Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

I have a favor to ask. Could someone post the precinct results from Asotin County?

[Alcon]

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/McGinn-Murray-Seattle-mayor-poll-227655381.html

SurveyUSA

Murray 52% (n/c)
McGinn 32% (+2)

over.

I have a favor to ask. Could someone post the precinct results from Asotin County?

Sure, what do you want them on?

Here's 2012 (click "Precinct Results" below the race)

http://vote.wa.gov/results/20121106/asotin/

[Alcon]

Also, the poll above has the Seattle Public Financing measure failing by a crazy-go-nuts margin of 43%-15%.  The survey question is pretty rough ("to be paid for with two million dollars of new tax revenue"), but damn.  I didn't even know it had organized opposition, unlike the districts plan, which is up 30%-14%.

this thread is so sad and lonely considering ballots are mailing today and tomorrow.

[Seattle]

I really hope the districts plan fails, but I'm guessing it won't. Has the Stranger said anything on it?

I don't think the financing measure is going to do that badly. I have heard absolutely zero on it though...

Poorly phrased poll question?

[Alcon]

The Stranger endorsed the districts plan.  I'm pretty sure I'm voting for it.  Why are you against?  (I've heard some pretty good arguments, but the anti- people are a little inscrutable at times, so I'd love to hear your thoughts.)

[bgwah]

Provincialism and NIMBY-empowerment? No thank you.

[publicunofficial]

Made up my mind for next week.

Voting No on I-517
Voting Yes on I-522
Voting to maintain on all the Advisory Votes

[Alcon]

NIMBYism based on districts of over 90,000 people?  I'm not highly concerned about that.  Besides, even in a cut-up map, it's hard to provide a given district that's mostly highly urban.  That's because, when Seattle votes as a city, the supermajority of voters are basically suburbanites.  I think the system will work fine.  But I understand your concern... (aside: not voting for Sawant; bgwah, you were right.)

Finally, I still really, really don't get I-522.  I get hating the No on I-522 campaign, but I don't get liking I-522.  It really makes no sense beyond the most superficial levels, and it seems very shoddily written too.  Does any person leaning Yes want to explain?

[publicunofficial]

Finally, I still really, really don't get I-522.  I get hating the No on I-522 campaign, but I don't get liking I-522.  It really makes no sense beyond the most superficial levels, and it seems very shoddily written too.  Does any person leaning Yes want to explain?

It's not the greatest law ever, but it's upsides outweigh it's downsides and as you mentioned, the anti-522 campaign is hate-worthy.

Also, I don't live in King County so my opinion doesn't matter, but can anyone voice their concerns about Sawant? She seems pretty decent to me.

[Alcon]

It's not the greatest law ever, but it's upsides outweigh it's downsides and as you mentioned, the anti-522 campaign is hate-worthy.

What upsides, though?  Genetic modification is a method of production, not an ingredient or something that someone can be allergic to.  It's also a production methodology that's been extensively tested and proven safe.  There's no empirically-demonstrated reason to label this above hundreds of other inputs of production.  I think the Wenatchee World said this well, using the example of something containing corn meal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are hundreds of other variables in the production of a good that can be indicated.  GMOs are being targeted for anti-scientific, paranoid, bullsh**t reasons.  They don't even put the labels in the nutrition panel.  They have to be "conspicuous."  In other words, they have to basically look like warning labels.  

That's putting aside how poorly-written the thing is.  The premise doesn't even make sense.  What good does it do, besides scaring soccer moms away from perfectly good, potentially life-saving technologies?

Sorry, I don't mean to be a dick about this, but it really upsets me to see progressives engaging in this sort of anti-scientific ridiculousness.  It's up there for me with climate change denialism and the people who want to slap disclaimers about intelligent design on biology books.

[RI]

I'll probably vote no on both initiatives. I think Alcon is spot on.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

SurveyUSA

Murray 52% (n/c)
McGinn 32% (+2)

over.

I have a favor to ask. Could someone post the precinct results from Asotin County?

Sure, what do you want them on?

Here's 2012 (click "Precinct Results" below the race)

Hey thanks a lot.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Finally, I still really, really don't get I-522.  I get hating the No on I-522 campaign, but I don't get liking I-522.  It really makes no sense beyond the most superficial levels, and it seems very shoddily written too.  Does any person leaning Yes want to explain?

It's not the greatest law ever, but it's upsides outweigh it's downsides and as you mentioned, the anti-522 campaign is hate-worthy.

Also, I don't live in King County so my opinion doesn't matter, but can anyone voice their concerns about Sawant? She seems pretty decent to me.

