Oregon House Dems adopt partisan and costly min wage mandate

capitol5.serendipityThumb

Oregon House Republican Office

Salem, OR – With unprecedented speed and little regard for potential consequences, House Democrats yesterday adopted a partisan wage mandate that rapidly increases Oregon’s minimum wage to the highest rate in the country.

SB 1532, which establishes a three-tiered system for determining minimum wage rates based on the geographical location of an employer, was approved by a narrow vote of 32-26, with several moderate Democrats joining Republicans in opposing the legislation. Republicans argued the bill will result in layoffs, lost hours, and increased costs for all Oregonians.

“There is a better way – but the consequences of this bill are layoffs, lost hours, and rising costs for all our neighbors. This isn’t hypothetical – there will be a real impact on real people,” said Representative John Davis (R-Wilsonville).

The bill, which was negotiated behind closed doors and rushed through the House without a review by the Legislature’s budget committee, has the potential to devastate the state’s economy and expose Oregonians to harmful consequences. Employers, faced with rapidly rising labor costs, may be forced to choose between cutting hours, increasing costs, or both. Oregonians, in turn, are likely to see the cost of living in Oregon rise, as the economy attempts to adjust to such a sudden and significant shift in labor costs. Low- and middle-income working families will be hit particularly hard, as the costs of daycare, healthcare, and other essential goods and services rise.

“I’m worried that this proposal could have serious unintended consequences,” said Representative Sherrie Sprenger (R-Scio). “Oregonians will see prices rise with the passage of this bill. Low- and middle-income families will disproportionately feel the burden of cost inflation and a tightening of the labor market. I am not willing to put the most vulnerable members of our society at risk in pursuit of a reckless policy that fails to fully account for potential consequences.”

“For those of us who represent rural communities, we know firsthand what poverty looks like,” added House Republican Leader Mike McLane (R-Powell Butte). “We understand, that while well-intentioned, SB 1532 will have a detrimental impact on the very people it was designed to help. In passing this bill, Democrats are accepting those consequences.”

In addition to having harmful impacts on Oregon’s economy and increasing prices for Oregon families, SB 1532 will likely have the effect of increasing legislator salaries. According to an opinion by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Counsel, “Unless the [Public Officials Compensation Commission] decides to recommend a salary increase that is more substantial than those offered in the past, SB 1532-A would require an increase to members’ annual salaries in 2022 to avoid dropping approximately $1,010 below the statutory minimum salary.”

Having already passed the Senate, SB 1532 now moves to Governor Brown’s desk. Governor Brown has indicated she will sign the bill into law.

Please click here to read the Legislative Counsel’s opinion regarding the potential impact on legislator pay

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Jobs, OR 78th Legislative Session | 191 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Roger Enout

    Conservative Oregon, once regarded as a Gaza strip between CA and WA, now lamentably a Gaga script tease attended too by left wing lemmings in dregs.

  • Eric Blair

    So was it partisan because the Democrats championed this legislation, or because the Republicans don’t like it? The headline could just as easily read: Partisan House Republicans oppose helping working poor with increase in minimum wage.

    • ?

      Are you criticizing the title or do you have something to say?

      • Eric Blair

        I do, and I did. Whether your agree or not is your problem, not mine.

        • Roger Enout

          “Political Ploys” like David Appell, Eric Blair and CONcierge Connie Act Up Kosuda, ‘seethe’ like mental midgets huckstering their scat fomenting about on Midway way grounds as smelling like cotton candy, rather than what stenches airing from lavatory holes adjacency.

    • Gardenhomeboy

      It is partisan because the bill was championed by one party and reviled by the other and there was NO bipartisan support. What you read into partisan is probably dependent upon what color lenses you are wearing.

      • Eric Blair

        That is precisely my point. OC makes it sound as if “partisan” is necessarily a bad thing, but I’m willing to bet money that if something was proposed by Republicans and opposed by Democrats, the term partisan would only be applied to Democrats. Smoke and mirrors. Or.. aren’t Republicans being equally partisan by opposing the bill? So really, both parties are being partisan. Yes?

  • Connie Kosuda

    thank God for this increase in minimum wage!

    • IhateLiberals

      Probably because that’s about what your are worth on a good day! Bwahahhahahahahahahahahaha!

    • Drummond Fife

      Perchance, Yoko Ono your by specious delivery midwife?

  • thevillageidiot

    here is an economists opinion on the $15 min wage.
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/01/walter-e-williams/bunch-liars-minimum-wage/
    The democrats in Oregon are Racist!

    • DavidAppell

      If employers don’t pay a livable wage, guess who gets to make up the difference?

      • Gardenhomeboy

        Who said people on the right were against some level of social safety net or an eitc or a negative income tax? Minimum wages are a poorly targeted, quistionably effective policy. Can we just stop with this silly issue and move on?

        • DavidAppell

          Who said? The people on the right said.

          They oppose anything that might costs corporations money. Even paying their fair share.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Oh please, citing the most extreme people and taking it as the representative group is below you, David. Its like saying all Democrats want a socialist for President…

          • Eric Blair

            it’s exactly like saying that, and many of us do. A tepid socialist by the standards of Socialism,but still a Socialist. Feel the Bern. 😉

            I do believe that for most conservatives, their idea of a safety net is one that has more holes than net.

          • redbean

            True, Bern can’t hold a candle to true socialists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

            No worries, though. We’ll all be feelin’ the Bern when we’re standing in line for food like good Venezuelans.

