The liberals being used as fronts for organized labor in the debate over a statewide minimum wage initiative were quite surprised at their own press conference yesterday, when the job-killing truth about minimum wage hikes was put front and center by one of their chosen speakers.
But they sure were quick to try and get him away from the cameras, though somewhat unsuccessful.
Both KIRO and KING were covering the event being staged at the ice cream shop of uber-liberal Molly Moon Neitzel. Unfortunately for her, the owner of a Central District restaurant told the truth about how the initiative has impacted his business.
Small business owner Felix Ngoussou framed the debate perfectly – for those with the sense to oppose the initiative – by pointing out that “he had to cut staff in the wake of the minimum wage hike. ‘I used to have four. I now have two.’ He was asked again for clarification. You reduced employee numbers? ‘Yes.’ Because of the minimum wage? ‘Yes.’”
Leave it to the host to try and gloss over that outburst of truth from Ngoussou. According to KING, “Campaign sponsors scattered in a panic. Molly Moon Neitzel noticeably looked agitated by the turn, and she interrupted Ngoussou. ‘He’s talking about a plurality of issues,’ she interjected, trying to steer the ship back to the message. But the ship never got back on course. In fact, Ngoussou stepped outside, and doubled down on his claims.”
As KIRO reported, “Ngoussou says businesses like his need a break on taxes and fees. And he echoed critics who decry a one-size-fits-all minimum wage. ‘You can apply it in Capitol Hill, Bellevue, Redmond, everywhere, but you cannot apply it in poor neighborhoods, like Tukwila, SeaTac’, he said.”
Then, Moon Neitzel stepped in the mess herself, going way off message by introducing the real goal for the union bosses and their Democrat allies. “’We cannot attack our, yes, very messed up tax system in the State of Washington,’ Neitzel said. ‘The fact we have no income tax in the State of Washington – but this is not the initiative to tackle that.’”
The liberal ice cream activist caught herself before finishing her sentence about the need to create a state income tax – which is a plank in the Democrat Party platform – but her choreographed event was in shambles. KING picked up on Moon’s business for a metaphor on what had become of the initiative’s message at the event: “It was a message that at least on this day appeared like a scoop of ice cream, to melt under some new heat.”
Of course, the truth rarely gets in the way when union bosses are pushing their job-killing agenda. They just change the messengers, as reported by KING: “The I-1433 campaign sponsors sent out another press release late in the day, but this time, Ngoussou was not in it.”
Mr. Ngoussou, owner of Lake Chad Café in Seattle, says (and double clarifies) he laid off half his workforce due to the minimum wage hike. Here’s the example Tensor continues to press this forum for. Sorry to take the words out of your mouth, Tensor, but you’re about to say Mr. Ngoussou has no proof that what he said about his own business is true? Therefore, we can’t believe him?
You really should do a bit of homework before you regurgitate whatever Shift fed you this time. From the KIRO link:
But Felix Ngoussou also told the group he had to lay off two employees after Seattle’s minimum wage started climbing, because of higher taxes and fees.
See? Not because of the minimum wage increase, but because of “higher taxes and fees.”
He had other things to say about the proposed increase in our minimum wage, too:
“I am not against the initiative,” Ngoussou said. “I say the initiative is always a good initiative but it is just incomplete. It has to be followed by some incentive to the microbusiness owner.”
Ngoussou says businesses like his need a break on taxes and fees.
(Gee, wasn’t the owner of Molly Moon’s also talking about a need to improve our tax structure? What did Shift think of her saying that, again?)
“You reduced employee numbers? ‘Yes.’ Because of the minimum wage? ‘Yes.’”
Really, Tensor, we need to stick with the facts. His political opinions have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he had to go from 4 employees to 2 because, in his own words, of the minimum wage increase. You must have missed what he said, so I’ll provide the quote for you. “I used to have 4, now I have 2.”
You also missed this part of the KIRO post, quoted here: He was asked again for clarification. You reduced employee numbers? “Yes.” Because of the minimum wage? “Yes.”
Once again, you have asked many times for evidence that the minimum wage kills jobs, here’s one. No amount of wiggling will get you out of this one, Tensor.
His political opinions have absolutely nothing to do …
Go back and read harder. Shift claims his political opinion on this issue completely determines whether or not he is to be believed:
… for those with the sense to oppose the initiative …
Sense which Mr Ngoussou — like every small-business owner mentioned in this post (!) — apparently lacks:
“I am not against the initiative,” Ngoussou said. “I say the initiative is always a good initiative but it is just incomplete.”
But then again, when have you ever cared whether or not the statements you believe came from a place of good sense?
