Goldy

Just two Sunday’s ago I sowed my first planting of radishes. Today they’re ready to be thinned, the spicy seedlings making a delicious addition to tonight’s salad. Fourteen days from planting to harvest; can’t ask for a faster growing season than that.

It’s one of the reasons I love growing radishes and arugula, both of which are fast, vigorous and reliable.  Arugula especially is a crazy thing to buy in the store, where supermarkets charge yuppy prices for a plant that is essentially a weed. The row of arugula in the foreground of the photo above was planted only last week. Next week I’ll enjoy my first thinning, and as long as I keep planting fresh sowings every couple weeks, I’ll be flush with arugula until the summer heat gets too intense. Then I’ll start sowing again in September, and enjoy frequent harvests until the first hard freeze.

Tomatoes take commitment, and they are of course the pride of my backyard garden. But radishes and arugula provide a sense of immediate gratification that makes the wait for the summer bounty more bearable.

Matthew 10:34-37
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Discuss.

Yet another reminder that that the powers that be will do anything to avoid raising taxes on the wealthy, even if it means (gasp) spending money on educating preschoolers:

ALBANY — After weeks of closed-door negotiations, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and legislative leaders reached a deal on the next state budget that provides $300 million for prekindergarten in New York City and grants new protections for charter schools, officials said on Saturday.

The agreement, which followed exhausting but relatively peaceful negotiations, does not include a tax increase on high-earning city residents that Mayor Bill de Blasio had sought to pay for preschool classes and after-school programs.

Arguably, it was Mayor de Blasio’s threat to tax the super-wealthy that forced this money out of state coffers.  Perhaps that’s a lesson Seattle politicians should take to heart in putting together the funding package for our universal preschool program?

Sometimes a question can be as revealing as the answer.

In between sessions at yesterday’s Income Inequality Symposium, I was drawn into a discussion with fellow attendees about the “total compensation” minimum wage that some in the business community are still pushing. Under total compensation, an employer’s obligation to pay a minimum of $15 an hour could be met by a combination of cash wages, tips, and the cost of providing certain benefits. For example, I explained, $10.50 an hour in cash wages, plus $2.50 an hour in tips, plus $2 an hour in benefits would amount to a legal $15 an hour wage.

So if an employer were to offer a matching 401K contribution up to a maximum of one percent of an employee’s salary, I was asked, what would be the maximum benefit a minimum wage worker could receive? Would it be $0.15 an hour—one percent of the putative $15 an hour minimum wage? Would it be, using the example above, $0.105 an hour—one percent of the employee’s cash wages? Or would it be some more difficult to calculate number?

It took me a moment to wrap my mind around the question, but the answer I arrived at surprised even me. It doesn’t matter on which figure the employer chooses to calculate the maximum 401K match: under total compensation a matching 401K contribution is worth absolutely nothing to a minimum wage employee. Zero. Bupkes. Zilch.

And the same is true of the value of every other benefit.

Think about it. If you are earning a $15 total compensation minimum wage, and your employer generously matches your 401K contribution up to one percent of that higher number, you would receive $0.15 an hour in additional benefits. But that higher benefit could then be used to reduce the wage portion of your compensation by an equal amount. The benefit ends up costing the employer nothing, and the net result is that the “matching” contribution comes directly out of the employee’s paycheck. The employer gives with one hand and takes away with the other.

Likewise for other benefits like health insurance premiums and “paid” vacation days, the cost of which may also be used to decrease the wage component of your total compensation by an equal and offsetting amount. It’s as if minimum wage employees were purchasing these benefits through paycheck deductions; the employer bears none of the costs.

Some business owners argue that without total compensation they will be forced to eliminate benefits in order to shave costs. That may or may not be true. But from the minimum wage employee’s perspective, total compensation virtually guarantees the equivalent outcome. For when a benefit is transformed into a line item to be deducted from your take-home pay, it becomes nothing more than just another monthly expense. “Benefits” are no longer additive to one’s total compensation—eliminate them and your cash wages go up by a corresponding amount.

Of course, the caveat holds that all this analysis is only true of full-time employees. Lacking the cost of benefits to subtract from total compensation, low-wage part-timers and temporary workers could see their effective wage floor rise substantially.

But as a policy for raising the incomes of all low-wage workers, total compensation fails to deliver on its promise, while (for reasons I’ve explained previously) eroding the effective wage floor over time. A $15 total compensation minimum wage simply does not guarantee a $15 minimum wage. And to insist otherwise would be a lie.

Because I’m too stupid to get it through my thick skull that nobody cares what I have to say about the minimum wage anymore, now that I don’t have a media outlet to say it through, I’m spending my day at Seattle’s Income Inequality Symposium listening to people discuss a lot of things I already know. I’m nothing if not stubborn.

“The most pro-business thing you can do in a capitalist economy is invest in the middle class,” billionaire(ish) keynote speaker Nick Hanauer stressed to the crowed. Can’t get much more unequal income-wise at the moment than me and Hanauer, but it sounds like we’re mostly on the same side of this issue.

