sheeeit

Understood and agreed. Although in the case against AB, I don't think it matters if he was technically a producer or executive producer as he was, obviously, very involved and on the set.

This is not specifically responding to you, Willfully Horn, but all of the people clamoring over the super high tax rates of the 50s and 60s. This will never go over well here but what Reagan did was lower the high end tax rates while simultaneously getting rid of lots of tax deductions available only to the wealthy. https://checkyourfact.com/2019/01/09/fact-check-90-percent-taxes-eisenhower-1950s/ The reality is that the top 1% of earners in the 1950s, where the top federal income tax rate never went below 70%) paid an effective tax rate of 16.9%. Much lower than we have today. I think I'll start a new thread on a way to increase revenue for the govt.

Well nobody died and they both plead guilty to lesser charges. The fact that they became famous is amusing I suppose. I think they are whackos.

Perhaps but it was not my quote. I was quoting an attorney specializing in entertainment defense law that was interviewed by Time magazine.

No way this guy walks if the story is accurate. There is obviously no proof but even if the dead guy was casing the house or intending to rob once he started leaving he is no longer a threat. Crazy

Umm...I made a prediction? Making predications about whether the sun will rise are not really any fun. Making predictions about things that most people realize, and even I think, are unlikely but I just have a feeling might happen are more fun. And I stand by it. How about a wager? If AB is either charged with or pleads to a criminal charge in this case in the next 6 months you agree to a 30 day moratorium on posting on Surly. If not, I will. The reason for my prediction is I think there is going to be tremendous pressure on the DA in this case, especially as more news comes to light. There will be tremendous pressure from the victim's family. There will be political pressure from those opposed to AB's views. There will be tremendous pressure from film safety advocacy groups to make an example out of AB for running a loose set and ignoring standard/required safety guidelines. I think at the end of the day the DA will be faced with the following: I think it will be clearly established that AB was an executive producer, co-writer, investor, leading actor and generally the one on set who was making all of the decisions. It was supposedly his "passion" project and I think in depositions that virtually everyone on set will say that AB was in charge. Assuming that, there are just a lot of questions he is going to have to answer for. 1) As the one in charge, did you cut corners in your armorer/prop team? There is already a guy who has publicly stated he turned down the role of the armorer for the project because they were cutting too many safety corners and trying to rely on a scaled down team, especially for a "western" that involved a lot of guns. That is not going to help. 2) Do you agree that live ammo should never be on a movie set? Were you aware that people were using the prop guns for target practice with live ammo? What action did you take to remove the live ammo from the set and what type of reprimands did you hand out to those that were shooting live ammo? There are multiple reports of people using the prop guns for target practice. The armorer has stated in an affidavit that no live ammo was allowed on the set. The police have seized lots and lots of ammo. 3) Were you aware that your stuntman had possibly 2 instances of a "cold gun" firing accidentally on set days before the fatal accident? What did you do to address those issues going forward? Did you fire anyone? Did you institute stricter rules for the guns? Did you mandate any safety meetings about gun safety after the mishaps? 4) At the time of the actual shooting, knowing about all of the previous issues we addressed above (reports of target shooting and accidental discharges by your stuntman) did you put in place any additional safety protocols? Why did you ignore industry safety and SAG rules about using live guns in a rehearsal? Why didn't you personally check the gun in question yourself considering the problems that had already occurred? Why did you point the gun directly at a human which is against every industry regulation? The more I think about this the more I think he will be charged with something. Of course much of this is entirely speculation. But, just for fun, how about we stipulate that what I wrote above is all true. If so, do you still think he won't be charged and do you think he should be?

