Nation's Highest Minimum Wage Continues to Destroy Economy

Unlikely. Most probably they outsource to a third party distributer for both mass replication and distribution of the software. The company my ex-husband worked did similar work for other software companies.

Well, the idea of most detractors and many supporters is that changing the minimum wage ripples upward through other wages, either directly, or -- and this I believe -- by increasing living standards throughout a community.

I definitely agree with you on the benefits.

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2024517854_amazonofficexml.html

'Assuming 170 square feet per worker, a typical ratio for technology firms, the latest proposed buildings would fit 4,500 to 4,900 staff.'

This is on top of the three towers under construction for Amazon that will house an additional 10k people.

Will the blood letting ever end?!?!?!

Just imagine growth if the city had constructive policies. Might be good, not mediocre.

How many times does your holy book have to be proven wrong before you accept reality?

Would it have worked better if we sacrificed a goat?

Washington as a whole is beating the national unemployment figures, and those jobs that it is creating are good jobs that families can build off of, not Walmart specials where the people still need government assistance to live.

Unbridled capitalism and unbridled socialism both suck huge donkey dick.

I've been told over and over that those 'socialist' (ie mixed economy) countries can't succeed. For a while I believed it - I remember in 2000 reading about the inevitable fall of the Scandinavian countries.

Instead they have a similar median gdp per capita, much higher social mobility, less political capture, a great social safety net, free higher education, less national debt per capita, live longer, and are happier than we are.

CLEARLY they are kicking our asses in what matters most to the average person - the quality of their life.

We are stuck right now with the cold warriors that have been propagandized their entire lives, and are just too fucking feebleminded to realize that there are better ways to do things.

But that generation is on its way out, and when that happens, there will be significant changes.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/2014/_images/gsp_0614.png

Heh, sure, that's a sad effect of groupthink. Demi, the one identifiable American casualty taken in by war on class propaganda.

Here's some real data.

Fuckin jokers. Wonder why Wordforge is so slow, there's plenty of other forums for same kind of thoughtless left wing circle jerks. And it's often without so much smug self satisfaction, though that can always be hard to find amongst lefties.

Like I said, mediocre growth rates. What, around 2/3 of Texas growth rates, for sure. And lots of places beating Texas there.

And anyway, give it a few years before you crow, dope, there's bound to be a limited amount of fartsniffers in the country that want to move to NW coast, however pleasant the scenery.

You do realize that GDP change per capita is what matters for this discussion, right? Because higher growth rates achieved through population growth do not mean an increase in living standards.

I even gave you real, gul. Did you click the link? Last year's data, about as good as you're gonna get. Unless cherrypicked by a seattlan.

It's almost like Tuttle doesn't even read the other posts...

I clicked the link, but didn't notice where it showed GDP per capita growth, which again, is the metric that matters.

"Just imagine growth if the city had constructive policies. Might be good, not mediocre." self quoting is so dicky.

Oh, and I thought desiccant dried out faster.

Tapatalk or crack?

Just imagine if Washington State had a shit ton of oil.

Shhhhh. North Dakota has economic growth because everyone's flocking there for its conservative policies!

Here's data taken from your site. It's actually newer - first quarter 2014.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/spi/sqpi_newsrelease.htm

State personal income increased 0.8 percent on average in the first quarter of 2014, an acceleration from the 0.5 percent growth in the fourth quarter of 2013, according to estimates released today by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Personal income grew in 46 states and growth accelerated in 24 of those states. The fastest growth, 1.4 percent, was in Washington state, Vermont, and West Virginia.

So a state without vast oil reserves, with one of the highest GDPs per capita and median per capita already, grew personal income at the fastest rate.

More:

Mining earnings grew $8.6 billion in the first quarter, compared with a $2.5 billion increase in the fourth quarter. More than half of the mining earnings growth (which includes earnings in the oil and gas industry) was in Texas. The contribution of mining to earnings growth was larger than every other industry in eight states including Texas, North Dakota, and West Virginia.

You were saying?

Someone should inform Facebook that Seattle is doomed. Those morons are quintupling their office here (according to their reports, all hiring growth for the company in 2015 will be in Seattle).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ok-said-to-lease-most-of-new-seattle-building

Maybe you should hitch your economy to MySpace while you're at it.

It's called Schrodinger's cash.

I have to shake my head every time I hear this stupidity. As if the minimum wage has absolutely anything to do with the baby boomers getting old and retiring.

Once again, demographically there are no more people hitting retirement age than are turning 18. The workforce size shouldn't be decreasing.

Except, as has been explained to you before, most 18 year olds go to college instead of immediately working 40 hours a week so, yes, the labor force is shrinking.

Also the length of time people live after retirement is rising which results in a lower percentage of the population working.

Explain that again. We have 4 million people turning age X, where X is 18 to 30. We have 4 million people turning age Y, where Y is 60 to 70. The workforce size is W, and W + 4 million - 4 million = W.

So I can work at McDonalds and make $30k per annum? The only thing keeping me away is the lack of sunshine!


Sent from my iPhone while driving

Well, actually if you look at figure 1, about 3.6 million people were in the cohort turning 65 (1949), whereas every age cohort younger than 30 is 3.7 million people or more, with 4.1 million people turning 22 and 3.9 million turning 18 this year. The younger folks outnumber the retiring boomers, and during the first two years of Obama's presidency the age 65 cohorts were only 2.9 and 3.6 million, respectively, while the 18-year old cohorts were 4.2 and 4.1 million. The size of the workforce should have been increasing. It's basic math.

Which is absolutely irrelevant to the size of the workforce, because the workforce math doesn't even care if everyone lives for a million years. 4.1 million people entering, 3.9 million people leaving, (all of whom can live for 10,000 years) gives you an increased workforce size of 200,000, and is the same equation for the number of people who should be entering and leaving the workforce. Have you people even had a class in mathematics, say in junior high school, and one that wasn't designed to boost self-esteem but to give you some aptitude with numbers and equations? Have you ever tried to do calculations on how many people are in a dance club based on the number of people who were already inside, the number of people entering, and the number of people exiting? The result does NOT depend on their life span, evening viewing habits, or how many pets they have. It is basic math.

As usual, gturner is a lying sack of shit. Employment for Prime Age workers is on a significant upswing.



Data here:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/revisions-made-this-a-blockbuster-jobs-report/