Im not from Seattle either, but the 15$ an hour minimum wage is an awful idea.

[publicunofficial]

Finally, I still really, really don't get I-522.  I get hating the No on I-522 campaign, but I don't get liking I-522.  It really makes no sense beyond the most superficial levels, and it seems very shoddily written too.  Does any person leaning Yes want to explain?

It's not the greatest law ever, but it's upsides outweigh it's downsides and as you mentioned, the anti-522 campaign is hate-worthy.

Also, I don't live in King County so my opinion doesn't matter, but can anyone voice their concerns about Sawant? She seems pretty decent to me.

Im not from Seattle either, but the 15$ an hour minimum wage is an awful idea.

Forgive me if I don't take my political advice from a libertarian.

[RI]

Also, I don't live in King County so my opinion doesn't matter, but can anyone voice their concerns about Sawant? She seems pretty decent to me.

It kind of seems like she wants to run all the major businesses out of western Washington. Millionaire's tax? Almost doubling minimum wage? Force Amazon, Starbucks, etc. to unionize? New corporate taxes? I think she severely misjudges why the state is in the position it's in. Rent control is also generally a bad idea.

I also wonder if she would even have the authority to do half the things she suggests. If so, it seems a bit too much like playing with fire to me.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Finally, I still really, really don't get I-522.  I get hating the No on I-522 campaign, but I don't get liking I-522.  It really makes no sense beyond the most superficial levels, and it seems very shoddily written too.  Does any person leaning Yes want to explain?

It's not the greatest law ever, but it's upsides outweigh it's downsides and as you mentioned, the anti-522 campaign is hate-worthy.

Also, I don't live in King County so my opinion doesn't matter, but can anyone voice their concerns about Sawant? She seems pretty decent to me.

Im not from Seattle either, but the 15$ an hour minimum wage is an awful idea.

Forgive me if I don't take my political advice from a libertarian.

Its simple economics. But oh well, I honestly hope she wins so the people of Seattle can see how awful her ideas are.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Also, I don't live in King County so my opinion doesn't matter, but can anyone voice their concerns about Sawant? She seems pretty decent to me.

It kind of seems like she wants to run all the major businesses out of western Washington. Millionaire's tax? Almost doubling minimum wage? Force Amazon, Starbucks, etc. to unionize? New corporate taxes? I think she severely misjudges why the state is in the position it's in. Rent control is also generally a bad idea.

I also wonder if she would even have the authority to do half the things she suggests. If so, it seems a bit too much like playing with fire to me.

Since when have socialists ever been reasonable? Or cared about playing with fire for that matter.

[Seattle]

Out of all the things on her platform, the $15 minimum wage is probably the most agreeable. Lol.

A $15 minimum wage may not work in Asotin County, but if there's a place where it could succeed, it's going to be a city.

I wonder if SeaTac will pass the raise too.

[RI]

I'm not sure if I understand this continued push for incremental increases in the minimum wage. Sure, if it were to keep up with inflation that would make sense, but inflation has been near zero for a number of years. Washington already has the highest minimum wage in the country, and no other state is particularly close. What I find most perturbing about this push is that there is no apparent long-term target in mind; it feels as is the goal is just to increase the minimum wage in perpetuity. Certainly this can't work forever; at some point we should start to see negative impacts from such increases that outweigh positive effects. We can't expect to continuously increase the costs of business without firms taking some measures to maintain their bottom line, whether in the form of higher prices, lower hiring, relocation, etc.

Is there some particular reason that Sawant wants a $15 minimum wage out of all the possible choices she could have picked? Is there some rigorous process she used to arrive at this number? Or is it that $15 is just a nice round number that works well as a slogan? If so, it seems a remarkably unscientific and dare I say dogmatic pursuit on her part.

Studies show that the minimum wage in and of itself has little impact on employment, and that its marginal increases have few short-term effects on the economy, though they do produce long-term distortions through less hiring in relevant industries, more underemployment, and decreased job length for workers at the minimum wage, with differential impacts depending on labor elasticities. As such, I don't have a problem with its existence, but its not a free lunch so to speak, and neither is increasing it continuously. I sympathize with its goals, but I think there are better ways to achieve similar outcomes.

[publicunofficial]

I'm not sure if I understand this continued push for incremental increases in the minimum wage. Sure, if it were to keep up with inflation that would make sense, but inflation has been near zero for a number of years. Washington already has the highest minimum wage in the country, and no other state is particularly close. What I find most perturbing about this push is that there is no apparent long-term target in mind; it feels as is the goal is just to increase the minimum wage in perpetuity. Certainly this can't work forever; at some point we should start to see negative impacts from such increases that outweigh positive effects. We can't expect to continuously increase the costs of business without firms taking some measures to maintain their bottom line, whether in the form of higher prices, lower hiring, relocation, etc.

