It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
SeaTac voters will get the chance to decide whether the city should increase its minimum wage to a nation-leading $15 per hour, after a state appeals court today reversed a judge’s ruling from August that disqualified signatures needed to place the measure on November’s ballot.
Today’s order, issued by a three-judge panel of the Washington Court of Appeals, has yet to elaborate as to why King County Superior Court Judge Andrea Darvas erred in her Aug. 26 ruling, which disqualified 61 signatures of registered SeaTac voters who signed more than one petition.
On Tuesday night, the SeaTac City Council unanimously voted to place the so-called Good Jobs Initiative up for a public vote, which would bring the new minimum wage to more than $30,000 a year.
The pay raise, if approved by city voters in November, would apply to many hospitality and transportation workers in the city that is home to Sea-Tac International Airport.
Along with the minimum $15-an-hour wage, it would give certain workers paid sick leave and provide job security when companies change contractors.
I would have thought that raising the wage would mean the business would have less money after expenses. Whatever the workers gain, the business loses, so there would be the same amount of income running around. The only difference is that employees are spending more, business are spending less in a zero-sum game.
Raising minimum wage in a service based economy will lead to more hires as more expendable income is flushed back into the economy leading to higher pricing and larger revenue.
The overall state is sitting at 8.7% which is painful unemployment by anyone's measure but half the metropolitan areas holding the bottom 20 slots on the national worst unemployment rates belong to California. I'm amazed when folks use that state for anything in the way of success or positive economic outcome. It's just so profound in the numbers which show it isn't true.edit on 6-9-2013 by wrabbit2000 because: minor correction