Balky web site and balky Internet connection permitting, I’ll post some updates throughout the day. Or, follow me on Twitter for more frequent and reliable updates.

UPDATE: Lot’s of informative Tweets from me today, but also this:

 

It’s really, really complicated. The impact, the morality, the unintended economic incentives… everything about a “tip credit” (or “tip penalty” as opponents call it) is a lot more complicated than our current minimum wage debate allows.

Which is a long way of saying that I’m not finished writing the post on the tip credit that I had previously promised. In the meanwhile, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on it in the comment thread.

Sorry if you’re seeing those annoying 508 errors again. I’ve been messing around under the hood trying to optimize site performance and add some nifty new features, and while everything was working fine yesterday, I awoke this morning to find HA struggling to load pages. So I’m dialing some of the updates back in the hope restoring some equilibrium.

In any case, if you see new features that you like, let me know. If you discover bugs, really let me know. And if there’s some change you are aching for, I’d love to get your suggestions and feedback.

I haven’t had much to say on the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, because I’ve got no particular aerospace expertise and thus had nothing useful to add to the speculation. But I do know something about modern telecommunications, and so all this talk about attempting to track the plane via pings and other automated transmissions to various satellite and ground-based receivers, got me thinking: in this day of on-board WiFI Internet connections, why are we still relying  solely on an aircraft’s “black box” for a record of its final minutes or hours?

This instrument data is simply too important to be left at the bottom of a deep-sea trench, so why isn’t it constantly being transmitted real time via satellite as a kind of off-site backup? Cockpit voice recordings too. All of it compressed and securely encrypted. With no means of turning off the transmission. The technology is there. The satellites are there. Isn’t this a totally obvious solution?

Am I missing something here? Are there any experts out there who can explain why we don’t already do this?

It wouldn’t take much more than the whim of federal and international regulators to mandate this virtual black box on all modern jetliners. And given the low cost of telecommunications technology, it wouldn’t add much to the cost of flying. But it would provide closure for the families of victims of future crashes, as well as valuable data on how to prevent a repeat.

[Oddly, some of my more popular posts over at Slog were about my backyard garden, a stark departure from my wonky policy analysis and foul-mouthed political rants. So I’ve decided to continue these posts here on HA.]

I spent the past few days of fair weather belatedly getting the last of my early spring sowings into the garden before the rains returned. Snap peas, snow peas, carrots, and a variety of lettuces, greens, and herbs have been sown under floating row covers in freshly turned and composted beds. Radishes, arugula, and at least one variety of lettuce have already sprouted. Potatoes have been buried in compost in separate containers. And 20 feet of onion starts are beginning to take root—I’ll start thinning out salad onions in another month so. (I’ve had much better luck with the Walla Walla onion starts that McLendon’s carries than I ever have with sowing directly from seed or from bulbs.)

In case you’re wondering about the floating row covers, they serve dual purposes. These thin yet sturdy pieces of remay fabric let through light, air, and water, yet are light enough to be lifted by the growing seedlings. The result is that they function as a sort of green house, warming and insulating the soil, while keeping out pests. But the row covers are also necessary to protect the beds from cats, squirrels, and other animals that just love to dig through freshly turned soil. Without the row covers the loose soil beckons like a giant kitty litter box. Once the seedlings are well established and the soil crusts over a bit, the cats tend to lose interest.

So I’ve found floating row covers to be an absolute must.

As for what I’m currently eating from my garden, well, not much survived the couple of extended hard freezes we had this winter. I’ve got kale, of course, and in addition to the leaves, the tender stems and flower buds are delicious in stir-fries or sautéed with garlic and tossed with pasta. I’ve still got a few leeks left to harvest, and the over-wintered parsley is coming back nicely and should stock my kitchen until its newly sown replacement matures. Other than that, it’s just perennial herbs—rosemary, oregano, sage, and thyme—plus a few scattered chives.

But next week no doubt I’ll be adding radish and arugula thinnings to my salads, and the 2014 garden season will officially begin.

Mayor Ed Murray’s Income Inequality Advisory Committee has released the two studies it commissioned on proposals to raise the minimum wage in Seattle to $15 an hour. I’ve only just skimmed through them—there’s a ton of data and analysis—but I thought it useful to skip straight to the conclusion of the report from three professors at UC Berkeley, Local Minimum Wage Laws: Impacts on Workers, Families, and Businesses:

In 1994 David Card and Alan Krueger published a groundbreaking study that changed how many economists view the minimum wage. Card and Krueger (1994) looked at employment in fast- food restaurants across the New Jersey and Pennsylvania border after New Jersey increased its state minimum wage. They found no measurable negative impact on employment. As we reviewed above, a large body of research has since built upon their methodology. As a result, we have learned a great deal about how employers respond to increases in the minimum wage.

First, paying workers more can change their work performance. It can change their productivity, their attitude about their job, how hard they work, and their ability to make it to the job on time. Second, low-wage labor markets have high levels of job churning. Turnover levels are high as workers leave jobs looking for better wages or because they are unable to stay in their jobs due to poverty-related problems such as difficulties with transportation, child care, or health. As a result, rather than eliminating jobs, raising the minimum wages can reduce turnover and increase job stability. Third, firms can absorb higher labor costs through other means as well. They can pass on some of the increased costs to consumers through higher prices or earn lower profits. In short, firms use a combination of strategies to adjust to higher minimum wages without cutting jobs or hours (Schmitt 2013).