Is there some particular reason that Sawant wants a $15 minimum wage out of all the possible choices she could have picked? Is there some rigorous process she used to arrive at this number? Or is it that $15 is just a nice round number that works well as a slogan? If so, it seems a remarkably unscientific and dare I say dogmatic pursuit on her part.

Studies show that the minimum wage in and of itself has little impact on employment, and that its marginal increases have few short-term effects on the economy, though they do produce long-term distortions through less hiring in relevant industries, more underemployment, and decreased job length for workers at the minimum wage, with differential impacts depending on labor elasticities. As such, I don't have a problem with its existence, but its not a free lunch so to speak, and neither is increasing it continuously. I sympathize with its goals, but I think there are better ways to achieve similar outcomes.

It costs more to live in Seattle than it does in the rest of Washington, even if you're just renting an apartment. Having the minimum wage for Seattle be the same for Yakima would be stupid, and $15/hour would be enough to be sure that every worker in Seattle can afford to live in the city and buy what they need to to survive.

[RI]

I'm not sure if I understand this continued push for incremental increases in the minimum wage. Sure, if it were to keep up with inflation that would make sense, but inflation has been near zero for a number of years. Washington already has the highest minimum wage in the country, and no other state is particularly close. What I find most perturbing about this push is that there is no apparent long-term target in mind; it feels as is the goal is just to increase the minimum wage in perpetuity. Certainly this can't work forever; at some point we should start to see negative impacts from such increases that outweigh positive effects. We can't expect to continuously increase the costs of business without firms taking some measures to maintain their bottom line, whether in the form of higher prices, lower hiring, relocation, etc.

Is there some particular reason that Sawant wants a $15 minimum wage out of all the possible choices she could have picked? Is there some rigorous process she used to arrive at this number? Or is it that $15 is just a nice round number that works well as a slogan? If so, it seems a remarkably unscientific and dare I say dogmatic pursuit on her part.

Studies show that the minimum wage in and of itself has little impact on employment, and that its marginal increases have few short-term effects on the economy, though they do produce long-term distortions through less hiring in relevant industries, more underemployment, and decreased job length for workers at the minimum wage, with differential impacts depending on labor elasticities. As such, I don't have a problem with its existence, but its not a free lunch so to speak, and neither is increasing it continuously. I sympathize with its goals, but I think there are better ways to achieve similar outcomes.

It costs more to live in Seattle than it does in the rest of Washington, even if you're just renting an apartment. Having the minimum wage for Seattle be the same for Yakima would be stupid, and $15/hour would be enough to be sure that every worker in Seattle can afford to live in the city and buy what they need to to survive.

I'm not really a fan of spatially heterogeneous minimum wages as it creates a clear incentive to relocate business to certain areas, but if Seattle wants to raise it that high, I don't live there so I don't really care. Heck, it might help my home county. I just think it's a short-sighted move to increase the minimum wage that drastically, and I think it may only make the cost of living situation worse by intentionally creating a supply shock. I suppose it might make paying rent easier, but food, gas, and a number of other costs would almost certainly rise. It's not like we're talking about a small increase here; raising the minimum wage to $15 is more than a 50% increase. The real problem that they should be looking into is how to decrease the cost of living, not increasing the minimum wage.

[bgwah]

Seattle needs to be massively upzoned to allow for more apartment buildings and townhouses that middle-class residents could afford. But that will never happen, and an inexcusably large portion of the city will remain dedicated to single family housing for rich white people.

[Alcon]

Weird, likely-terrible KIRO poll of 399 registered voters from early October:

http://www.kirotv.com/gallery/news/mayoral-election/gCFFQ/#4000119

Murray 33%
McGinn 29%

[Alcon]

Your monthly Lolway Poll shows an absurdly big swing in I-522 support:

Initiative 522 (labeling GMO foods)
Yes 46% (-20)
No 42% (+21)

No Eyman numbers, I guess, not that anyone cares.

[Seattle]

Seattle needs to be massively upzoned to allow for more apartment buildings and townhouses that middle-class residents could afford. But that will never happen, and an inexcusably large portion of the city will remain dedicated to single family housing for rich white people.

+1

Sigh, I wish that KIRO poll were close to being correct.

I think the GMO labeling might fail. My anecdotal evidence suggests that people seem generally ambivalent towards it.