          • Eric Blair

            LOL! You’re funny. I don’t think Bernie Sanders is anywhere close to Hitler, Stalin and Mao. While Stalin and Mao considered themselves Communists (a subset of Socialism… as in all Communists are socialists, but not all Socialists are communists), Hitler was not a socialist. Despite what he called his party.

          • Roger Enout

            Baloney, EB!
            Your Yankee canoodle is so much strudel masochist baloney.
            I dare say, set your efface in the loins of ISIS and see what’s beheading your sway, Shillgrim!

          • DavidAppell

            The “most extreme people” includes all leading Republican candidates for president.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Please document one of them(leading republican candidates for president) who wants to end welfare?

          • DavidAppell

            “During an interview with Politico in April 2014, Carson said, “We take the downtrodden in our society and we pat them on the head. We say ‘There, there, you poor little thing. I’m gonna give you health care. I’m gonna give you housing subsidies, I’m gonna give you food stamps. You don’t have to worry about anything.’ What that has done is create generation upon generation of people who just live that way, waiting for government handouts.”

            https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_federal_assistance_programs

          • Gardenhomeboy

            In absolutely none of those quotes does one of them say that welfare should be eliminated. They do talk about how they view the system as broken or harmful. Try again.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Still failing. Sorry, David. You can’t prove it. I am sorry.

          • DavidAppell

            Just gave you a bunch of direct quotes that did prove it. Surprised you, I suspect.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Not at all, none of them say anything about ending welfare. Sure the Bush quote talks about ending one program, but that is far from ending welfare on a local, state, or federal level. Its funny that you interpret them to mean ending welfare. I find it sad that your reading comprehension is lacking. Come on man, you were/are a science journalist.

          • redbean

            Fail, David. Surprised no one.

          • DavidAppell

            “In August 2011, Rubio spoke about the failure of government policies intended to address poverty. He said, “These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities.”

            https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_federal_assistance_programs

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Still nothing about eliminating welfare.

          • DavidAppell

            Read more closely.

          • redbean

            David, there’s a huge difference between what politicians say and what they actually do.

          • DavidAppell

            “After being confronted at a New Hampshire town hall meeting on July 23, 2015, about his plan to “phase out” Medicare, Jeb Bush called the program an “actuarially unsound healthcare system” and added that Social Security is an “underfunded retirement system.”

            https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_federal_assistance_programs

          • redbean

            BTW, Jeb is no longer a candidate. His statements about these programs being unsustainable are true. Of course, Republicans have no intentions of cutting government. The UniParty is united on unlimited government growth

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Eliminating medicare is still not eliminating welfare which is what you are claiming all major republicans want. These quotes don’t prove anything. Please try again.

          • DavidAppell

            It certainly is — adequate health care is necessary for one’s welfare.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Eliminating one program is not eliminating welfare. If you said, “they want to reduce welfare” your link would actually make sense, but you said end/eliminate welfare. Anyway many of the dudes want to give tax credits for childcare, EITC expansion, more. They also want to make sure people have an better opportunity to get a well paying job, which are a great form of ‘welfare”.

          • redbean

            Shhhh…don’t let David or Connie know. Welfare and entitlements are how the elitists prevent the middle class from revolting.

          • redbean

            When Republicans were in charge of the whole shebang in 2000-2006, government grew at a tremendous level, not previously seen until Barry took over. The Prescription Drug benefit was a huge expansion of government health care – and as usual, Big Pharma went laughing all the way to the bank. Big Business loves Big Gov.

          • redbean

            And when these programs go broke, lots of people will be harmed by the sudden cut-off of services. Addressing that situation, including planning for replacement of the programs with more sustainable options, is more compassionate than kicking the can down the road some more.

          • redbean

            Who says Medicare/Medicaid is “adequate” healthcare? You obviously hate sick people.

          • DavidAppell

            “Santorum also said, “You want the private sector out there competing, driving down costs, improving efficiency. You want to get rid of this — of CMS [the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services], where government basically micromanages all healthcare through Medicare and Medicaid.””

            https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_federal_assistance_programs

          • redbean

            Was Santorum even a candidate this go round?

            And, yes, CMS does micromanage all healthcare, wasting money that could have been spent on actual healthcare services.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Still not eliminating welfare in this quote, only bitching about CMS system. Come on David you are reaching on all of these.

          • Fleas be recused, DA

            Who feeds your byte, DA? Governmentium expending copious airings of OPM (other peoples money) or corporation opportunists earning money the old fashioned and still in ardor, Fleapractical way, comrade?

          • DavidAppell

            Government — of the people, by the people, for the people — spends the people’s money.

            Unfortunately, far too many corportions “earn money” by purchasing politicians, fighting against needed regulations, and mistreating employees. Though a few do have some morals.

          • redbean

            Methinks they’re either from Kochistan or minions of Lord Soros.

          • G. Whiz

            Fleas, don’t appease this David road Appell malingering roadside. Instead log raft his scat and shift it ashore closer to where Orcas Dinah Shore.

          • redbean

            You’re absolutely Right, but I just can’t help but feed the trolls. They’re so hungry and I have such a big bleeding conservative heart…

      • MrBill

        My guess is that nobody necessarily “gets” or even needs to make up the difference.

        Not everyone needs a livable wage.

        • redbean

          And wages aren’t about what anyone “needs” but about what they produce.

        • DavidAppell

          Of course everyone needs a livable wage. Period.