Nonetheless, it is important to emphasize again that the existing research literature is necessarily limited to the range of minimum wage increases that have been actually been implemented. While these studies are suggestive, they cannot tell us what might occur when minimum wages are increased significantly beyond existing local, state, or federal mandates.

Finally, raising the minimum wage is not a cure-all, especially in the face of larger forces generating inequality that require national attention. Still, our assessment of the research evidence is that these policies have worked well. They raise the incomes of low-wage workers and their families. The costs to businesses are absorbed largely by reduced turnover costs and by small price increases among restaurants. Additional benefits, such as reduced spending on public assistance programs and the local stimulus of additional spending by low-income families, might also occur. But we do not yet have enough definitive research on these effects.

Seattle’s business community insists that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour will result in the loss of hundreds of businesses and thousands of jobs. That’s what opponents claim before every proposed minimum wage hike. Yet according to the UC Berkeley report, there is no evidence that this ever happens.

Yes, the proposed Seattle hike is larger than most others (though not unprecedented), so no, we cannot know for sure that a hike to $15 won’t have a negative impact on businesses or employment. But the point is, there is nothing to suggest that it would. And so the burden of proof is on opponents to support their arguments with more than just the anecdotal empty threats of business owners who are loathe to abandon the low-wage economy to which they’ve grown accustomed.

Huh. I’ve got this nagging feeling that there’s something missing from the Seattle Times editorial board’s list of things we need to do to attract and retain corporate headquarters:

Support and fund education for students ages 3 to 23. Raise the quality of and reduce inequity of access to pre-K, K-12 and higher education. Protect and enhance the area’s vaunted quality of life and make strategic investments in transportation. Continue to promote a civic culture that values innovation, diversity and tolerance.

Oh. Yeah, that’s right. They forgot to mention the money it takes to pay for all these great things.

It doesn’t take much courage to argue for expanded funding of pre-K, K-12, higher education, transportation, and other public investments that improve our collective quality of life. I do it all the time. But what’s consistently missing from the editorial page of our state’s paper of record is support for raising the taxes necessary to pay for these things. It’s as if there is only one side to the financial ledger—the spending side—and it would be absolutely crazy to even mention the topic of revenue.

I mean, if attracting corporate headquarters provides the strange logic you need to put you over the top in support of universal preschool, fine by me. Whatever floats your pre-K boat. But then what’s so wrong about taxing the incomes of highly paid executives in order to help pay for all the public investments that draw them to the region? Washington does have the most regressive tax structure in the nation, after all.

Without the mention of revenue, the editorial comes off as scolding the rest of us for stingily refusing to invest in the things corporate executives refuse to pay for. Weird.

Leviticus 25:44-45
And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property.

Discuss.

Seattle’s Tim-Eyman-wannabe Elizabeth Campbell, has filed an initiative that would repeal recently imposed caps on popular Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) like Lyft, Sidecar, and uberX. Initiative 111 (pdf) would also eliminate the $50,000 annual license fee per TNC that was intended to fund enforcement of the remaining regulations, while removing any reference to “the stability of the market for taxi and for hire transportations services” from consideration for subsequent regulatory review. If passed, the initiative would pretty much gut the work of the city council, freeing up the TNCs to operate at will and virtually unrestricted, while leaving the taxi industry capped and heavily regulated. So much for the “level playing field” the TNCs have been clamoring for.

Of course, Campbell is a bit of a self-serving pro-business crackpot with a habit of filing initiatives on spec and then hoping the corporate contributions roll in. She’s already filed a faux $15 minimum wage initiative that would not in fact raise the minimum wage to $15 for most workers, while lavishing tax cuts on business. No contributions thus far. So it’s not clear whether Lyft, Sidecar, and Uber were even aware of this initiative before it was filed, let alone whether they would lend it financial support.

That said, my sense is that a well-crafted initiative lifting the caps on the popular TNCs could very well pass. Everybody loves to hate on the taxis. So it wouldn’t surprise me to see the TNCs fund such an initiative, if not this particular one.

I’ve emailed Campbell and other parties for comment. I’ll update when I know more.

Great news!

According to a poll released Thursday by PEMCO Insurance, more than half of area drivers — 58 percent, to be exact — say that if a toll is put into place across Lake Washington on I-90, they will drive across the bridge less often. … A toll would propel 28 percent of drivers to choose greener commuting options, such as taking the bus, carpooling, or telecommuting.

Then, with consumers unwilling to drive across the lake to save 20 cents on a burger, we can raise the minimum wage even higher in Seattle. Because location, location, location!

God forbid we should be willing to pay for the public infrastructure we use, and all that, but if tolling I-90 not only helps eliminate unnecessary trips (and the climate-changing carbon emissions that go with them), it also helps support a more livable minimum wage here in Seattle, then I’d call that a win-win!