Grades Are Meaningless -


«Minimum wage is not enough»
Minimum wage was conceived and implemented as a "living wage" by FDR, the least an American can earn and survive. The wealthy fought this tooth-and-nail before, during, and after its passage. Society did not collapse as a result, which the wealthy had predicted it would. Minimum Wage is now clearly not a "living wage".
But the wealthy are still fighting fair wages, of course.


Serious question: Do younger people no longer have roommates? I went from living with my parents as a kid, to having (two to four) roommates in college and in my 20s, to shacking up with my girlfriend in my 30s, and getting married to her in my 40s.

I never had my own place, so the parameter of "this-is-how-much-you-have-to-make-to-afford-your-own-place" was not really a consideration because it's never been possible for me (nor for most of my Gen X friends).


RE: Bike Lanes and Illegal Vehicle Parking
SDOT's not considering bollards as a option in bicycle lane vehicle blocking mechanisms is gross negligence.
Further, retractable bollards for Pike Place Market would solve the vehicular war against pedestrians.
Whats up with that, SDOT?


@3 great question, same Gen X experience for me. Not sure building tiny apartments where shared SFH was is actually cheaper rent…


@4: allow me to express skepticism that SDOT would permit retractable bollards in a right of way.


@3 I've always wondered that myself. When did the standard become that everyone get's their own apartment especially in an expensive, urban environment like Seattle?


No need to say "shacking up" unless you're carrying guilt for cohabitating without the blessing of clergy. "Living together" is perfectly appropriate.


@8: Then these stories need comps. My wife and I rented a 1BR apartment on Capitol Hill in 1996 for $875 when the minimum wage was $4.90.

$875 x 3.33 = $2914 a month / $4.90 per hour = 595 hours per month / 4.33 weeks a month = 137 hours a week to afford that apartment on minimum wage in 1996.


@10 - What's the 3.33 from?


"Social Housing Initiative Loses Steam"

Whensoever had it any 'steam'? Sure, it had breathless support from the South Seattle Emerald and the Stranger, but there's no evidence it ever had any popular support. HON first set their signature goals too low (35,000 signatures would not have sufficed with the greater than 20% disqualification rate HON ultimately earned), utterly failed to come anywhere close enough to meet them, and utterly failed to show any urgency even after they missed the mark and got 20 days to collect more signatures.

Also, as both the Emerald and the Stranger claim to be journalistic entities, one might think they'd take offense at having a load of self-serving b.s. shoveled under their noses by the very folks who had misled them about the intiative:

'“Will there be enough time for the city clerk to do their process and then get those over to King County Elections, and then for King County Elections to do their verification process and then get it back to the city clerk?” she said. “Enough time for the City Council to alert the public to the vote, to put it on the ballot? No. I guess it’s not completely out of the realm of possibility, but it is highly unlikely.”'

No, dear, the problem is not phlegmatic bureaucracy, it's that you didn't collect nearly enough signatures in the long time you had.

(To be fair, HON did a much better job in getting I-135 on the ballot than HON's parent entity, Real Change, ever did in getting homeless persons off Seattle's streets.)


The minimum wage will never, ever, ever be enough.

Golly you don't think businesses will raise the prices to offset the add'l costs?

Every time the min. wage goes up, it raises the price of everything.

If a dishwasher makes $16.69/hour, then the line cook wants $25/hour and the price of your dinner goes up accordingly. the base cost, driven by the min. wages ripples thru the economy and everybody raises their prices to accommodate the increased cost due to the "min wage".

So at the end of the day, it gets worse and worse... kind of like a drug addict.

They never learn.


@13: You could just admit you know nothing about economics. It's quicker. For example:

"If a dishwasher makes $16.69/hour, then the line cook wants $25/hour and the price of your dinner goes up accordingly. the base cost, driven by the min. wages ripples thru the economy..."

No, it actually doesn't, because dining out is a luxury item. As no one ever needs it, anyone who doesn't want to pay a higher price simply doesn't buy any. (Business diners will simply expense it anyway, so they're not affected.) The only thing that might "ripple through the economy" is the money not spent on dining out (as often) will be spent on other luxury items, or put into savings.

Also, try reading the article and comments before you write. @10 showed nicely how, thanks to aggressive increases in the minimum wage, small apartments are actually more affordable in Seattle now than they were in the go-go '90s. Congratulations, you and the Stranger are both wrong, just in opposite directions. Nice work.

@11, the 3.33 correction factor comes from a basic household rule, which says it's not a good idea to live anywhere one would need to budget more than 30% of one's gross income for housing. 30% = 3/10, so instead of dividing by 30% or 3/10, @10 multiplied by the inverse, 10/3 or 3.33. (Some persons just don't like to divide by a percentage.) In @10's example, he starts with the $875/month he and his partner paid in rent, and calculated that was 30% of $2,914, which is therefore the minimum monthly gross income needed to meet that rental at the 30% rule.


@14 God what an idiot you are.

The min wage is the lowest wage paid for the least skilled labor.

So if the min wage goes to $16.69 then any labor more skilled will demand more.

So a delivery driver carrying say baby formula will demand more per hour.
A grocery clerk selling food will demand more per hour
A skilled labor who builds houses or repairs things will demand more per hour.

Unless under your "simple simon economic theory" these are luxury items.

We actually laughed ourselves silly reading your economic analysis.... it was like reading something a 3rd grader would write. FYI two of us graduates from LSE and other from Harvard and our liberal from Stanford.. even he chuckled.


West coast growing up I had 4 other roommates in a two bedroom apartment, and and worked multiple jobs. Of course it was frustrating, but I dealt with it until I had enough to buy a house. Having roommates is not a bad thing when it can cut your bills significantly. For all the peeps complaining about housing prices it’s been this bad all over the world in highly desired urban cities.


@15: Two of the three examples you gave were not “skilled labor,” only the last one was, and the wages paid in building trades are negotiated by their unions. Those are so far above the minimum wage, any comparison is useless. As I wrote, just admit you know nothing about economics; it’s quicker.

I’m glad you and your (totally-not-imaginary!!) friends get laughs at your ignorance, though. Keep posting about a topic of which you transparently know nothing, and you’ll continue to need a good sense of humor.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.