Lovely. Typical. Somehow my comment of a realistic chance at civil liability and a "it is possible, he has some criminal liability." gets turned into: "The notion that a criminal charge will likely be brought against Baldwin is absurd." Never did I even suggest that criminal charges were likely. This is especially comical and unwittingly ironic coming from the guy that seems to think he is the self appointed schoolmarm of the board and negs anyone he thinks is lying or stretching the truth. So I did a 5 minute google search and found 5 "legal experts" that are saying the exact same thing I am saying. I suppose they might not have passed criminal law either (I certainly did not as I am not an attorney). I fully admit I have no idea who these people are except that they appear to be fairly well known lawyers, including a former US Attorney. They, exactly like me, say AB would very likely not get prosecuted criminally for the actual act of the shooting (although they say it is possible) but much more likely in his role as producer on a set where, again if the stories are found to be true, there was intentional cutting of safety corners and disregard for safety procedures. As I did more research, there are stories that AB's stuntman accidentally discharged a gun twice in the days leading up to the deadly shooting and that members of the crew sent notices about it to production folks, including Baldwin (and the notion that AB's stuntman could have accidentally discharged a supposed "cold gun" and AB not know about it is preposterous.) Neama Rahmani, from the personal injury firm West Coast Trial Lawyers, told USA Today that charges could be filed against Baldwin. “Let’s say it was loaded with a blank, but Baldwin himself was criminally negligent and shot it from close range, even though it wasn’t a live round. Then he could be held liable,” Rahmani said. “Assuming it was just incompetence or a colossal mistake, that rises to the level of criminal negligence, which would be sufficient for a manslaughter prosecution.” Rachel Fiset, managing partner of Los Angeles firm Zweiback, Fiset & Coleman, said the issue goes beyond Baldwin. “Proper compliance with safety issues on the set will be a large, general question that will be asked that may have a huge impact on any potential legal matters that may come from this case,” she said. “And then on the worst side of the scale, you could have potential criminal issues that would range from criminal negligence to intentional acts that may have caused this tragedy.” "There's certainly a chance that the authorities say this was such a dangerous operation that whoever's in charge, including the producer, are somehow criminally liable," Ring says, although he adds, "That's a much more difficult case to prove. We're talking about intent." Albuquerque criminal-defense attorney Erlinda Johnson tells PEOPLE involuntary manslaughter charges could potentially be brought — including against Baldwin. "Whoever handles the firearm has a duty to check it for any live rounds," says Johnson. Beyond criminal liability, she adds, "there's a lot of civil liability here. It's going to be a nightmare for [people involved with the movie]." US attorney Joseph Costa suggested this week that Baldwin himself could be charged because of his producer role in the film. ‘As an executive producer, you are in a position of control and you can get prosecuted criminally,’ he said.

I won't take the time to correct your inaccuracies in the above but I will certainly respond to this being a conspiracy. It is not a conspiracy at all with regards to Fauci. Read his sworn testimony. He was adamant and indignant that anyone would suggest that any money from NIH went towards GOF. But he knew some money was going to the Wuhan lab and he knew that they were doing GOF research in that lab. As mentioned previously, the head researcher at Wuhan (the "bat lady") has not only talked about it and admitted it in the past but she published her findings. No one was even hiding it. They were proud of it. Fauci is certainly not dumb. Of course he knew that type of research was being done in Wuhan. When the pandemic broke he was in complete and total damage control as to the origins. What Fauci should have said if he was truly an apolitical medical guy is that "the NIH did not intentionally make any specific grants that went directly to GOF function research but money did go indirectly to a lab in Wuhan that was actively conducting GOF research and perhaps that was a mistake and the fact that a global pandemic involving bat coronaviruses appears to have started in the same town where the world's most active research on bat coronaviruses and GOF research is located that it should be fully investigated".

Yes I am aware of that. My guess is that even the OSHA related mandate will not stand when challenged legally. But why do it in the first place? If it truly is about safety and trying to stop/slow the spread (and I believe that is a big part of it but that politics is also at play) then why not mandate vaccine shots for Afghan refugees or tens of thousands of illegal immigrants at the southern border? The hypocrisy and ineptness are staggering. The OSHA angle was just some half baked attempt at doing something that dems can use to campaign on and repubs can campaign against. It hasn't really moved the vaccination rates at all but is has certainly further angered the country. Further, every single state has an equivalent for OSHA for smaller businesses. Why no pressure on them from Biden? Biden can apply tremendous pressure via the Fed purse. If they really wanted a nationwide mandate they could get there. Virtually every person in the US either uses federal services or benefits from federal services in some way. Threaten to cut those off for the unvaccinated. That is if they are really serious about this It is just another example of having no real clue of what to do. Always reactionary. Always something super easy. It just doesn't seem that anyone in the admin really wants to actually work or actually solve a problem.