          When a company doesn’t pay one, the government makes up the difference. Meanwhile the company keeps paying nice dividends to its owners. The owners thank you, but consider you a sucker.

          • MrBill

            When I was an 11-year old picking berries, I did not need a livable wage.

            When I was a 14-year old helping build a house, I did not need a livable wage.

            When I was a 16-year old moving irrigation pipe, I did not need a livable wage.

            When I was a college student doing farm work, I did not need a livable wage.

            The owners thanked me for my work and I was thankful for the money and experience I gained which gave me skills to move up the ladder. It has always been a win-win.

          • common sensor

            Very well stated. Bravo!

          • Connie Kosuda

            yes bubba.

          • MrBill

            ooo! Good one!

          • redbean

            One’s quality of life is not dependent on a “living wage” but on the real wage. In economic terms, this means that your wage is only half of the equation, with expenses being the other half. Whether a wage is sufficient depends on how much one pays for food, shelter and clothing.

            Lots of variables at play, so why pick on the employer? Personally, I’d start with the central bank which creates the cruelest tax of all, the inflation tax that disproportionately punishes savers and those on fixed incomes.

          • DavidAppell

            “One’s quality of life is not dependent on a “living wage” but on the real wage.”

            Bull. It’s called a “livable wage” for a reason, and it varies locally with the cost of food, shelter and clothing.

            Why pick on the employer? Because they are the ones relying on socialism by the public — they let taxpayers make up the rest of the wage they won’t pay, all while giving copious dividends to their wealthy owners.

            If your business model relies on paying less than a livable wage, you need a better business model.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Stop, David. People get paid based on their productivity. There is no economic law that employers pay a livable wage. Nothing about welfare subsidizes, in the way you characterize, employers. If anything welfare raises individual’s reserve wages. “Overall, the mean household income in the United States, according to the US Census Bureau 2014 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, was $72,641, or $20,702 (39.86%) higher than the median household income ($51,939).” Wikipedia. If you need some form of welfare it should be through, mainly, the EITC.

          • DavidAppell

            Of course it’s not an “economic law.” Economic laws only cover greed.

            It’s a MORAL law. Do you understand the difference?

          • redbean

            Economic “law” does not mean “laws” in the political sense. The “laws of economics” stem from immutable realities.

          • Connie Kosuda

            realities that were made up to justify the greed of the oligarchy.

          • redbean

            Something that is “made up” is the opposite of a “reality.” I was referring to realities like, “there is no free lunch.”

            The laws of economics derive from the reality that resources of all kinds are scarce and our bellies get hungry. We have to put a roof over our head, shoes on our feet. Self-interest is an escapable fact of human nature – we’re all greedy and we’d just lie down and die if we weren’t.

            Thanks to our ability to provide services and products that other people need, we can get what we need to sustain ourselves and our loved ones, while meeting the needs of other people. Ain’t life grand?

          • Connie Kosuda

            also made up / a faulty premise is something which is not reality / most right wing trolls love them.

          • redbean

            Ummm, Ms. Connie, in case you hadn’t noticed, this site is more toward the right side of the spectrum. That makes you the troll, dear.

          • redbean

            Feelings of moral superiority don’t put food on the table.

            https://mises.org/library/failed-moral-argument-living-wage

            “All in all, it’s quite a bizarre strategy the living-wage advocates have settled on. It consists of raising the prices of consumer goods via increasing labor costs. Real wages then go down, and, at the same time, many workers lose their jobs to automation as capital is made relatively less expensive by a rising cost of labor. While the goal of raising the standard of living for workers and their families is laudable, it’s apparent that living wage advocates haven’t exactly thought things through.”

          • DavidAppell

            Enough from the Mises cult. Do you need someone sent in to drag you out and deprogram you?

          • redbean

            Enough from the Keynesian cult. Keynes was anti-Semitic, sympathetic to totalitarian Nazi economics, and a pedophile. Projection will get you nowhere.

            You demand links and then criticize them without actually reading them. Nice work, neo-con troll.

          • DavidAppell

            Mises excuses fascism:

            “It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.”

            Ludwig von Mises, “Liberalism,” (1927)

          • redbean

            He does not excuse fascism. Mises, son of a rabbi, was a vocal, staunch critic of Nazism and socialism. He fled his home just hours before the Nazi SS raided it. He then experienced anti-Semitism in the US yet led a distinguished economics career.

            From it’s inception in the late 1800s, The Austrian Economic School was in opposition to the German Historical School, which contained the antecedents of national socialism. Keynes, not Mises, was the Nazi apologist.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            For more context, http://www.cato.org/blog/ludwig-von-mises-fascism

            Mises praises fascism only insofar as it prevents the socialism from taking root, which in his opinion is worse. Sorry, but that isn’t praising fascism cuz its good, just because it is a less bad alternative. He says so much in the quote you make. lol. That is some middle schools stuff right there, David. Take quotes in context man.

          • Connie Kosuda

            give it up / you have no clue.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Clearly you don’t read Mises or even the quote I gave context on. Sorry but you are wrong. Sad you can’t see past your own inclinations.

          • redbean

            David engages in the classic troll technique of demanding links from everyone and then not reading them before posting his own links.

          • DavidAppell

            Mises praised fascism. Enough said.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            So is FDR praising Mussolini and his work in Italy an admission that he liked fascism? I doubt it and you are so intent on being uncharitable in your interpretation. I bet that is why nobody would want you as a real academic.