Tensor, you’re an absolute classic! Attempting yet again to shift the discussion. In the extremely unlikely event you didn’t catch this, my one and only point is that he reduced his employment from 4 to 2, as a direct result of the increase in the minimum wage. That’s what he said. That’s my one and only point. Period. End of story. I don’t care what the editorial in the story is. And I further don’t care whether the restaurant owner philosophically agrees or disagrees with the $15 minimum wage.
Tensor, the only way you don’t lose this one is if you can prove the restaurant owner was lying, and he in fact still has 4 employees. Otherwise, this example undeniably stands as proof that this restaurant had to reduce its employee count by half as a result of the minimum wage. Period.
Until you prove this, I will not respond further to your future posts on this subject. Unless you show a picture of you taking a bite of that delicious crow you’ll be eating.
And yet, he does not oppose another Initiative to increase the minimum wage — in fact, he says the currently proposed I-1433 does not go far enough, that it should also contain provisions to assist small business. That’s a sentiment many of us proponents of higher minimum wages might support.
Try all you might, you cannot escape the inconvenient context: he voluntarily appeared at an event to raise the minimum wage, he did not speak in opposition to it, and when given a chance to clarify his off-the-cuff remarks, he revised them to retract the sole quote to which you cling with ever-increasing desperation.
More of that context you keep dodging and ducking: if higher minimum wages did the economic damage their opponents claim, there’d be no need for you to scrounge for offhand quotes; places like Washington State and Seattle would be impoverished hell-holes, and places like Idaho and Mississippi would rival Monaco and Switzerland.
You can go to the Dept of labor’s site and see that not only are Leisure and hospitality employment figures down in Seattle proper, but the consumer price index is down in that field as well. So you’re getting less for your money too.
Does anybody else see the irony in the comment:
“I am not against the initiative,” Ngoussou said. “I say the initiative is always a good initiative but it is just incomplete. It has to be followed by some incentive to the microbusiness owner.”
Of course, what Mr. Ngoussou is suggesting is state subsidies to offset what he actually will be able to pay his employees. Regardless, the higher minimum wage simply HAS to have a negative effect on the economy. It’s basic Economics 101. All you have to do is remember the exercises we did in school…if Johnny has 3 apples and wants to share them among 7 classmates…etc.
Of course, what Mr. Ngoussou is suggesting is state subsidies to offset what he actually will be able to pay his employees.
He explicitly stated that “higher taxes and fees” were the reason he reduced his payroll, so if we give small-business owners a break on those, they might retain more workers at higher wages. It’s worth considering.
Regardless, the higher minimum wage simply HAS to have a negative effect on the economy. It’s basic Economics 101. Regardless, the higher minimum wage simply HAS to have a negative effect on the economy. It’s basic Economics 101.
It’s actually the person making the claim who HAS to provide evidence to support it. How about you show some of that supposed “negative effect” Washington state’s high minimum wage has had on our economy?
Memo to tensor:
Tax breaks = Subsidies It’s the same thing and re-naming it doesn’t change that fact.
Also, could you explain to me how increasing wages does not raise costs to the consumer? Wouldn’t you consider that a negative effect? As a tax paying consumer…I sure do.
Also, could you explain to me how increasing wages does not raise costs to the consumer? Wouldn’t you consider that a negative effect?
That’s not what you claimed. What you did claim was this:
Regardless, the higher minimum wage simply HAS to have a negative effect on the economy.
You have yet to show any “negative effect” on any economy from a higher minimum wage. (Repeatedly stating it HAS to be true does not count.)
Wow, you really can’t see the forest from the trees.
Let’s see…increasing wages…rising costs…negative effect. Did I miss anything?
Yes. You missed the part where you used actual economic data to show how “increasing wages” lead to “rising costs” (or indeed to any other “negative effect”).
Again, repeatedly saying it “HAS” to be true does not count.
I used to think that you actually wanted to contribute to these discussions…silly me.
You made a statement; you have to support it with evidence. If you want to show me how “to contribute to these discussions,” then supporting your claims with data would be a fine way for you to lead by example. If you can’t show any examples, data, or other evidence to support your claims, no one is obligated to believe your claims. (Indeed, you opponents of higher minimum wages have been ignored for decades for just this exact reason.)
Meanwhile, you seem to have picked a fight with Shift:
Tax breaks = Subsidies It’s the same thing and re-naming it doesn’t change that fact.
Shift was very clear on this point, as recently as earlier this year:
First and foremost, referring to the Boeing tax breaks as “corporate welfare” or some sort of government “subsidy deal” is a gross misrepresentation of reality.
So, you’ll have to take that matter up with Shift. Good luck with that, and please do tell us how Shift responds.
buy stromectol pills cheap
Priligy For Sale Uk