Really tragic situation. Obviously AB had no intention to harm anyone and it truly seems like a tragic accident. I have no opinion on AB as a good or bad person as I do not know him, but a realistic case can and almost certainly will be made that he has some legal responsibility for the shooting and that, it is possible, he has some criminal liability. Also, it is important to note that my guess is that the things that were going on on the set probably happen on most sets. Shootings like this are extremely rare so human nature says people will get sloppy with the rules. However, when a tragedy like this occurs then the set will be held to the standards that are the written rules for safety. Some of this will be based on reported actions (never believe any news report more than 50% for accuracy) and will need to be verified and some not. From a legal liability standpoint, AB's production company, based on reports, was in charge of hiring/firing (including director) and was the on site supervising authority for the film. If true, AB was the "highest authority" on the set and, as such, is ultimately responsible for the workplace. If some of the reports are true like 1) people on set using the guns for target practice at lunch, 2) combining the role of the armorer and property master, 3) live ammo being recovered from the scene etc. There are very specific SAG and industry rules on guns on set including: 1) No "live" ammo is ever supposed to be on a set (this is a biggie) 2) Rubber guns are supposed to be used exclusively in rehearsals (this is a biggie) 3) The armorer and property master are the only people supposed to handle the guns except for the actors (it is reported an assistant director handed the gun to AB- which again probably happens all of the time but it doesn't matter if the rules were broken from a legal standpoint) 4) Actors, by SAG rules, are never to point a gun at anyone, including directors. 5) Actors, per SAG guidelines, are supposed to pull the trigger on any guns handed to them at least 6 times pointed at the ground before using. 6) When filming scenes with real guns, industry rules say plexiglass must be installed to protect directors and others that may possibly be in the line of fire. From a legal liability standpoint this will be ugly and messy. The insurers are going to point to clauses in their contracts that say standard industry practices and SAG rules etc must be followed. I am sure they will try to deny any claims on that basis. Obviously, AB set up a company to produce the film which, in part, is always done to protect individuals from any personal liability. However, since AB was on set and actively involved in the actions, both from an oversight position and as the actually person that fired the gun, I think he will be sued personally and will likely have liability. From a criminal standpoint, if all of the rules that were set in place for gun safety on a set were not followed, then I think AB could be charged with something like involuntary manslaughter. A pretty strong case could be made that because (again assuming reports are true) standard gun safety rules were not followed on set and that AB was on set and obviously witnessed these rules being ignored then it would be reasonable to expect that some tragedy could occur and then he still accepted the gun and then it killed someone that he is at fault. I doubt he does any jail time but I predict he pleads to something.

Also, concerning vaccines, I and my entire extended family and friend group are vaccinated and I think the people not getting vaccinated (obviously unless a doc tells them it is dangerous due to some condition) are misguided. On the mandates, I suppose I am generally against a medical mandate but I certainly understand the argument and dont feel too strongly about it. At the very least, in this case, the government isnt asking anyone to do something that they haven't already done to themselves. However, the Biden mandate is just so typical of government ridiculousness. Almost a text book example. Mandating some people without mandating all people is just useless. And I can not believe that with all of the virtue signaling and bad mouthing and hatred and everything else that the majority of this board has directed at those americans who refuse to get a shot, not one of you, that I can find, has even commented on the fact that the Biden Admin is releasing tens of thousands of immigrants into US cities every single day that are Covid positive and they are NOT mandating vaccination. It truly boggles my brain. The whole way this admin has handled immigration is reprehensible but you would think that when we are firing teachers, cops, nurses, firemen etc that at a fucking bare minimum we would vaccinate illegal immigrants before we release them into the country.

Typical from you two bozos. The link provides the actual video of the Tapper interview. Even you two mensa candidates arent going to suggest that the video is altered are you? Just another reason this place is declining. On a politics board and a topic about Fauci and Covid I link to a Jake Tapper interview on CNN with one of their Covid medical specialists (specifically because anything from a medical expert on a network you guys don't like is disregarded) and it is alternately called spam and untrustworthy simply because the first link that showed up in a google search was from Breitbart. Hacks. https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cg/date/2021-10-25/segment/01 You didn't bother to watch the video so I doubt you will read the transcript but here it is. Direct from CNN.

Lulz. I think you guys should be nicknamed ostriches. This is from an interview with Jake Tapper of CNN and one of their go to Doctors on Covid. Here is a link with the actual interview.https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/10/25/cnns-reiner-nih-funded-research-that-caused-virus-to-gain-function-but-faucis-testimony-is-true-because-that-wasnt-the-intent/