          • redbean

            FDR brought Mussolini-style fascism to America in the New Deal. Enough said.

            Your distortion of Mises’ views is specifically addressed in Chap. 7 of this book, “Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School.” Free copy here for those who actually are interested in the truth (which apparently is not David): https://mises.org/library/classical-liberalism-and-austrian-school-0

            “That Fascism “saved European civilization” from Bolshevism was a commonly held view among anti-Communists of the period.”

            “It should also be made clear that the excerpt from Mises occurs in the context of an attack on Italian Fascism. Mises criticized and rejected Fascism on a number of crucial grounds: for its illiberal and interventionist economic program, its foreign policy based on force, which “cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars,” and, most fundamentally, its “complete faith in the decisive power of violence” instead of rational argument to gain ultimate victory (49–51).”

          • Connie Kosuda

            freaky / loved him that Hitler, too, I betcha.

          • redbean

            No, actually Mises escaped from Hitler’s goons just hours before they ransacked his home. He was outspoke in his criticism of Hitler. David is misinformed by his source, which he neglected to share.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            I am having trouble figuring out whether or not David can read. He keeps posting stuff and it never says what he thinks it says.

          • redbean

            I’ve wondered about that. He seems to have comprehension issues or perhaps his education was lacking in the liberal arts. Maybe he relies on Google summaries from sites that he has come to trust.

            I’ve noticed that he often demands links and then posts his own reply that doesn’t address the topic in your link, so you know he hasn’t read it. Such a troll.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Mises was Jewish who fled the Nazis… hence why he came to America.

          • redbean

            You’re obviously interested in reading the whole thing – one paragraph out of context couldn’t possibly satisfy a scholar such as yourself.
            Download a free copy of “Liberalism”: https://mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition

            “It was written to address the burning question: if not socialism, and if not fascism or interventionism, what form of social arrangements are most conducive to human flourishing? Mises’s answer is summed up in the title, by which he meant classical liberalism.”

            “Mises did more than restate classical doctrine. He gave a thoroughly modern defense of freedom, one that corrected the errors of the old liberal school by rooting the idea of liberty in the institution of private property (a subject on which the classical school was sometimes unclear).”

          • Connie Kosuda

            wrote that urself, I betcha.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Why in fact I do, but economic laws can inform your morality on ways to actually accomplish your goals without undermining them. Sorry that you don’t get that.

          • Connie Kosuda

            betcha your morality level is zilch.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Based on what I know about you, I would say the same thing applies to you.

          • Connie Kosuda

            poor baby.

          • redbean

            Actually a moral law would be, “Don’t steal from your neighbors to provide for yourself and don’t pay government employees to do the same on your behalf.”

          • Connie Kosuda

            paying a living wage is not stealing / it is the antidote to greed / a morally bankrupt approach to “business” (a la Scrooge) most favored by repugs.

          • Myke

            Why, yes I do. Extortion, through the use of governmental imposition, of employers and consumers, is OK and morally justified, according to you, but is little more than old fashioned tyranny, to those of us forced to comply to these inflationary and arbitrary dictates. I would propose that in the long run, it is you, who chooses tyranny who is immoral, David.

          • Connie Kosuda

            walmart is subsidized by the gubmint / many of their hard working employees receive food stamps, for example, because their wages are so low.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            No, welfare raises reserve wages meaning people are willing to hold out for a higher wage than otherwise. so No subsidy, in fact it probably results in higher labor costs in terms of wages for corporations like Walmart. how about you read some economic literature before spewing your clearly fallacious thoughts on this blog.

          • Connie Kosuda

            absolutely erroneous premise / trolling for whom or what, boy?

          • redbean

            So if you don’t like subsidizing Walmart, get ride of the food stamp program and contribute the money to the food bank.

          • Connie Kosuda

            spoken like a true right wing troll. get rid of the food stamp program? really? pathetic bit of “reasoning” there / this is the morally bankrupt version of ‘planning” which epitomizes the right wing mind set / let children, the elderly, the disabled, the working poor starve, get sick and die, – “we only pay entitlements to our morally deficient elitists and corporations. ”

            sick mind, sick or non-existent soul.

          • redbean

            Connie, you’re the one complaining about subsidies.

            “We only pay entitlements to our morally deficient elitists and corporations.” Really? The biggest parts of our budget are for Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

          • Connie Kosuda

            Medicare and Medicaid are not subsidies / and Social Security has an enormous surplus, and is completely self-funded / something I would suggest to the rich.

          • redbean

            Connie, although all workers pay into Medicare and Social Security, they are not “completely self-funded” – quite the contrary. Every penny paid in today goes to fund current recipients. It’s a classic Ponzi scheme. There is no “lock box” with your name on it because the crooked politicians have spent every penny.

            Everything you pay today is gone. I don’t know how old you are, but unless you’re about to retire, like tomorrow March 7, there won’t be anything there for you.

            Please provide a link documenting the “enormous surplus” in Social Security.

          • Connie Kosuda

            please provide proof of your comments above.

          • redbean

            This article might speak your language: “Abuse of the Social Security Trust Fund Began in the 1980’s.”
            http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/abuse-of-the-social-security-trust-fund-began-in-the-1980s/

            Every time there’s talk of a government shutdown, the politicians threaten us that SS benefits will be held. If there was actual money in a SS trust fund, we wouldn’t have to worry about it.

