or small business? The chart suggests it's any business with less than 500 employees, which is much more than I consider "small" (should be more like 50). I'm not aware of any existing laws defining who is big or small, so I'm pretty suspicious they snuck in some wording that lets a few big businesses pretend they're small.

The fact that the definition of "small business" includes business with hundreds of employees and tens of millions in revenue is one of the little secrets of the American business community. The definition is so broad that something like 95% of businesses are "small businesses". And yet, large businesses still dominate the marketplace and control over half the national GDP.

# ? May 15, 2014 03:50

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

SedanChair posted:

A piece on KUOW suggests that surprisingly, franchises are counted by their national labor force, so of course there was an immigrant with a Subway freaking out at the last public meeting because he'll be counted as a "big business." I almost can't imagine that language would survive the process.

God listening to those business owners talk about their dream while making GBS threads on the idea that people should be able to reasonably afford to eat/live somewhere. They are the problem and let their lovely fast food go out of business.

They also had someone from City Peoples and that was more interesting, I actually think that their profit sharing should be considered towards wages because profit sharing is pretty cool. Not sure how exactly you'd work that out though since they said they give it as a bonus at the end of the year.

Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 04:01 on May 15, 2014

# ? May 15, 2014 03:58

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Any business owner who can't figure out how to deal with increased labor costs deserves to go out of business.

# ? May 15, 2014 04:44

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

SedanChair posted:

Far be it from me to defend any business owner, but Subway franchise owners are some of the poorest business owners around. The bar for entry is super low. Honestly I'd consider Boutique Cupcake Dreamland or whatever to be way more bougie than a Subway owner.

Despite their status as spectres of late capitalism, cupcakeries are at least serving a demand of a tasty cake that you won't feel like a hambeast for devouring or having to store 5/6ths of a pastry in your fridge. Compared to a national chain that uses national advertising, national brand-approved equipment & design, a national campaign of wage depreciation, and a national price-setting supply chain- all so that their store to convince people to slide a fiver over for cardboard bread and ten cents of lettuce- those cupcakeries are downright kibbutzist!

So yeah, welcome to the free world, sorry about your drat luck in choosing a lovely product to hock.

# ? May 15, 2014 04:54

Mrit: Sep 26, 2007; by exmarx; Grimey Drawer

Only reason I feel bad for Subway is their prices are locked. Maybe they could have $5.50 footlongs?

# ? May 15, 2014 05:26

Republicans: Oct 14, 2003; - More money for us

- Fuck you

Mrit posted:

Only reason I feel bad for Subway is their prices are locked. Maybe they could have $5.50 footlongs?

The Subway inside my local Walmart doesn't have any $5 footlongs. A roast beef costs $7.50.

# ? May 15, 2014 06:13

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Gerund posted:

Despite their status as spectres of late capitalism, cupcakeries are at least serving a demand of a tasty cake that you won't feel like a hambeast for devouring or having to store 5/6ths of a pastry in your fridge. Compared to a national chain that uses national advertising, national brand-approved equipment & design, a national campaign of wage depreciation, and a national price-setting supply chain- all so that their store to convince people to slide a fiver over for cardboard bread and ten cents of lettuce- those cupcakeries are downright kibbutzist!

They're all run by dot-com cashouts who dropped acid and read "Eat, Pray, Love" though.

# ? May 15, 2014 06:18

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

I expect only the promotions are fixed, and participation may vary. Last time I went to a Subway, it was just under $9 for some pulled pork thing that made me nauseous later.

# ? May 15, 2014 06:20

gohuskies: Oct 23, 2010; I spend a lot of time making posts to justify why I'm not a self centered shithead that just wants to act like COVID isn't a thing.

Freakazoid_ posted:

Did they define who counts as a big or small business? The chart suggests it's any business with less than 500 employees, which is much more than I consider "small" (should be more like 50). I'm not aware of any existing laws defining who is big or small, so I'm pretty suspicious they snuck in some wording that lets a few big businesses pretend they're small.

This is, for better or for worse, the federal government's definition of a "small business":

quote:

What is SBA's definition of a small business concern?

SBA defines a small business concern as one that is independently owned and operated, is organized for profit, and is not dominant in its field. Depending on the industry, size standard eligibility is based on the average number of employees for the preceding twelve months or on sales volume averaged over a three-year period. Examples of SBA general size standards include the following:

Manufacturing: Maximum number of employees may range from 500 to 1500, depending on the type of product manufactured;
Wholesaling: Maximum number of employees may range from 100 to 500 depending on the particular product being provided;
Services: Annual receipts may not exceed $2.5 to $21.5 million, depending on the particular service being provided;
Retailing: Annual receipts may not exceed $5.0 to $21.0 million, depending on the particular product being provided;
General and Heavy Construction: General construction annual receipts may not exceed $13.5 to $17 million, depending on the type of construction;
Special Trade Construction: Annual receipts may not exceed $7 million; and
Agriculture: Annual receipts may not exceed $0.5 to $9.0 million, depending on the agricultural product.

The 500 employee number is a lot simpler. But I wouldn't be surprised if that definition is one of the things that is up in the air to change during City Council deliberation and amendment.

# ? May 15, 2014 06:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 09:17

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

oxbrain posted:

Any business owner who can't figure out how to deal with increased labor costs deserves to go out of business.

Gerund posted:

So yeah, welcome to the free world, sorry about your drat luck in choosing a lovely product to hock.

If the landscape is slowly scoured clean of bottom feeding chains that peddle barely-food as real-food ... good.

Somehow I doubt McDonalds and Taco Bell will go away though. :/

# ? May 15, 2014 08:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pacific Northwest Thread

«‹›258 »