No way. CNN medical expert saying pretty much exactly what I was saying. What a fucking farce. He admits readily that Wuhan was doing GOF research on bat coronaviruses and that they were successful. But since it was not the stated "intent" in the wording then Fauci was telling the truth. So a leading medical expert for CNN admits publicly that Wuhan was doing GOF research on bat coronaviruses and was successful at it. A worldwide pandemic ensues from a mutated bat virus with origins in Wuhan but we are to believe it probably came from natural occurrences. OK https://newsnetdaily.com/nih-funded-research-that-caused-virus-to-gain-a-function-but-faucis-testimony-is-true-because-that-was-not-the-intention/ Reiner said, “I think it’s important to understand the intent of the research and the effect of the research. So, the aim of the research was to understand whether certain advanced bat coronavirus proteins could infect human cells, and the way they experimented was, they took a well-known bat coronavirus. called WIV1 and they added to that another peak of bat coronavirus protein, and they gave it to mice modified to have the receptor, the ACE-2 receptor that humans have that the virus uses to enter. human cells. And what they found was, yes they could, these advanced proteins could get into human cells, but they also noticed that the enhanced virus was more virulent then. “ He continued, “So they proved that these spike proteins could get into human cells, but in doing so, they made the virus they were using more lethal, basically. The mice were sicker. So, yeah, the net effect was to gain depending for the virus they modified, but it does not appear, at least from the documents provided by the NIH, that this is the intention of the research. So to my Opinion, Dr Fauci and his colleagues answered honestly.It has to do with intention, then effect. I especially like this quote: "What if the NIH came out and – or Dr Fauci or Dr Collins, months ago, and in response to these attacks from Republican members of the Senate – especially Rand Paul – explained this difference between the intent of the research and the effect and really describes that kind of nuance, I think the public would understand, and it doesn’t look like the NIH has somehow withheld any information. But that becomes the effect of a lack of clarity at the start. So I think in the end Tony Fauci was truthful, not shrewd in his testimony. “ These guys do not even understand what they are saying. So according to this guy, Fauci should have given a nuanced answer and that the public would have understood but Fauci chose not to so he was actually truthful and not shrewd. Its total bullshit.

This is really too fucking stupid for even you and some others here to post. That "last line" nonsense is just ridiculous. To Anastasia's point, these people are just covering their asses. Understand what they are saying. They are saying a combination of 2 things 1) the language in the grant said they were not doing GOF research in a manner that was possibly technically correct (however a rose by any other name would smell as sweet) and 2) their insistence that the actual research does not have the same particulars as Covid is based entirely, 100% on the samples provided to the scientific community by China and the Wuhan Lab and even the highly politicalized WHO has said publicly that China has refused any direct investigation into the lab. I'll go slow for you. Covid becomes a world pandemic. Wuhan is doing hundreds of different experiments on bats with viruses that are not transferable to humans without some sort of mutation. The leading figure at Wuhan and probably the leading figure in the world, Shi Zhengli, has boasted in medical journals for years about her research and the ability to take bat viruses and modify them to be susceptible to humans. Suddenly Covid breaks out and it is a world crisis. Then China, and only China, determine which samples were sent to the international community for inspection. China sends out samples that are analyzed by scientists and they say they are not related to Covid. But, of course, China is not going to send anything that would implicate them. These denials by NIH and WHO and all of these scientists are only relevant if they received every sample possible from Wuhan which the WHO has already said repeatedly that China will not provide. Further, it seems pretty settled at this point that the bat virus originated in Yunnan. Yunnan Is several thousand miles from Wuhan (think New Orleans to San Francisco). For the transmission to be from bat to some other animal to humans to be true then the bats in questions, which do not exist in Wuhan, an animal had to be infected in Yunnan and then travel thousands of miles without infecting anyone along the way until it just happens to get to Wuhan where there exists a lab that is the leading lab for bat coronaviruses being studied in the world, where the head of that agency, Shi Zhengli, has boasted of doing GOF research and published successful GOF research in medical journals, and we are to believe that is what happened. It is preposterous. Of course I do not think the scientists testing samples are lying or are stupid. But they have zero idea that they have received the actual samples that were being manipulated in Wuhan. I do not think, at all, that the Chinese specifically manipulated the virus or were in any way working on some new biological weapon. But they have admitted in public for years that they are working on GOF research in bat coronaviruses. Perhaps we will never know but the lab leak theory, imo, is absolutely the cause. Just a mistake. As to Fauci, there is no question he knew what was happening. He covered his tracks pretty well with the paperwork but he knew GOF research was being conducted at Wuhan. He is very precise when he talks about it by saying nothing that the US funded was to those GOF projects. When the outbreak occurred, imo, he knew there was likely going to be severe backlash against this type of research, GOF, so he tried to immediately turn the discussion away from it. I honestly think Fauci and his cohorts thought/think that GOF research is/was worth the risk. I think they felt the research could help prevent outbreaks in the future. As to the origins and their significance, those of you saying it doesn't matter or making ludicrous analogies are just showing yourselves to be the uber partisan hacks that you are. Of course the origins are important. They are important first and foremost so that the medical community tasked with controlling the outbreak no where to start. If the virus was modified, then it would absolutely be critical to know exactly how it was modified in order to know the best way to approach a vaccine or similar. There are also massive geopolitical implications. China is going to be a force the world has to recognize for the foreseeable future. Many of the sociological issues we are facing that almost all of you are worried about (climate change, human rights, pollution, war, spying, technology stealing etc) are going to be tied to China. If China was responsible for the outbreak, even if it was by accident, their covering up of their actions will give the world tremendous, almost unprecedented, geopolitical pressure to wield on China to get them to comply with world issues. The implications are massive.