            “According to table IVB6 of its 2013 Trustees Report, the Social Security system is 32 percent underfunded. To be precise, its infinite horizon fiscal gap — the present value difference between all future projected expenditures less the sum of all future projected taxes, plus the system’s trust fund — is $23 trillion, or 32 percent of the present value of future projected Social Security taxes.”

            http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/americas-ponzi-scheme-why-social-security-needs-to-retire/

          • redbean

            “Real wage” is an economic term.

            “The ‘Living Wage’ Mistake”
            https://mises.org/library/living-wage-mistake

          • DavidAppell

            Mises? Only the true wackos follow him.

            I mean, the TRUE wackos.

          • redbean

            The “wackos” predicted the 2008 crash. Your Keynesian gurus created it.

          • DavidAppell

            Sure, sure. Mises has become the leader of a cult.

          • DavidAppell

            If businesses don’t pay a livable wage, guess who makes up the difference?

          • redbean

            The same people who make up the difference when businesses are forced by government to pay an arbitrary wage above the level of the worker’s contribution.

          • DavidAppell

            All while the businesses pay a healthy dividend to owners. They view taxpayers as suckers, and rightly so.

          • redbean

            Business owners are taxpayers, too. Many owners also function as employees of the businesses they operate, working side-by-side with the hired help.

          • redbean

            Are you not aware that quite a few retirees survive on those dividends? Dang, you’re cruel, man.

          • Connie Kosuda

            only because of their inherent greed, which is pandered to by far too many bureaucrats.

          • Connie Kosuda

            and clueless trolls like you think they have the right to make up the definition of the level of a worker’s “contribution” / fraid not.

            some boys on this list don’t even work / and think they have the superior position in the economic world / same thing for the Walmart Clan / some of the wealthiest individuals in the world / not by the labor of their own hands / but living off the life blood of their indentured servants / the workers unfortunate enough to have to take a job from them.

          • redbean

            Connie, you’re the most judgmental church lady I think I’ve ever encountered.

            “Some boys on this list don’t even work” – which is none of your business.

            “workers unfortunate enough to have to take a job from them (wealthy individuals)” – if I have a family to feed, and a wealthy individual offers me a deal to trade time/labor for money to buy groceries, I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself whether that’s a good deal or not. Do you think other people are stupid and need your protection? Check your privilege, lady.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            So when I had a business mowing lawns as a young man and I employed my friend at 5 bucks/hour I was exploiting him and we needed a livable wage? My business model was bad? You don’t know much about commerce that is for sure.

          • Connie Kosuda

            love these examples using children. what was the child’s rent / food costs / transportation costs / health costs, etc.?

          • Gardenhomeboy

            My wife has a job, I don’t need a job to live. I can accept a lower wage without dying or even experiencing a negative effect. Sorry Commie.

          • Connie Kosuda

            God bless her. aren’t you lucky / God bless her.

          • DavidAppell

            You were both being exploited.

          • redbean

            Individuals engaging in mutually agreeable voluntary transactions are not being exploited.

          • Connie Kosuda

            it is not mutually agreeable when one is in a hand to mouth existence, as you well know / it is often the only offer on the table / live another day or die / an offer by the ruling class elitists / a contract of adhesion / no real choice / is null and void.

          • redbean

            Connie, do you really mean to say that gardenhomeboy mowing lawns and paying his friend to help is the same as “an offer by the ruling class elitists”??? Get a grip, gal.

            Every economic transaction is not “hand to mouth.” Yet, you seek government regulation of people interacting with each other voluntarily? Talk about authoritarian!

          • Gardenhomeboy

            That is laughable because it is based on YOUR opinion and nothing else. I didn’t feel exploited and neither did my friend. We were happy to make our sub-living wage because otherwise we would have had zero money. Do you even understand subjective value or do you believe in the labor theory of value?

          • DavidAppell

            Because you didn’t feel exploited doesn’t mean you weren’t.

            You could have been earning a good wage, saving for college. Instead you were paid far too little. Worse, you were happy about it — and even worse, you still are.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Still just your opinion. Are you saying my customers exploited me because I gave them a cheap service? What kind of logic is that? I was saving for college, earned quite a bit more than I would have earned if I charged 15 bucks an hour. See this is where your morality fails, you would prefer that I be unemployed than earn less than an arbitrary minimum wage law. That is silly. Working then gave me skills to work better now, so I defered gratification in order to earn a better reward later. That is a good thing.

          • DavidAppell

            Yes, the customers exploited you.

            You could have saved a great deal for college, or a car, or pot or whatever was your thing. Instead the law let buyers exploit you.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Ha, that is hilarious. You would rather I be unemployed/underemployed.

          • DavidAppell

            Look: Obviously everything I write here is my opinion.

            As is yours. OK? So get over it finally.

            You settled for being exploited. And your neighbors were only too happy to oblige.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            You are too funny, David. Too funny.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            So is pro bono legal or medical work exploitation? Is volunteering exploitation? Is a parent asking their child to do a chore for free exploitation?

          • redbean

            Checkmate, match point, game over. You win, GHB.

          • redbean

            David, “subjective value” is another economic term of which you are sadly ignorant.

          • redbean

            David, David, David. Exploitation is in the eye of the beholder.

          • redbean

            You’re right, homie, David has no clue about subjective value.

          • DavidAppell

            “Personally, I’d start with the central bank which creates the cruelest tax of all, the inflation tax that disproportionately punishes savers and those on fixed incomes.”

            Fixed incomes are usually adjusted for inflation. The LACK on inflation — or, even worse, deflation — are the disasters, because without them consumers are in no hurry to buy things, or put off buying things altogether.

            Since my income is your spending and your income is my spending, economies suffer without some small inflation (and inflation has been small for awhile now.)

          • redbean

            “Fixed incomes are usually adjusted for inflation.”

            Adjustment is based on the CPI, which as configured ensures that adjustments never actually keep up with the inflation rate.

            “Since my income is your spending and your income is my spending, economies suffer without some small inflation (and inflation has been small for awhile now.)”

            This simplistic circular picture of the economy is completely wrong. You can’t consume until something is first produced. It is savings, not consumption, that boosts capital formation, which allows for the production of “stuff.”

            Profits and wages don’t depend on inflation, and inflation doesn’t increase the quantity of “stuff” in the world. Inflation is redistribution from the poor to the wealthy.

            Inflation is caused by the introduction of new money into the economy by the Fed. Government-favored bankers get to use the new money before devaluation, and thus make out like bandits. By the time the new money makes its way through the pipeline to you and me, the value of our existing money has been stolen. Inflation is a form of theft and hidden taxation on the most vulnerable.

            Deflation is not a disaster. Lower prices don’t necessarily mean lower profits or that people will be laid off. Lower prices help people with lower incomes and increase demand. More demand means more workers are needed.

          • DavidAppell

            “Adjustment is based on the CPI, which as configured ensures that adjustments never actually keep up with the inflation rate.”

            The CPI *is* the inflation rate.

            Need verification? See the MIT Billion Prices Project. Not how closely it tracks the CPI.

          • redbean
          • DavidAppell
          • redbean

            This graph with 7 years of data crammed into a couple inches is unreadable. You didn’t read my link, I see, which detailed data from a couple quarters.

          • DavidAppell

            “Deflation is not a disaster.”

            Deflation is ALWAYS a disaster.

            Why buy a car today if it’s cheaper in 6 months? And when we don’t buy cars, carmakers lose jobs. Economics 101.

          • redbean

            There are many variables that go into the decision to buy a car. If I need a car today to get my family around town, I will buy it today, not in 6 months to save a few bucks. Price is not the only factor.

          • DavidAppell

            And if you don’t need a car today you will likely buy it when it’s cheaper. And when people don’t buy, people lose jobs.

            Deflation is a disaster.

          • redbean

            “And if you don’t need a car today you will likely buy it when it’s cheaper. ”

            I don’t understand this statement. If I don’t need a car, I won’t buy one, no matter if it’s cheaper. I don’t buy things I don’t need.

          • redbean

            Your Economics 101 teacher is misinformed. You need a new one:

            “It’s useful to take a step back and just consider what happens every day in the worldwide market. There are billions of humans scattered over the planet. Some of us work on oil rigs, pulling up barrels of crude. Some of us work on farms, gathering wheat. Some of us work on oil tankers or drive tractor trailers, bringing the (somewhat) raw materials to others. As consumers, we only see the tail end of a “pipeline” that could be traced back many years.”

            https://mises.org/library/consumers-dont-cause-recessions

            https://mises.org/library/deflating-deflation-myth

            https://mises.org/library/blessings-deflation

          • DavidAppell

            Ask Japan about their 20-year deflationary spiral.

            PS: Quoting Mises on anything won’t get your anywhere. He was an extremist who has no more than a cult following.

          • redbean

            Japan has reaped what they sowed by following Keynesian dogma. You sure sound like a Krugman groupie.

          • Myke

            By your analogy, why would anyone buy a car, knowing full well that like any consumable, as soon as I take possession of it, it has lost value?

          • Connie Kosuda

            never been proven yet that the wealth hoarded by the top1% economic class is stimulating the economy / quite the opposite /

            when poor folk get additional income, via wages, etc., they pour it into the economy, stimulating the economy itself. read some Robert Reich, for pity’s sake.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Too bad Reich isn’t an economist, why should I read him?

          • redbean

            When poor folk like me get additional income, I usually take it to Walmart and it goes directly to China. But at least the clerk at Walmart gets paid, right?

            Robert Reich is a shill for the 1% – the federal government. Why do you think Washington DC is one of the wealthiest locations in the country?

          • Connie Kosuda

            because the employer is the one most folks rely upon in order to live in a decent manner, as a result of their labors, got it?

          • redbean

            Whether you “live in a decent manner” is more complicated than how much money your employer pays you. It’s also how much you spend on expenses. And that depends on a whole lot of other things, like whether government has loaded a lot of unnecessary mandates into the economy.

        • Connie Kosuda

          well you sure don’t. ah guaranteem it.

      • redbean

        And when employers can’t hire low-skilled workers because they’re too expensive due to the minimum wage, who gets to make up the difference?

        • Cull Dem scales tax fleas

          Guest Hoosiers paying doubled Hotel/Motel taxes and loving every monument Drs. Appell and Blair so pre-decide, to wit, their sublimity interactions

        • DavidAppell

          There’s no evidence raises in the mimimum wage lead to job cutbacks.

          “Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?”
          John Schmitt, Center for Economic and Policy Research, February 2013
          https://cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

          • Gardenhomeboy

            Even the government estimates that they cause job losses… https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

          • redbean

            There are hundreds of studies by reputable economists over the past 75 years showing job loss from minimum wages.