I have gone back and watched it in as slow a motion as I can and I do see partly what you see. But it certainly looks to me that the in the initial contact between the LB and the OU guy that the OU guy had his hands in the chest of the LB. He was driving him. The OU guys hand doesnt seem to get to the back shoulder of the LB until the LB tries to spin. It is maybe a grey area but I doubt that gets called holding even 2% of the times it occurs. Lets not forget it was the exact same fucking play they scored on previously and the LB still let himself get blocked out of the play. Zero anticipation or awareness. He doesn't even try to get outside of the block either time. Watch both plays. When the LB sees #9 heading for him exactly as he did before in the exact same formation, the LB has to get outside of the block to stop the runner or at least slow him down. But he just lets the blocker run right up to him. That is bad defense. There are crucial missed calls in every game but I dont think that was one of them. It was also a damn fine designed play that OU executed perfectly.

I laughed.

The amount of forest in the US has pretty much remained the exact same since 1900.

I have a good friend that is in the front office with the Diamondbacks. We were together a few weeks ago and he was showing me the technology for calling balls and strikes. He said it will most likely be implemented in MLB in 2 to 3 years. The biggest drawbacks right now are the accuracy issues first. It currently has about a 95% accurate rate. Which is probably better than the umpires. The other issue is getting the technology to adjust to strike zones. Altuve should not have the same strike zone as Aaron judge. Essentially, they are going to have to formally determine the strike zone, like from the knees to speak nipples. And then measure every single player so that their individual strike zone can be used for their individual at bat.

I was curious about this so I checked. I started with OUs first 2 playoff appearances and then stopped because it appears you are dead wrong. In 2015 against Clemson OU had zero holding penalties. In 2018 against Georgia they had zero holding penalties. I’m sure it will be unpopular but if you watch the last TD where someone did a screen shot above, I actually do not think it was holding. The OU guy ran up to the Texas defender and the defender really did nothing to get away. He didn’t turn him or try to swing his arms to get free. He just allowed himself to be blocked out of the play. Just bad defense.

I don't disagree, and this is way off topic but I still believe the vast amount of people are good. I dont think the percentage of people who "act without regard for others" is any bigger today than in 1941. We just live in a time where everyone has a platform. There have always been crazies on the fringes but for some reason we have chosen to respond to the crazies as if they are mainstream.

Within hours of the attack people were blaming Roosevelt and spreading conspiracy stories about every little thing. Many politicians still did not want to engage in the war. The difference is they didn't have twitter or a Cloak Room. Human nature doesn't change. We are still the same.