          • DavidAppell

            Where are t hese “hundreds of studies?”

            (Does it ever occur to you to provide evidence for your pronouncements, or are you an oracle and above that?)

          • redbean

            Dr. Don Armentano, Professor Emeritus, Economics, University of Hartford:

            “The fact remains that there are hundreds of studies … that conclude that there is measurable job loss when minimum wages are increased.

            When the very first federal minimum wage (25 cents) went into effect in 1938, the U.S. Department of Labor itself determined that between 30,000 and 50,000 low-skilled jobs were likely lost due to the law. A comprehensive review of several dozen minimum wage studies by the Federal Minimum Wage Commission in 1981 found that most showed employment declining. On average, for every 10% increase in the minimum wage, employment declined 1-3%. And as recently as 2006 economists David Neumark and William Wascher reviewed more than 100 minimum wage studies in the economic academic literature and concluded that 85% of the strongest studies found that low-skilled employment opportunities declined when the minimum wage was raised.

            There are still other sources of data that support the notion that minimum wages are a job killer. In 1948 teenage unemployment rates were about 10% while workers over age 25 had a 3.4% unemployment rate, a 6.6% differential. Yet today the teen unemployment rate is more than 25% (over 40% for black teens) and gap is an astounding 18% higher than the general workforce unemployment rate (7.2%) for workers that are older with more work experience. There is almost unanimous agreement among economists that this huge differential is largely attributable to minimum wage legislation.”
            https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/dom-armentano/the-minimum-wage-outlaws-jobs/

          • redbean

            Here’s the review of more than 100 studies from the 1990s by Neumark and Wascher (2007) that Dr. Armentano mentioned. It found low-skilled workers, especially teens, suffer job loss. 
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf



            In 2014, an updated review found the same.

            Neumark et al. IZA Journal of Labor Policy 2014, 3:24 http://www.izajolp.com/content/3/1/24

          • DavidAppell

            Here’s a review of economic studies that found the opposite:

            Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?
            John Schmitt, Center for Economic and Policy Research
            February 2013
            https://cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

          • DavidAppell

            Here’s real life results; see the first figure:

            Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage, CEPR, June 2014
            http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/ClimateVol1.pdf

          • redbean

            We’re obviously having a failure to communicate.

            I did get a kick out of Robert’s robotic up vote for “Principles of Planetary Climate,” though.

          • Connie Kosuda

            post some?

          • redbean

            Hi Connie,
            I posted these above but will repost for you here. I posted this review of studies because it gives a good summary of the views pro and con. The 2014 update concludes that while some workers obviously see their incomes rise, the bottom rungs of the ladder are cut off for teens (especially black teens) and certain low-skilled workers. For these folks, the results are catastrophic.

            Here’s the review of more than 100 studies by Neumark and Wascher (2007) that Dr. Armentano mentioned in my other post. It found low-skilled workers, especially teens, suffer job loss. 
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12…

            In 2014, an updated review found the same.


            Neumark et al. IZA Journal of Labor Policy 2014, 3:24 http://www.izajolp.com/content

        • Connie Kosuda

          low skilled because of what? maybe inferior educational opportunities? you don’t like to pay for that either . do you / so, in effect you and the repugs want to insure a slave wage labor force, so you get the profits, and the rest of the population can be ‘managed’ and decreased in accordance with your bottom line, eh?

          • redbean

            Low skilled for many reasons. The best way to rise out of the minimum wage is to stay employed. Job experience in and of itself teaches many important skills that make a person more valuable to an employer. If you’ve made yourself useful, it’s possible the employer may want to pay you more just to keep you on board.

            Don’t give in to being a victim – think strategically – stay with one employer until you’ve maximized what that employer has to offer in terms of skill improvement and opportunities for advancement. It’s critical to move on if you find yourself in a rut without opportunities for advancement, such as becoming a team lead or manager.

            If you have a job that anyone can do, then you’re easily replaced and will make less because of that. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to be a plumber, but the work is physically hard and often smelly, so you make more money than average because it’s a job not everyone is willing to do.

            As for education, there are lots of options besides an over-priced 4-year degree. Healthcare has a lot of opportunity. Nursing homes and hospitals offer 4-6 weeks training to become a CNA (certified nursing assistant), and they usually train for free if you stay employed with them for a certain period of time. Wages in the Willamette Valley range from $13-20/hr.

            A one-year stint at a community college can garner you a CMA (certified medical assistant) or LPN (licensed practical nurse) degree. Oregon high school students with a 2.5 GPA can be eligible for $50/term tuition. That’s affordable. LPNs in the valley make $16-25/hr and CMAs $15-22/hr. Can’t stand the sight of blood? There are lots of well-paying clerical jobs in healthcare as well.

            About 97% of people who start at minimum wage, move up. That’s almost everyone – minimum wage is meant to be a temporary thing.

      • redbean

        Spoken like a true progressive, DA.

        https://mises.org/blog/solution-unemployment-found-kill-unemployed

        “For labor reformers, firms that paid workers less than the living wage to which they were entitled were deemed parasitic, as were the workers who accepted such wages—ON GROUNDS THAT SOMEONE (CHARITY, STATE, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HOUSEHOLD) WOULD NEED TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE (emphasis redbean). For progressives, a legal minimum wage had the useful property of sorting the unfit, who would lose their jobs, from the deserving workers, who would retain their jobs. Royal Meeker, a Princeton economist who served as Woodrow Wilson’s U.S. Commissioner of Labor, opposed a proposal to subsidize the wages of poor workers for this reason. Meeker preferred a wage floor because it would disemploy unfit workers and thereby enable their culling from the work force. ‘It is much better to enact a minimum-wage law even if it deprives these unfortunates of work,’ argued Meeker (1910, p. 554). ‘Better that the state should support the inefficient wholly and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind.'”

        “A. B. Wolfe (1917, p. 278) an American progressive economist who would later become president of the AEA in 1943, also argued for the eugenic virtues of removing from employment those who ‘are a burden on society.’ (“Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era” in The Journal of Economic Perspectives by Thomas C. Leonard).”

        • DavidAppell

          Americans have little empathy for others, but even they aren’t so heartless as to wish for such a brutal economics. Nor would you like it when you’re no longer desired.

          Eugenics is just sick.

          • redbean

            Just to clarify in this long thread, my post describing the progressives’ rationale for the minimum wage was in response to your comment which described their rationale: “If employers don’t pay a livable wage, guess who gets to make up the difference?”

            Yes, eugenics is “just sick” – so glad you agree, unlike the progressives who brought us the minimum wage precisely because it prevented people of the “wrong sort” from having any way of supporting themselves at all, much less successfully reproducing – the difference between a low wage and no wage being starvation or a life of crime leading to lengthy incarceration.

          • DavidAppell

            The minimum wage has exactly *nothing* to do with eugenics. Just suggesting so is also sick.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            David, stick to climate science. You are so wrong on “Eugenics has nothing to do with the minimum wage” that it is laughable. From Princeton.edu https://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf

          • DavidAppell

            Nonsense. The US does not practice eugenics.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            That wasn’t your claim. You said that the minimum wage has nothing to do with eugenics. You are wrong. sorry you can’t change the subject like that.

          • DavidAppell

            Yes — they are completely different subjects. Trying to join them is nonsense.

          • redbean

            Not nonsense, given the facts of history in relation to impoverishing those who undercut unions.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            some would say “Yes it does” It definitely used too. http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/10/eugenics-are-alive-and-well-in-the-united-states/

          • DavidAppell

            The US does not practice eugenics in any normal definition of the word.

          • redbean

            Planned Parenthood targeting minorities. Sex selection abortions. Downs’ syndrome abortions. Designer babies.

          • redbean

            Planned Parenthood focuses on poor, minority neighborhoods. Not by accident.

            Your bogeymen, the Republicans, have long supported Planned Parenthood – check out the history of the Bush clan. That alone should give you pause.

            Perhaps you’re unaware that Hitler was influenced by American eugenicists. Sordid history on the Progressive side – that includes plenty of Republicans.

          • Eric Blair

            Those progressives have long been gone from the political scene. The Progressives of today are not the Progressives of 80 years ago. Just as the Republicans of today are not the same as the Republicans of 1860.

            Are you willing to condemn the American concept of liberty because one of the primary architects was a slave owner? Because, in part, we sought our freedom because of British restrictions on the slave trade?

          • redbean

            I wouldn’t condemn liberty due to the slave owner because liberty, not the slave owner, is worth defending. The minimum wage, on the other hand, is not worth defending. It hurts those it is purported to help.

        • Eric Blair

          That has nothing to do with modern justifications for a minimum wage. You’re clouding the issue by trying to connect the Progressives of 100 years ago with the Progressives of today.

          • Gardenhomeboy

            “The minimum wage has exactly *nothing* to do with eugenics.” -David Appell

            He is wrong, you are being so thick. It doesn’t matter that the modern justification for the minimum wage is different than it was then, but that was not David’s statement. Take off your blue-lensed glasses man.

          • redbean

            I am challenging the notion that the minimum wage is pro-worker. The pro-minimum wage arguments represent a false compassion, which masks self-interest while actually harming the most vulnerable workers. There’s a difference between what sounds good and what actually works.

            Besides, progressivism is antisocial – today and historically – and it doesn’t hurt to enlighten gullible people who may be hoodwinked into thinking otherwise.

    • redbean

      Black teenage unemployment rates ranging from 20 to 50 percent have been so common over the past 60 years that many people are unaware that this was not true before there were minimum wage laws, or even during years when inflation rendered minimum wage laws ineffective, as in the late 1940s.

      https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/thomas-sowell/a-primer-on-race/

    • Connie Kosuda

      rahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht. and u r.

  • Myke

    The arbitrariness with which $15 per hour is choosen is only lessened by the ignoring of the effects that will result from this pointless exercise. Why not $20 per hour? How about $30? I would think that if the intent is to equalize income than making all wages the same would be ideal…right up until you add in the risk/reward factor of expanding the individual skills of people. That is really what we are talking about, people, right?

    The net effect of this Bill will be to price lower skilled workers out of the job market, kill marginally profitable small businesses, reduce new enterants in the new business catagory, fuel wage inflation to reward the risks of enhacing skill sets, and reduce Oregons export competetiveness. But, hey, at least the State will gain on this hidden Income Tax increase on the backs of the working poor.

    • conservatively speaking

      Write on.

    • redbean

      Myke, you’ve pretty much said all there is to say. Except maybe, government unions will gain when their workers get a higher wage, from which the union can extract more dues.

  • NiCuCo

    “Oregon House Dems adopt partisan and costly min wage mandate”

    Partisan? Does the new minimum wage apply only to Democratic workers? Or do Republican workers get it, too?

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)