Lots of non informed posts on this topic. It is a tough topic to truly get an understanding of. To the OP- Such a bullshit meme when the facts are known and typical of those that piled on before knowing any of the facts. The reality of many, if not most, of these types of claims (racial motivation in sentencing) is just not true based on the facts. https://www.jud12.flcourts.org/Portals/0/News/Documents/Final-Response-SHT-Article/Final_response_to_bias_on_the_bench.pdf#page=19&view=fit This is a decent read if anyone cares about the truth. The Sarasota Herald Tribune series of articles (which started all this) demonstrates a really big problem. The reporter's have a preconceived idea of what is happening and then actively look for the most egregious cases they can find to put in print. When the cases are actually fact checked the SHT reporters look like fools at best case and intentional race baiting liars at worst. They looked really hard to find examples of cases that proved their theory but could not actually find any. That is incredibly telling. It certainly suggests that the narrative is false. To the prison issue, there really are no great answers. Interestingly from the article above, the black defendant in one case did receive the kind of training/rehabilitation that some of you are saying doesn't exist. It does exist and not just for juveniles but the prisoner has to pro actively seek out the help. From the article: "Records indicate that, upon entry into the Youthful Offender and EDP programs, Sturgis accomplished significant achievements, including but not limited to: completing the Victim Impact Awareness Program, completing the Anger Management Program, earning his General Equivalency Diploma (GED), receiving a Certificate of Exceptional Achievement in the Toastmaster Communication Program; receiving a Certificate of Competency in Masonry Industrial Safety Standards; and achieving “Helper” level in a masonry vocational program which prepares inmates to find work in the construction industry." Those programs are needed, are just, are deserving etc. However, in this particular case, the defendant was rearrested two years later for robbery/grand larceny and will likely go back to prison for much longer. No one really knows what to do with people that make a mistake and then get the necessary help they need but wind up committing more crimes. Fatty may be right that long prison sentences for these folks (habitual offenders that have successfully completed rehabilitation programs) should happen. It is a tough call for sure. Recidivism rates are also a highly misrepresented stat. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/10/why-do-so-many-prisoners-end-up-back-in-prison-a-new-study-says-maybe-they-dont.html The reality is that approximately 67% of people that enter and leave prison never return. Virtually every prison has rehab programs. And, more importantly, after a minimum of time served in one prison, if the prisoner has been good, they have the option to transfer to a facility that has better rehab programs. No one would argue that prisons are very good at administering their rehab programs, they are not, but the programs exist. The war on drugs is difficult to blame for most incarcerations as some seem to think. I think the laws are misguided and think most drugs should be legalized or at least decriminalized. That is another debate. But drug offenses (possession and trafficking) only account for 14% of prison populations. https://felonvoting.procon.org/incarcerated-felon-population-by-type-of-crime-committed/ Violent crimes (murder, assault, robbery, rape etc ) make up 55% of inmates and property crimes make up 17%. Total of 71%. Obviously, many of those crimes involve drugs in some capacity but it is simply untrue that drug users are filling up prisons. And there are essentially no people in prison for first time simple possession or use of any drugs (cocaine, meth, heroin etc.) It is 0.9%. https://www.hudson.org/research/11851-criminal-justice-reform-and-drugs-myths-and-facts The reality is that we are a huge country. There are around 180,000,000 million people between 15 and 60. There are about 1,200,000 people currently in a state or federal prison. 0.65%. I would argue most deserve to be there. Human nature would argue that we should have a larger number in prison.

I also remembered this gems by my old buddy Frondren Road: FR "Cheesecake Factory prices are exactly the same in Austin and Seattle." I just did a little research (I checked current menu pricing for Austin's Cheesecake versus Seattle's on a Mojito, chicken taqueros, ceasar salad and classic burger) and Seattle's prices average 18% higher.

Somehow I missed this little gem of a post and since one of my original posts was used in the OP I feel like responding. Anyone can go read the exact quotes but I expected the following: 1) There would not be an overall loss in employment in Seattle in most sectors because the white collar jobs influx was/is fantastic. Seattle could absorb the wage increase better than most communities. This is exactly what has happened. Employment numbers in Seattle are up double digits since 2014. 2) There would not be losses in employment in the fast food/hospitality industry because the minimum wage increase hit all of them the same but prices would increase significantly compared to neighboring areas. This is exactly what happened. Today an average FF meal in Seattle is $10.30 versus $9 in neighboring Bellevue. In almost every other category, Bellevue is more expensive than Seattle and has an overall higher cost of living than Seattle but not for Big Macs. 3) There would be a loss of manufacturing jobs, especially those manufacturers that sold their products outside of Seattle. The wage/cost increase to them but not their competitors would cause businesses to move or close. This is exactly what happened. Since 2014 employment totals in every single industry tracked by the BLS in Seattle (hospitality, energy, education, finance, professional services, health services, IT etc.) have had 3-5% year over year growth (exclusive of Covid but the percentages are the same). Over that same time period Manufacturing in Seattle had 3-5% year over year losses. FYI, overall manufacturing in Washington state as a whole is up 1-2% year over year since 2014. I am not opposed to minimum wage increases based on some dumb idea of "pulling yourself up" or "making better decisions etc". I am opposed to it because it doesn't help the people it is designed to help, those making low wages, but it does increase costs for everyone else. It is a fools effort that politicians love. All economists (conservative or liberal) agree that arbitrarily increasing wages will lead to inflation (obviously assumes no govt price caps or something similar). We would be much, much better off as a society and the people affected would be much, much better off if we would put more resources into training and education than arbitrarily raising min wages.